Post Reply
Page 32 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 2:14PM #311
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 30, 2012 -- 2:06PM, rabello wrote:


Howling for Justice, like the American Society of Mammalogists, opposes the killing of wolves on behalf of ranchers and hunters, especially seeing how the federal government spent our money on repopulating them, only to be killed either cruelly or torturously, especially seeing how the only reason it's being allowed is the cynical work of a few Congressmen answering the call of the special interests in return for votes.  So all the facts and figures in the world is missing the point, since the very basis of the operation is wrong.


Why should wolves be hunted?  According to Josh Bransford and his fans, it's for a wall hanging.  Nice, eh?




I'm not interested in anymore sweeping statements of scorn from either you or "Howling for Justice."


You, and they, hate huntng, and want to cast hunters and ranchers as the bad guys. 


So what. Hunters and Ranchers pay taxes too. 


What about the facts?


The facts are:


•Delsting, state managment and hunting were all built into the wolf recovery program when it was being drawn up in the late 1970s-1980s, and finally implemented in 1995-1996. Where was "Howling" back then?


•The agreed upon minimum benchmark, when delisting could start serioulsy being considered, was 300 wolves. That number was far surpassed years and years ago. And there is no indication, whatsoever, the wolf population will ever again drop anywere near that low.


•As Ed Bangs himself said, a tenable number will probably be around 1,200. What part of, 1,200 is four times more than 300, does "Howling" fail to grasp?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 3:40PM #312
rabello
Posts: 20,400

It's not an issue of "failing to grasp".   People aren't stupid.  It is a matter of principle and principled opposition.   HFJ says there are more than 4,000 wolves in the Great Lake States, with lesser habitat than the northern Rocky Mountain states and asks why is that?


Defenders of Wildlife is hosting a weeklong servies of "take action" events to mark what has transpired in the year since a few Congressmen gave the states the opportunity to kill those previously protected ("saved") in their bait and switch tactic.  They are focusing on the state of Idaho and are calling that state's "management" scheme "the shameful war on wolves" highlighting how in just one year since the Congressmen added that rider to an appropriations bill, almost half of the state's previously protected wolves have already been eliminated.  Josh Bransford and those pot-shot shooters did it in Idaho, too.


Defenders says the state of Idaho plans for a bare minimum of 150 wolves statewide, and "believes" that is enough to sustain the gray wolf into the future and for all time.   That agrees with other environmental groups' information, and is a far cry from 300 or 400, per state, that may be somewhere on paper.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 3:56PM #313
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:40PM, rabello wrote:


It's not an issue of "failing to grasp".   People aren't stupid.  It is a matter of principle and principled opposition.   HFJ says there are more than 4,000 wolves in the Great Lake States, with lesser habitat than the northern Rocky Mountain states and asks why is that?


Defenders of Wildlife is hosting a weeklong servies of "take action" events to mark what has transpired in the year since a few Congressmen gave the states the opportunity to kill those previously protected ("saved") in their bait and switch tactic.  They are focusing on the state of Idaho and are calling that state's "management" scheme "the shameful war on wolves" highlighting how in just one year since the Congressmen added that rider to an appropriations bill, almost half of the state's previously protected wolves have already been eliminated.  Josh Bransford and those pot-shot shooters did it in Idaho, too.


 


 




Can't compare Great Lakes directly to Greater Yellowstone. And besides, many say wolves in Great lakes are over-populated. 


I don't know. I do know the GYE, and the situation here. It's not about raw numbers. It's about availability of suitable habitat, and potential conflict with human interests. 


For one thing, the Great Lake region is pretty heavily forested. Here, outside of Yellowstone National Park and the National Forest lands surrounding it, there is very little tree cover, and amost nowhere for wolves to go without running into human settlement and potential high conflict areas. 


Throwing around rhetoric like a "war on wolves" does not bolster arguments, any more than extreme anti-wolf rhetoric about wolves "decimating" game or livestock herds does. Trust me, I've heard it all before, from both sides. I've been here the entire time


What does bolster arguments is directly adressing the facts.


Again -- it was always understood that the wolves here would be delisted, managed by the states and hunted. Their "protected" status never meant they would be forever untouchable. It was merely in place to allow them to establish a viable population. And, once again, the minimum benchmark was 300. 


Wolves were approaching 10 times that number, and just about everybody was getting sick of special interests constantly suing to hold up the delisting project. So, we had to use the nuclear options of a budget rider in Idaho and Montana, and the Mead-Salazar deal in Wyoming. 


Calling these wolves "protected" and "endangered" -- as if they were meant to have some sort of sacred status for all time -- is flat-out false. 


I'm tried of polarized views on this subject trying to argue general principles. I want intelligent insight on specifics -- without rhetoric, stereotypes or name-calling. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 5:58PM #314
vra
Posts: 6,396

Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


 


Can't compare Great Lakes directly to Greater Yellowstone. And besides, many say wolves in Great lakes are over-populated. 





Depends on whom you talk to.  My place is just off of Lake Superior, and the last count I saw by the DNR was that we probably have between 300-400 in the U.P., although some feel there's more.  There's about a 20% reduction of take during the deer season, which really frosts many of the deer hunters, but doe permits are still available in many areas to keep the herd thinner.  Even though we are heavily treed throughout the U.P., the snow load is substantial enough to keep the deer herd thin, and the wolves have to scatter to find enough food, so we don't see any packs (my place averages 180 inches of snow per year, but we've hit a high of 310 inches 7 years ago).


I've seen three, including one about 8 miles from my place, and they are beautiful animals.  We have had no attacks on humans as of yet, and any livestock killed are paid for by the DNR. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 6:42PM #315
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:58PM, vra wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


 


Can't compare Great Lakes directly to Greater Yellowstone. And besides, many say wolves in Great lakes are over-populated. 





Depends on whom you talk to.  My place is just off of Lake Superior, and the last count I saw by the DNR was that we probably have between 300-400 in the U.P., although some feel there's more.  There's about a 20% reduction of take during the deer season, which really frosts many of the deer hunters, but doe permits are still available in many areas to keep the herd thinner.  Even though we are heavily treed throughout the U.P., the snow load is substantial enough to keep the deer herd thin, and the wolves have to scatter to find enough food, so we don't see any packs (my place averages 180 inches of snow per year, but we've hit a high of 310 inches 7 years ago).


I've seen three, including one about 8 miles from my place, and they are beautiful animals.  We have had no attacks on humans as of yet, and any livestock killed are paid for by the DNR. 




Thanks for sharing that. Yes, "too many" or "not enough" wolves depends upon who you talk to. I think we're about right with what we have right now. I don't think our hunting programs will kill nearly as man as some people worry about. Many of the tags in Montana and Idaho went unfilled. That jibes with what experienced guys I know here -- who have hunted wolves in Alaska and Canada-- tell me. Once they figured out they're being hunted, they are an extremely elusive quarry. And the average guy out there with a wolf tag in his pocket isn't likely to fill it. 


I've not seen many of our wolves yet, but its is a huge rush to see one in the wild.


I'm thinking deer, esp. whitetail, are probably more prolific than elk. I don't know for sure. 


Anyway, I think some hunters over-exaggerate the effects of wolves and other natural predators. I don't think you guys will run out of whitetail deer any time soon.


Here, the issue with elk isn't a generalized problem. It's more site specific.


There are elk hunting areas that have suffered. But overall, the elk herds in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are bigger than ever. It just depends on where you go. There's no question, wolves have dramatically affected the elk hunting dynamics in some places. But again, I think some hunters bellyache about it too much.


I'm still learning the ropes of elk hunting -- it's a whole different ballgame from deer. My Dad, who was skilled at it, isn't around to help me anymore -- so I just have to go by the advice and tips he left me. Either way, I can succeed or fail on my own, I don't need to cry about wolves if I don't get an elk...LOL!


Compensation payments for livestock losses can be hit and miss, but overall, that's a good program too. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 12:39AM #316
rabello
Posts: 20,400

Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Again -- it was always understood that the wolves here would be delisted, managed by the states and hunted. Their "protected" status never meant they would be forever untouchable.




Perhaps "everybody" agreed to that, although it is far more likely that people opposed that formulation then, and still oppose it now, particularly in light of the sheer number of wolves "taken" in just under a year, and the disgusting stories about the totally predictable things people like Josh Bradsford and his buddies do to animals.   I know, I know....hunters have no "specifics" ideas to offer about things like that, just like gun owners have no "specifics" to offer about the unconsionable murder by gunshot rate in the US


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Wolves were approaching 10 times that number, and just about everybody was getting sick of special interests constantly suing to hold up the delisting project. So, we had to use the nuclear options of a budget rider in Idaho and Montana, and the Mead-Salazar deal in Wyoming. 




Adding a rider to a bill that you already know is going to pass without that rider is no "nuclear option".  It is cow-towing to special interests to get votes.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


It was merely in place to allow them to establish a viable population. And, once again, the minimum benchmark was 300.




Multiple sources say that Idaho has no limit and is targetting for 150 statewide.  The others, 300 on a piece of paper.   No way of knowing if that low level will sustain the species till the world ends.  Mammalogists don't think so.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Calling these wolves "protected" and "endangered" -- as if they were meant to have some sort of sacred status for all time -- is flat-out false. 




Of course it's not flat ou false.  Until Congress pulled their little bait and switch those wolves who are now dead couldn't be killed.  They were "protected" and their lives "saved" because they were "endangered" enough to be listed on the endangered species list deserving protection.


Obviously, the only reason their lives were saved was to give hunters wolves to kill.  I want my tax dollars back if that's what the endangered species act is going to help achieve.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I'm tried of polarized views on this subject trying to argue general principles. I want intelligent insight on specifics -- without rhetoric, stereotypes or name-calling. 




So am I.   But you are never going to get people who think that hunting is morally wrong and that cattle ranching is so over the top as to present a clear and present danger to the life of this planet to talk about the things you want to talk about in the way you want to talk about (like -- are 3 enough/6 too many kind of "discussions")

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 10:16AM #317
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 1, 2012 -- 12:39AM, rabello wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Again -- it was always understood that the wolves here would be delisted, managed by the states and hunted. Their "protected" status never meant they would be forever untouchable.




Perhaps "everybody" agreed to that, although it is far more likely that people opposed that formulation then, and still oppose it now, particularly in light of the sheer number of wolves "taken" in just under a year, and the disgusting stories about the totally predictable things people like Josh Bradsford and his buddies do to animals.   I know, I know....hunters have no "specifics" ideas to offer about things like that, just like gun owners have no "specifics" to offer about the unconsionable murder by gunshot rate in the US


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Wolves were approaching 10 times that number, and just about everybody was getting sick of special interests constantly suing to hold up the delisting project. So, we had to use the nuclear options of a budget rider in Idaho and Montana, and the Mead-Salazar deal in Wyoming. 




Adding a rider to a bill that you already know is going to pass without that rider is no "nuclear option".  It is cow-towing to special interests to get votes.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


It was merely in place to allow them to establish a viable population. And, once again, the minimum benchmark was 300.




Multiple sources say that Idaho has no limit and is targetting for 150 statewide.  The others, 300 on a piece of paper.   No way of knowing if that low level will sustain the species till the world ends.  Mammalogists don't think so.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Calling these wolves "protected" and "endangered" -- as if they were meant to have some sort of sacred status for all time -- is flat-out false. 




Of course it's not flat ou false.  Until Congress pulled their little bait and switch those wolves who are now dead couldn't be killed.  They were "protected" and their lives "saved" because they were "endangered" enough to be listed on the endangered species list deserving protection.


Obviously, the only reason their lives were saved was to give hunters wolves to kill.  I want my tax dollars back if that's what the endangered species act is going to help achieve.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I'm tried of polarized views on this subject trying to argue general principles. I want intelligent insight on specifics -- without rhetoric, stereotypes or name-calling. 




So am I.   But you are never going to get people who think that hunting is morally wrong and that cattle ranching is so over the top as to present a clear and present danger to the life of this planet to talk about the things you want to talk about in the way you want to talk about (like -- are 3 enough/6 too many kind of "discussions")




None of those contentions really holds water. Again, you're making sweeping statements. 


I don't care if some people think hunting is "morally wrong." I don't care if some people can't stand ranchers. There are specific hunters and ranchers I'm not particularly thrilled about either. But that's irrelevant. 


Just as I don't care that some other people think wolves are bad and evil, and never should have been reintroduced in the first place. You seem to keep forgeting, I live here. I had to listen to  those people bitch about wolves even being here for 15 years before "Howling For Justice" showed up and started bitching about wolves being shot. You ever stop to think maybe I'm simply fed up with bitching?


Ironically, the wolf-haters also cried that "special interests" were responsible for bringing in the wolves, and whined that Ed Bangs and his staff were serving "special interests" by trying to establish a permanent population of wolves here.


For the last time, those debates have already been had, and the extreme views, both of which did not like Ed Bangs and his program -- both lost. 


Those issues are settled. There are wolves here now. There always will be. And a certain number of them will be hunted.


Now, we're getting down to brass tacks of specifics. The "300" number was the benchmark for the entire ecosystem, not just one state. 


Perhaps Idaho's number is low. I can't say for sure. However, that's the absolute bare minumum, and the state will no doubt want to maintain a "buffer" number, probably well above 150. You also have to bear in mind, wolf hunter success rates are bound to be very low, once wolves get savvy to being hunted.


Also, one of my pet peeves is this repeating of the statement "for the entire state." Have you been to Idaho at all, and specifically, the areas in question? Of for that matter, Wyoming and Montana? 


The thing of it is, and this is important, please pay attention: Anwhere in those states that is going to be suitable wolf habitat, is already by now occupied by wolves. There is no "entire state" for them to go to, outside of zones that include vast tracts of Yellowstone National Park, wilderness areas or surrounding National Forest. Nearly all of the rest of all three states, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, simply isn't suitable for wolves, and never will be again.


So, at the end of it all, in that section of Idaho that is suitable for wolves, 150 could very well be plenty. I don't know. My contacts in Idaho are a little rusty, but I do intend to ask, and find out more. 


Sheer numbers aren't nearly as imporant as wolves' ability to travel throughout the ecosystem, mingle and mix the gene pool.


As for the overall population -- I'm with Ed Bangs. I think about 1,200 is the number we will end up with, in the long term.


Also, bear in mind, despite everything else, wolves are already moving into areas outside the recovery zone. They are known to be/thought to be, now in parts of Utah, Colorado, Washington and Oregon. And even if those states refuse to adopt any protections at all for wolves and keep a "shoot on sight, no restrictions, no bag limits" policy, some of those wolves are still bound to survive. 


Wolves are a very hardy, robust and resourseful species. They have a high reproductive rate, and can recover quickly from any over-killing that might happen. They are also plenty clever enough to evade your average garden variety "redneck A-holes with guns." 


Once the game is really on, only the most skilled, tenacious, patient and focused wolf hunters will regularly bag wolves. Trust me, most "redneck A-holes with guns" are too out of shape, unskilled or just plain lazy to ever pull it off, once the wolves get wise to being hunted. 


The Rocky Mountain wolves simply are not in danger of being wiped out. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:00AM #318
vra
Posts: 6,396

Apr 30, 2012 -- 6:42PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:58PM, vra wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


 


Can't compare Great Lakes directly to Greater Yellowstone. And besides, many say wolves in Great lakes are over-populated. 





Depends on whom you talk to.  My place is just off of Lake Superior, and the last count I saw by the DNR was that we probably have between 300-400 in the U.P., although some feel there's more.  There's about a 20% reduction of take during the deer season, which really frosts many of the deer hunters, but doe permits are still available in many areas to keep the herd thinner.  Even though we are heavily treed throughout the U.P., the snow load is substantial enough to keep the deer herd thin, and the wolves have to scatter to find enough food, so we don't see any packs (my place averages 180 inches of snow per year, but we've hit a high of 310 inches 7 years ago).


I've seen three, including one about 8 miles from my place, and they are beautiful animals.  We have had no attacks on humans as of yet, and any livestock killed are paid for by the DNR. 




Thanks for sharing that. Yes, "too many" or "not enough" wolves depends upon who you talk to. I think we're about right with what we have right now. I don't think our hunting programs will kill nearly as man as some people worry about. Many of the tags in Montana and Idaho went unfilled. That jibes with what experienced guys I know here -- who have hunted wolves in Alaska and Canada-- tell me. Once they figured out they're being hunted, they are an extremely elusive quarry. And the average guy out there with a wolf tag in his pocket isn't likely to fill it. 


I've not seen many of our wolves yet, but its is a huge rush to see one in the wild.


I'm thinking deer, esp. whitetail, are probably more prolific than elk. I don't know for sure. 


Anyway, I think some hunters over-exaggerate the effects of wolves and other natural predators. I don't think you guys will run out of whitetail deer any time soon.


Here, the issue with elk isn't a generalized problem. It's more site specific.


There are elk hunting areas that have suffered. But overall, the elk herds in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are bigger than ever. It just depends on where you go. There's no question, wolves have dramatically affected the elk hunting dynamics in some places. But again, I think some hunters bellyache about it too much.


I'm still learning the ropes of elk hunting -- it's a whole different ballgame from deer. My Dad, who was skilled at it, isn't around to help me anymore -- so I just have to go by the advice and tips he left me. Either way, I can succeed or fail on my own, I don't need to cry about wolves if I don't get an elk...LOL!


Compensation payments for livestock losses can be hit and miss, but overall, that's a good program too. 






We have a small, but noticeable elk herd in the northern Lower, but if there any wolves in that area, they're few and far between.


Just a side-bar.  I'm Jewish, and halacha (Jewish Law) prohibits us from hunting unless our survival or well-being is at stake.  However, even though I don't hunt, my feeling has changed a bit since, if I put myself in a deer's place (undoubtedly, the deer is brighter, however), I think I'd rather be shot to death than to die from starvation.  Without a fairly significant number of natural predators, that would be the plight of so many deer here, especially during a harsh winter.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 12:43PM #319
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 1, 2012 -- 11:00AM, vra wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 6:42PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:58PM, vra wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 3:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


 


Can't compare Great Lakes directly to Greater Yellowstone. And besides, many say wolves in Great lakes are over-populated. 





Depends on whom you talk to.  My place is just off of Lake Superior, and the last count I saw by the DNR was that we probably have between 300-400 in the U.P., although some feel there's more.  There's about a 20% reduction of take during the deer season, which really frosts many of the deer hunters, but doe permits are still available in many areas to keep the herd thinner.  Even though we are heavily treed throughout the U.P., the snow load is substantial enough to keep the deer herd thin, and the wolves have to scatter to find enough food, so we don't see any packs (my place averages 180 inches of snow per year, but we've hit a high of 310 inches 7 years ago).


I've seen three, including one about 8 miles from my place, and they are beautiful animals.  We have had no attacks on humans as of yet, and any livestock killed are paid for by the DNR. 




Thanks for sharing that. Yes, "too many" or "not enough" wolves depends upon who you talk to. I think we're about right with what we have right now. I don't think our hunting programs will kill nearly as man as some people worry about. Many of the tags in Montana and Idaho went unfilled. That jibes with what experienced guys I know here -- who have hunted wolves in Alaska and Canada-- tell me. Once they figured out they're being hunted, they are an extremely elusive quarry. And the average guy out there with a wolf tag in his pocket isn't likely to fill it. 


I've not seen many of our wolves yet, but its is a huge rush to see one in the wild.


I'm thinking deer, esp. whitetail, are probably more prolific than elk. I don't know for sure. 


Anyway, I think some hunters over-exaggerate the effects of wolves and other natural predators. I don't think you guys will run out of whitetail deer any time soon.


Here, the issue with elk isn't a generalized problem. It's more site specific.


There are elk hunting areas that have suffered. But overall, the elk herds in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are bigger than ever. It just depends on where you go. There's no question, wolves have dramatically affected the elk hunting dynamics in some places. But again, I think some hunters bellyache about it too much.


I'm still learning the ropes of elk hunting -- it's a whole different ballgame from deer. My Dad, who was skilled at it, isn't around to help me anymore -- so I just have to go by the advice and tips he left me. Either way, I can succeed or fail on my own, I don't need to cry about wolves if I don't get an elk...LOL!


Compensation payments for livestock losses can be hit and miss, but overall, that's a good program too. 






We have a small, but noticeable elk herd in the northern Lower, but if there any wolves in that area, they're few and far between.


Just a side-bar.  I'm Jewish, and halacha (Jewish Law) prohibits us from hunting unless our survival or well-being is at stake.  However, even though I don't hunt, my feeling has changed a bit since, if I put myself in a deer's place (undoubtedly, the deer is brighter, however), I think I'd rather be shot to death than to die from starvation.  Without a fairly significant number of natural predators, that would be the plight of so many deer here, especially during a harsh winter.   




Yes, I understand there have been recent efforts to re-introduce elk to parts of the Midwest and Great Plains. Many people think of them as a "mountain" animal, but forget, there were also at one time vast herds of them on the plains -- along with Bison, bears and, of course wolves.


I respect your beliefs. According to my religion (Baha'i Faith), I may hunt, but only in the strictest ethical manner and in accordance with all relevant local, state and national laws and regulations. Hunting "to excess" is discouraged, and my faith also strictly forbids wanton cruelty to animals. 


I guess I get miffed at the constant stereotype that hunters lack any compassion or respect for animals, and kill only for sick fun. Yes, I do know people like that. But overall, I think you will actually find a high degree of empathy and respect for animals among hunters.


There is no "nice" way for a deer or elk to die in nature. There are numerous slow, painful ways -- such as freezing, starvation or disease. Many older animals simply wear their teeth down to the point where they can no longer forage. 


Wolves don't tend to kill very mercifully either -- they usually attack the animal from the rear, drag it down, and start feeding on it while it is still alive. I don't see that as bad or evil -- that's just nature.


Still, I caution against the over-use of the argument," well, deer and ek are going to die unpleasantly anyway, so we might as well gun them down and make it quick and relatively painless."


There is some truth to that, but it can also be taken to the point of just being an excuse to shoot animals. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 1:00PM #320
vra
Posts: 6,396

May 1, 2012 -- 12:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Yes, I understand there have been recent efforts to re-introduce elk to parts of the Midwest and Great Plains. Many people think of them as a "mountain" animal, but forget, there were also at one time vast herds of them on the plains -- along with Bison, bears and, of course wolves.


I respect your beliefs. According to my religion (Baha'i Faith), I may hunt, but only in the strictest ethical manner and in accordance with all relevant local, state and national laws and regulations. Hunting "to excess" is discouraged, and my faith also strictly forbids wanton cruelty to animals. 


I guess I get miffed at the constant stereotype that hunters lack any compassion or respect for animals, and kill only for sick fun. Yes, I do know people like that. But overall, I think you will actually find a high degree of empathy and respect for animals among hunters.


There is no "nice" way for a deer or elk to die in nature. There are numerous slow, painful ways -- such as freezing, starvation or disease. Many older animals simply wear their teeth down to the point where they can no longer forage. 


Wolves don't tend to kill very mercifully either -- they usually attack the animal from the rear, drag it down, and start feeding on it while it is still alive. I don't see that as bad or evil -- that's just nature.


Still, I caution against the over-use of the argument," well, deer and ek are going to die unpleasantly anyway, so we might as well gun them down and make it quick and relatively painless."


There is some truth to that, but it can also be taken to the point of just being an excuse to shoot animals. 





Thanks for the above, and I agree.  BTW, I got yelled at by a park ranger in Yellowstone because I got pretty close to some grazing elk.  However, I knew I could run faster than the older lady near me.  ;)


Just a brief explanation: the reasons why hunting is disallowed falls in two areas especially, with one being that it's considered too inhumane (kosher slaughter involves a swift slice to the neck with a razor-sharp knife whereas it's believed that the animal feels no pain).  Another reason is that we are told that we shouldn't be killing for pleasure. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 32 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook