Humans are in season

N Sperlo wrote: In my eyes, killing animals for any reason but survival is paramount to killing humans. I will kill anyone trying to kill my pet. I support killing poachers. Those animals are endangered. Give them a chance to give up, of course before hand.

I don't like the killing of endangered animals myself. No reason to hunt something to extinction.

I'm an animal lover as well. I've fostered dogs for quite a few years before we had my son. He's the most high maintenance foster I've ever had. All the dogs are rescues.

I do believe in hunting. Living in the country I saw what unchecked herbivores can do. I also saw how they can become once they're over populated. We had some sort of deer infection going around in VA a few years ago. Hunters would shoot them and notice they had bruised spots. Like when an apple is going bad. The spots were in very fleshy areas. The spots were mushy and brown. It couldn't have been a good way to live for a wild animal. Rangers told us this sickness was directly due to over population.

So far as due process goes...I'm with other posters in stating that kind of ruling is ripe for abuse. Don't like this guy chasing around your daughter? Take him out hunting in a game preserve, plant a gun on him, POW! "Honest guys. I never suspected this low life chasing after my daughter was a poacher. But I'm on the job and there he is shooting protected mice on Lord ButtCrack's personal game preserve!" I'm not saying this happens all the time but due process is in place for a reason. It protects us all. Law enforcement as well as citizen.

Also, the definition of poacher, in the states, can constitute someone who is hunting game out of season. I'm against that as it harms the ability for animal populations to be properly cared for. But I will say that I would not look down on a hunter who was hunting out of season to feed his family if he'd lost his job for instance. A hunter who is sport hunting out of season does deserve a proper punishment.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: Or we could go the other way. Take the helmets away from football players. Put sharks with lasers on their heads in the ocean with the fishermen. And take the guns away from hunters. It would put some respect back into these activities.

Respect? I don't hunt - but I bet you find more hunters with a hearty respect for nature than say... the guy at the end of the cattle shoot with the pneumatic hammer or the guy clearing jams in the chicken decapitator machine.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Yeah, I am just being a jackass. If I could eat only properly hunted meat instead of farm meat, I would.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: Yeah, I am just being a jackass. If I could eat only properly hunted meat instead of farm meat, I would.

Don't take all the fun out of it now. I have another hour to kill before take-off.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Luke wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: I agree with that. Also,

Osterkraut wrote: Who's more interested in the preservation of the White Rhino: the man who loves hunting them, or some armchair environmentalist back in the states who hasn't ever seen one?

Some months back I read about a proposal to breed endangered animals (rhino, elephants), in reserves, specifically for the purpose of hunting. It seems like backwards ecology at first, but the idea of course is that wild populations would be completely unaffected.

Read Teddy Roosevelt's bio - this is exactly why he set aside so much of the country for National Parks. He loved hunting - but he was also a student of biology and a conservationist. He understood that he could use his authority to preserve the things he loved and still use them... just not all at once. The loggers were not big fans of his.

Fun fact: the logger vs nature thing is why we now have the National Park System which runs parallel to the National Forest System. The whole intent was to preserve some areas as parks in their natural state yet still have areas where logging, mining etc could take place. It's only been in the last 40 years or so that the eco freaks have tried to jam these two systems together into a National Park System.

They cite TR as their inspiration and hold him up as their example. Obviously, they have not read their history.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Well, the part about him being a lover of the outdoors, a botanist, a noted author on birds and wildlife and astute conservationist is spot on. It is true that had he not used (some say abused) his office to protect the lands he loved that there would be little of it for us to enjoy.

Maybe in light of the benefits they give him a pass on his love of big game hunting? Maybe they just leave that part out. THe Smithsonian has examples of many birds and animals he actually documented by "preserving" an example of. He was a skilled Taxidermist too.

In reply to Xceler8x:

I don't support the same law in the United States. We are in a different world here. Our law enforcement officials ARE given the benefit of the doubt, but due process is supposed to iron things out.

I do support hunting, but only if you are going to use what you hunt or you are interfering with an overpopulation problem. Really anything to that extent, I think that makes it OK.

I just don't want my views drug around in the mud and trampled on. Things are being pulled out of context.

Judging by your post, we appear to be exactly on the same page except for the fact that I support the law that INDIA made FOR INDIA, NOT the USA.

Actually (and I should have clarified this) TR believed in conservation but he also recognized that humans have needs. So the idea was a dual system of mostly conservation (Park System) and mostly resource supply (National Forests). The eco freaks conveniently forget that it was set up that way and use his legacy to try to force the National Forests under the Park Service umbrella.

The Sierra Club even hires a guy who dresses and talks like TR who goes to various meetings to try to drum up emotional support for the way they want things done. I know this for a fact because I've met the guy (Case Hicks) face to face. http://www.roughriderpresident.com/About_Me.html

Don't think TR would have approved of the use of his likeness etc that way.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: I don't support the same law in the United States. We are in a different world here. Our law enforcement officials ARE given the benefit of the doubt, but due process is supposed to iron things out. I do support hunting, but only if you are going to use what you hunt or you are interfering with an overpopulation problem. Really anything to that extent, I think that makes it OK. I just don't want my views drug around in the mud and trampled on. Things are being pulled out of context. Judging by your post, we appear to be exactly on the same page except for the fact that I support the law that INDIA made FOR INDIA, NOT the USA.

Sorry chief. Didn't mean to quote you out of context or twist your views.

I agree that we're more on the same page than off.

India is most definitely a different place than the U.S.

In reply to Xceler8x:

You made me LOL

NSperlo said: fact: I support...INDIA, NOT the USA...

This just in: NSperlo hates Amercia!!!

(Sponsored by the baronvonpoopenshtein for crazy dictator and president of the Seal Clubbing Club of America campaign.)