Hunters. I would like your opinions on these pictures

[S. Brown]

lest we forget, nearly all hunting is for sport, at least for our purposes. whether or not we eat what we kill is incidental. how many of us NEED to hunt to survive?

since we all have computers and the internet, i would guess very few. im sure some hunt on a regular basis to supplement their food purchases, but for actual survival?

many of us draw the ethical line between sport and trophy hunting, but they are not that different.

amen brotha

 

[shotgunner11]

many of us draw the ethical line between sport and trophy hunting, but they are not that different.

I think they are very different.

Trophy hunting, if the meat is not used, is simply killing for vanity.

Wasteful, arrogent, ignorant and foolish.

I see nothing wrong with hunting to put food on the table, even if the table isn't bare to begin with.

Even ancient hunter/gatherers hunted when there was gathering to be done.

 

[S. Brown]

This may not be true for everyone, but for the majority, I believe it is. I am not trying to make anyone look bad or anything like that. Most hunters will use hunting for food as an excuse to hunt. There is nothing wrong with it and it is a good excuse, but the motive for hunting is the same.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

I think they are very different.

Trophy hunting, if the meat is not used, is simply killing for vanity.

vanity is a factor in all hunting as i mentioned it.

Wasteful, arrogent, ignorant and foolish.

(arrogant) again, your opinion, and maybe mine. my point was i dont begrudge someone elses version of outdoor entertainment as long as it is legal. ethics and morality are subjective.

I see nothing wrong with hunting to put food on the table, even if the table isn't bare to begin with.

Even ancient hunter/gatherers hunted when there was gathering to be done.

so, even if the food isnt needed, it is ok? you seem to go back and forth in your opinion.

 

[shotgunner11]

you seem to go back and forth in your opinion.

No, not in the least.

I have no problem with hunting for "sport", as long as the animal goes to no waste. Eat the meat, tan and use the hide. Give the meat to someone who will use it.

If your making use of the animal, regardless if the rack ends up on your wall, I really see no vanity in it.

The actions that seem reckless to me are the kills made for no other reason than for the trophy itself. The animal is left to rot in the wilderness without its horns or whatnot, all for the sake of another plaque on the wall.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

No, not in the least.

I have no problem with hunting for "sport", as long as the animal goes to no waste. Eat the meat, tan and use the hide. Give the meat to someone who will use it.

If your making use of the animal, regardless if the rack ends up on your wall, I really see no vanity in it.

The actions that seem reckless to me are the kills made for no other reason than for the trophy itself. The animal is left to rot in the wilderness without its horns or whatnot, all for the sake of another plaque on the wall.

i see your point. but we have still killed an animal that didnt need killing. the uses of the parts is still incidental.

 

[Munky]

Venison is better for you and cheaper than beef. That is one reason why I hunt. Another would be population control. A given area can only support so many animals and unless you thin out the older weaker ones (incidentally these are often animals with a larger rack) there will not be enough food/water/shelter to support the entire group through the winter. Thus not hunting these animals would result in the loss of more animals due to "winter kill" which is a slow and miserable death. That is my strongest reason for hunting. No part of the hunting I do is for vanity. I take the first legal animal that I come across and have a clean shot at. Incidentally I have taken many more antlerless animals than antlered animals.

I am not saying that anyone has to agree with me or that my reasonings are universal, I am just telling my side of the story.

 

[shotgunner11]

Venison is better for you and cheaper than beef. That is one reason why I hunt. Another would be population control. A given area can only support so many animals and unless you thin out the older weaker ones (incidentally these are often animals with a larger rack) there will not be enough food/water/shelter to support the entire group through the winter. Thus not hunting these animals would result in the loss of more animals due to "winter kill" which is a slow and miserable death. That is my strongest reason for hunting. No part of the hunting I do is for vanity. I take the first legal animal that I come across and have a clean shot at. Incidentally I have taken many more antlerless animals than antlered animals.

I am not saying that anyone has to agree with me or that my reasonings are universal, I am just telling my side of the story.

Sounds good to me.

 

[shotgunner11]

i see your point. but we have still killed an animal that didnt need killing. the uses of the parts is still incidental.

I understand where your coming from but my theory on the whole waste not want not thing is that, like the last poster before me said, deer are overpopulated and need to be thinned in order to maintain the health of the species. I know, I know, humans are the ones that are overpopulated, running the deer out of house and home but...

Though I'm not in desperate need of the venison that I may harvest, it works in favor of balance for me to take that animal, "useless" killing or not. The meat gets used, nothing gets wasted, and thats one less portion of beef that I need to feed my family, thus more money in my pocket, I make a purchase, support the economy and all is well in the world .

Another angle is that hunting is a skill that must be practiced in order to have the ability to kill cleanly every time.

Even though I may not NEED the meat right now, I do need to keep my abilities up to par in case, at some time in the future, I do really need to hunt.

May sound like an excuse, but I would truly rather take a deer a year than wait five years and go out and mame a few.

I know this thread is about pigs but I like bacon almost as much as venison.

 

[Munky]

AGREED!

Shotgunner11 that was a very nice compliment to my compliment of your post. Thank you for filling in what I left out.

 

[RedEdge77]

Hunting ona fenced in property is sometimes the only way to hunt them when they are on a ranch. The pigs are basically giant rats. They are pests that need to be controlled and a controlled of way of doing this is with a knife.

Allen if you can't come up with an argument without using sarcasm that makes you look like a moron, then you should probalbly cease from posting in this thread.

 

[runningboar]

Hunting with dogs is an ancient and rewarding way to hunt, I don't know if it makes me a sportsman, a real hunter, or my penis larger. I do know that I enjoy it, watching my dogs work, training them to be as a good as possible and the time spent in the field with them, whether game is brought down or not. Me and me dogs are a true partnership and almost symbiotic, I know they enjoy it as much as I do, as far as the game I really don't worry too much about the way my food feels. I do however hate to see anything suffer and try to make as quick a kill as possible, and do not let my dogs fight anymore than is necessary.

If this type of hunting is not for you, fine, but don't try to change my way of life, it won't work anyway and come this fall I will be back in the woods doing what I love. I have hunted on fenced ranches, and it is not a sure thing, 10,000 acres is a lot of room for you and the game. I have hunted in the Texas brush country right outside of Laredo, without dogs or bait your chances of even seeing a pig are slim.

I really like the way some people are so sarcastic, arrogant and sure of their own ideas and have probably never participated in a hunt with or without dogs and never hunted in the areas where it is prevelant. In most places hogs are hunted over bait, with dogs, and trapped and the population is stable or even increases, so what is your answer, helicopters with miniguns, poison, destoying the habitat. Or perhaps do nothing at all and let the pigs destroy there own habitat until they starve to death and the entire cycle starts again.

I am quite sure that the feeling is mutual but I am disgusted by a lot of the elitist, arrogant comments on this thread. I will leave Yall to it and will not post on this thread again. Chris

 

[Normark]

Hey Guys...

As I stated before, this type of hunting is not for me....Only you can be the judge of whether it's right for you...

The same goes for the Harp Seal hunt..

It's not something I would participate in, nor do I eat lamb or calf, but thats just me...It's just not my lifestyle...

However with that being said we as hunters must stick together, no matter how we view a particular hunting activity..

As long as it is a legal activity where ever this takes place, we must respect it as being legal or theres a serious gap in your unity as hunters..

Once the antis get a fingerhold Anywhere within our ranks we are doomed.

First they take away dog hunting for pigs, then bears, then running dogs for deer, coons.. Your beloved upland game is next my fellow hunters....

Think about it for a minute.. Even if you don't agree with it,, you should support the fundamental right to participate in a legal activity within our sport.

After over several hundred years of humans spearing fish, we now in Ontario can't spear pike, carp or rough fish in our creeks and streams..

Why ???

Because the antis got their agenda across to the pencil pushers and got the law enacted in our fish and game laws.

Now a tradition that has been handed down from father to son for generations is a thing of the past. My children will never know what it's like to legally spear fish in the creek behind our house...

If your against hunting thats fine, do what you do,, but we'll keep doing what we are doing within the law and as a god given right as legal permit holders of our countries...

If you are a hunter,, support your right and our right to hunt, with Anything that is legal to do so with..

I see too much infighting between bow hunters whether crossbows should be legal.. Support each other and look to see who's side of the fight you are on...

ttyle

Eric
O/ST

 

[allenC]

Allen if you can't come up with an argument without using sarcasm that makes you look like a moron, then you should probalbly cease from posting in this thread.

First of all, sarcasm is a great tool to make a point.
Humans have been using sarcasm in debates since the beginning of spoken language.
Only a moron would consider someone a moron for using sarcasm as a tool to get a point across.
If you cannot understand that then maybe YOU should cease posting on this thread.

But since you don't seem to get what I'm saying through sarcasm, I'll say it as plain as I can:
Hunting with dogs makes one as far from being a real HUNTER or a real SPORTSMAN as possible.
You did not track the animal, your dogs did.
You did not stalk the animal, your dogs did.
You did not take the animal down, your dogs did.
YOU ARE NOT THE HUNTER, YOUR DOGS ARE.
If you have to rely upon your dogs then you are NOT a hunter or a sportsman, you're just the dog handler.

Let's get a virtual "show of hands", how many of you hunt and shoot a single animal with five of your friends?
When you see an elk or a deer, why don't all five guys shoot the same deer all at once?

You can hunt with your friends, but it still remains a solitary sport...
YOU have to track and stalk the animal.
YOU have to get close enough for that good clean shot.
YOU have to kill the animal with NO HELP FROM ANYONE ELSE!

It's the same with fishing:
You can fish with a boatload of folks, but it still remains a solitary sport...
YOU have to select your bait.
YOU have to watch your line.
YOU have to set the hook.
YOU have to reel in and land the fish.

It's not that difficult to grasp what I'm saying.
But I'm sure that alot of folks here who think of themselves as "hunters" or "sportsmen" don't like to hear what I'm saying...
It's this simple:
Killing a pig with a pack of dogs does make you a HUNTER.
It makes you a dog handler with a penchant for stabbing pigs.
Basically, you're no different than the guy with the gaff-hook on a fishing boat...others catch the fish and do all the work, he simply drags the fish on to the boat....and everyone knows the gaff-hook guy is NOT the real fisherman.

 

[pict]

The Man/Dog hunting combo has been going on as a symbiotic relationship since the dawn of time.

I keep a pack of six dogs in my yard. Two Pitt Bulls, an Akita mix, and three ankle nippers. They love me and are there to rip anyone who jumps my wall into shreds. They would do it with pleasure becuase they are dogs. They are part of the family and this is their role.

We use dogs noses to find and flush game that would otherwise sit tight and never be seen. We use dogs to retrieve game that would otherwise be lost or drift away in water too cold for us to swin in. The day I see a Lab balk at busting up a thin skim of ice to retrieve a duck I'll reconsider using the dog. So far it hasn't happened.

We use dogs to pull sleds on hunts as well. Is a Caribou hunter less of a man becuase his dogs dragged him behind the herd and carried out his meat? And seriously who gives a rip if he takes the head and mounts it on the wall?

Allen C you are missing the whole point of hunting with dogs. It is a relationship like none other. Those dogs are not family pets pressed into service to do the hunting. They are specifically bred and trained for the job they are doing, and they love it. The family pet dogs who sit home watch with envy as other dogs get to go off an run with the pack.

Those dogs in the cages are sad because the hunt is over. Do you seriously think that those hunters have to force those dogs to get into the cages in the pre-dawn before the hunt? I have never seen a dog react with anything other than unbridled enthusiasm at the prospect of hunting with men. Mac

 

[allenC]

The Man/Dog hunting combo has been going on as a symbiotic relationship since the dawn of time.

But not as a SPORT.

There is a vast difference in hunting for sport and hunting to survive.
As I said before, if you're hunting and killing game to survive (as our primitive anscestors did) then I don't care how you get your game...dogs, tribal line hunting, snares, pitfalls, deadfalls, traps, nets, trotlines...anything goes in my opinion.

But if you hunt for sport and fun, not for survival, and you want to call yourself a HUNTER, then do it yourself and stop relying upon the dogs.
Heck, those who "hunt" with dogs or those who use treestands are closer to TRAPPERS than they are to HUNTERS.

 

[allenC]

Those dogs in the cages are sad because the hunt is over.

My dog rides in my truck either inside the cab or in the bed of the truck, and I don't need a cage...he's part of the family and he knows it.

Those dogs are just tools used to kill a pig, just like the knife.

 

[runningboar]

But not as a SPORT.

There is a vast difference in hunting for sport and hunting to survive.
As I said before, if you're hunting and killing game to survive (as our primitive anscestors did) then I don't care how you get your game...dogs, tribal line hunting, snares, pitfalls, deadfalls, traps, nets, trotlines...anything goes in my opinion.

But if you hunt for sport and fun, not for survival, and you want to call yourself a HUNTER, then do it yourself and stop relying upon the dogs.
Heck, those who "hunt" with dogs or those who use treestands are closer to TRAPPERS than they are to HUNTERS.

If you hunted you would know that what you are saying is pure bullshit. I know I said I would not post in this thread again, oh well I can't help myself, why don't you try hunting, stay with it a few years and then come back and talk, right now your ignorance is astounding. Try pheasant hunting without a dog, retrieving your own waterfowl in 34 degree water, hunting whitetails in heavy cover without a stand, you really should know a bit about what you are talking about before spewing blather as fact. Chris

 

[Horned Toad]

First of all, sarcasm is a great tool to make a point.
Humans have been using sarcasm in debates since the beginning of spoken language.
Only a moron would consider someone a moron for using sarcasm as a tool to get a point across.
If you cannot understand that then maybe YOU should cease posting on this thread.

But since you don't seem to get what I'm saying through sarcasm, I'll say it as plain as I can:
Hunting with dogs makes one as far from being a real HUNTER or a real SPORTSMAN as possible.
You did not track the animal, your dogs did.
You did not stalk the animal, your dogs did.
You did not take the animal down, your dogs did.
YOU ARE NOT THE HUNTER, YOUR DOGS ARE.
If you have to rely upon your dogs then you are NOT a hunter or a sportsman, you're just the dog handler.

Let's get a virtual "show of hands", how many of you hunt and shoot a single animal with five of your friends?
When you see an elk or a deer, why don't all five guys shoot the same deer all at once?

You can hunt with your friends, but it still remains a solitary sport...
YOU have to track and stalk the animal.
YOU have to get close enough for that good clean shot.
YOU have to kill the animal with NO HELP FROM ANYONE ELSE!

It's the same with fishing:
You can fish with a boatload of folks, but it still remains a solitary sport...
YOU have to select your bait.
YOU have to watch your line.
YOU have to set the hook.
YOU have to reel in and land the fish.

It's not that difficult to grasp what I'm saying.
But I'm sure that alot of folks here who think of themselves as "hunters" or "sportsmen" don't like to hear what I'm saying...
It's this simple:
Killing a pig with a pack of dogs does make you a HUNTER.
It makes you a dog handler with a penchant for stabbing pigs.
Basically, you're no different than the guy with the gaff-hook on a fishing boat...others catch the fish and do all the work, he simply drags the fish on to the boat....and everyone knows the gaff-hook guy is NOT the real fisherman.

I think you are forgetting that mans rise to the top of the food chain would have never been accomplished by a lone solitary hunter tracking his game. Mans rise to dominance was by teamwork and using everything that was available. You make it sound like the only acceptable way to hunt is one on one with your bare hands. The way you make it out to be I think fisherman need to get rid of their poles and swim after their fish.


I do not hunt animals but I have had the chance to work as a partner with animals, namely horses. I can say that was some of the most rewarding work I have ever done and my most trustworthy partner ever was a horse. I really can’t see where working with dogs would be any different.

 

[allenC]

Chris,
I do hunt.
I've hunted deer and elk with a recurve bow.
And I don't use a treestand either, I stalk on the ground.
If you've never tried it then you're really missing out.
It's extremely challenging, and unlike using dogs on pigs, you're not guaranteed a kill...somedays you leave empty-handed.

As for bird hunting...
It simply does not interest me in the least.
I have some friends who birdhunt and they don't even seem to be challenged in the least.
They NEVER fail to come home without some kills.
One went bowhunting with me one season and was all pissed off because it was too hard and he didn't get a kill in three days.