Small animal hunting

[snareaman]

No kidding on the chemical and hormone observation.

We will eat our 4 deer and one caribou until next season. No store bought beef unless we get it from our local custom butcher. I know where those ribeyes came from!!

 

[Esav Benyamin]

That food in the grocery store is full of hormones, antibiotics and chemicals. I try to kill my own health food.

I wrote this about that a couple of years ago:

bon appetit


if it comes in a can
or it comes in a jar
i can make it myself
which is better by far

i hate to be picky
i hate to be rude
but packaged nutrition
is not really food

it's bad for ya, dude!

it's loaded with sugar & salt & with fat
you really don't want to be eating all that

 

[desmobob]

I wrote this about that a couple of years ago:

bon appetit


if it comes in a can
or it comes in a jar
i can make it myself
which is better by far

i hate to be picky
i hate to be rude
but packaged nutrition
is not really food

it's bad for ya, dude!

it's loaded with sugar & salt & with fat
you really don't want to be eating all that

Hey! You can fill the opening left when Dr. Seuss passed away! Just one poem like that every day and you'll be well on your way.


I know that was really, really lame, but I couldn't help myself.

Sorry,
desmobob

 

[EMT_Lee]

Well, I shoot groundhogs. They are pests on my land (they dig holes in my fields, and horses step into the holes and break their legs). I dont eat them, and further, I enjoy "hunting" them. I dont think that means I lack moral fiber. However, I've never see any groundhog "explode" from a .17HMR round. Maybe I'm missing something? Nasty exit wounds? Sure. Explosion? Nope. YMMV.

 

[Bastid]

I have small plots of land in the boonies in the quad state area of Bastidville. Got most of the land during 30 years of white water kayaking and rafting just to have a quiet place to camp after a long day on the river without being messed with by the local yahoos. (Fade in theme music from Deliverance here.)

From experience, barns, outbuildings and their contents are well messed with by varmints. They can be destructive. I never have enjoyed killing anything, but I do not have a problem with taking them out at any range on my land.

We also have had an influx of Cayotes and have spotted several even in Bastidville (Atlanta Suburbs) further in the "country" they are becoming abundant. I still camp with my dogs. Would have no problem at all shooting a Cayote on my land.

Would not enjoy it, but would not have a problem and I would not eat the sucker. As a rule I agree that to only hunt what I would eat is a great guide, but it might be a little short sighted to think it should be a hard and fast rule.

It is a matter of morals and those are personal. If the morals are in place, I do not agree that hunting for food is the only way to go.

 

[PrimitiveMan]

I am of low moral fiber.

I like blasting the hell out of vermin. I laugh like hell when I crack a squirrel in the dome.

Anybody here who says they never "high fived" or gave a hoot and a hollar when they shot something is a damn hypocrite.

Do I take enjoyment in an animal suffering? NO! absolutely not!

But some kills on vermin just make you laugh.

You guys eat the flys you swat too? I didn't think so.

They are Gods creatures also, no?

 

[cj65]

I am of the thought process of eat what you shoot in the name of hunting. I also let my dog eat what I shoot. If squirrel control is the name of the game, it is more ethical to shoot than to poison without eating them. The #1 killer of birds of prey is squirrel posion. The hawks will eat a poisoned or dying squirrel and perish right along with them. So, in this case shooting for target practice can be great fun! This is not unethical. I remember as a kid killing a blue jay with my pellet gun. I felt sick to my stomach for a week, and still remember how it was the only time I plinked at live targets, until dad took me dove hunting, which made shooting fun again. So, I see both sides, but have a practicality of it all.

 

[J. Doyle]

Let me say first that I have no problems with any of you and I don't wish to argue with anyone. The following is just how I see it.

That said, I tend to side with PrimitiveMan. I have absolutely no problem blasting varmints, including but not limited to, a pine squirrel, possum, rat, rock chuck, or prairie dog. They are disease carrying vermin. If some of us didn't keep the numbers down, we'd all have the plague.

Who says that hunters can't hunt and love the thrill of taking down a big game animal? I know I do. All of my family and hunting buddies do too. But we also make every effort to make a humane, clean kill and recover any and all meat fit for human consumption. I don't feel at all that we should have to "feel bad" about responsible hunting. I don't want to see an animal suffer but I absolutely LOVE putting the crosshairs on a nice bull elk and watching him cumple when I pull the trigger. That gives me a real thrill. Does that make me unethical or irresponsible? NOT HARDLY.

Ted Nugent probably does more than most of us to promote and practice ethical and responsible fair chase hunting and conservation (not to be confused with preservation.) Ever notice how pumped up he gets when he downs a game animal? I say shame on folks that criticize hunters because they enjoy shooting an animal. If they leave the meat to rot, then shame on them.

I'm not trying to convince non-varmint hunters to hunt them. I also don't want them to tell me I shouldn't hunt them. Or tell me that I'm unmoral, unethical, sick, twisted or whatever because I want to use a 45 gr. v-max bullet that explodes a gophers head when it hits. What difference does it make? Dead is dead. They feel nothing when that bullet hits them.

But all this talk of not killing anything that you don't eat sometimes gets out of control. Do you eat the flies and mosquitos you swat? How about the mouse you trap out of your house? How about the nest of bees up in your soffit that's not hurting anyone? What is it that makes some animals okay to just destroy but not others? Is it size or cuteness? Who gets to decide what animals are more valuable than others?

Man is the top of the food chain. Animals are for our use and enjoyment. That's just the way the good Lord designed it. Animals don't have a soul. They aren't capable of rational thought. They don't have feelings or emotion. They do feel pain and fear therefore, shouldn't be made to suffer needlessly.

But there is nothing wrong with some of us blasting animals and liking it. If you don't want to, fine. If someone else wants to, fine.

This is not aimed at anyone in particular. Again, this is just how I see it. As others said, we all need to stand together. We have a good corner of the world here.:thumbup:

 

[PrimitiveMan]

Yeah, and while we are at it, can we stop saying "Harvesting" ?

If you are such a PU$$y that you can't admit you KILLED something, stay home.

If you are HARVESTING you are on a farm, and I never shot a cow and claimed it was hunting.

Really....Harvested

Ya harvest grain.

 

[Davyd]

Of course the same issue is over here in Oz

I like hunting, the ethics is tha there has to be a purpose to justify the killing side of it. I don't eat what I shoot because it is mostly vermin - rabbits and foxes.

I do wonder wheter it is simply rationalising - they are feral animals, the property owners want them killed, a bullet is kinder than poisoning or the two intentionally introduced diseases that kill most. (approx 80%)

However I do wonder how effective it is and hence am I simply rationalising my desire to hunt

I avoid shooting kangaroos that is my arbitrary line - I will on occasion if it is clearly necessary and am asked very directly

Personally if the animal dies quickly it probably doe not matter wheter it is a .22 or a .50 that hits it. And most of us get some pleasure in the hunt - how that is shown is a matter of taste.

 

[Ruzster]

Yeah, and while we are at it, can we stop saying "Harvesting" ?

If you are such a PU$$y that you can't admit you KILLED something, stay home.

If you are HARVESTING you are on a farm, and I never shot a cow and claimed it was hunting.

Really....Harvested

Ya harvest grain.

LOL! Sorry to rain on yer semantics parade but . . .

har·vest (härvst)
v. har·vest·ed, har·vest·ing, har·vests
v.tr.
1.
a. To gather (a crop).
b. To take or kill (fish or deer, for example) for food, sport, or population control.
c. To extract from a culture or a living or recently deceased body, especially for transplantation: harvested bone marrow.
2. To gather a crop from.
3. To receive (the benefits or consequences of an action).

 

[PrimitiveMan]

Yeah, well you just keep reading the dictionary and I'll keep talking to real folk.

Harvesting is a term that has started recently by people who don't want to offend sheeple and I do not subscribe to that BS. I am a man and will stand up as such.

Have you used the term "Harvesting" prior to 1990??

Pu$$y term

 

[koyote]

Generally I go for the "if you kill it, eat it" when it comes to mamals, birds, and fish. There's a lot of bugs that are pests.

But there are animal pests, too. I've taken down several rats and squirrels around here (okay, some squirrel DID go in the pot) just because... well, they ARE pests. I don't take the crows, though. Kinda a weird thing about that.

Hunting JUST to watch something explode doesn't work for me, but there are mammals (and birds) that are vermin.

 

[Ruzster]

Yeah, well you just keep reading the dictionary and I'll keep talking to real folk.

Harvesting is a term that has started recently by people who don't want to offend sheeple and I do not subscribe to that BS. I am a man and will stand up as such.

Have you used the term "Harvesting" prior to 1990??

Pu$$y term

ROTFLMFAO!!! Are you for real? You and Sarah Palin out there with them "real" folk in South Jersey? Yeah, I'm sure you're "harvesting" all kinds of "game" right around there.

I am a man and will stand up as such.

So "real" men don't need no freakin dictionary! lol!

If you say so, stud . . .

Anyway, we dictionary-using, pussified-word sayin' "folks" in Montana have been harvesting game animals since the advent of game managment and wildlife science that developed after most of our big game populations were practically wiped out at the turn of the 20th century. And just in case your wondering how we go about "harvesting" our game animals . . . we kill them.

Relax, tough guy, the word "harvest" won't diminish your sense of "manliness" when your out killing things to eat. Get a grip.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I'm with PrimitiveMan on the term "harvesting". You harvest what you nurture, what you plant or raise or support with fertilizer or feed. You kill wild animals.

Dictionaries are very quick to enshrine common usage without applying the old standard: does it help us distinguish between concepts or does it mash different ideas together, blurring the differences?

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Ease up on each other. State your case without putting down other posters. This is not Whine & Cheese.

 

[sodak]

I am of low moral fiber.

I like blasting the hell out of vermin. I laugh like hell when I crack a squirrel in the dome.

Now that made me laugh!

Anybody here who says they never "high fived" or gave a hoot and a hollar when they shot something is a damn hypocrite.

Do I take enjoyment in an animal suffering? NO! absolutely not!

But some kills on vermin just make you laugh.

My mom nailed a striped gopher on a golf course hitting a worm killer (bad drive off the tee box) through the grass. He heard it coming, stuck his head up, and BLAMMO! Did a complete somersault, landed with his head down the hole and his butt up in the air. Not even a twitch. We were bent over double for 5 minutes, we were laughing so hard.

You guys eat the flys you swat too? I didn't think so.

They are Gods creatures also, no?

Damn straight. After I thin the edge out on my Dozier, I can even leave proof of sex after I dress them.

 

[sasha]

As someone that started the thread. I can understand if you shoot some animals cause they cause damage. But in the class i took on the break the instructor was was saying to other guys how much fun it is to blow them up. All i could pic in my head was using the animals instead of ballons to watch them splat. Seen some pics on the net and yea some of them you cant even figure out what animal it was before it died. Its just that for me its not realy hunting. It is nothing more then enjoying shooting animals to see how they die.. Would i kill rats in the house yes i will. Would i do my best to see how much i mutilate there body while killing them no i wont. I think there is more to it then a kill is a kill. Atlist for me there is a diffrence. For me there is more to hunting then just the kill. Would i be happy if i took a good shoot and got a kill you bet i would. Would i enjoy straping a bomb to one and blow them up. Heck no but dead is dead as some might say. I cant think of the proper word right now but it sort of sadisdic. And that comes from a guy that some people say has scary thoughts and ideas.

Sasha

 

[Ruzster]

I'm with PrimitiveMan on the term "harvesting". You harvest what you nurture, what you plant or raise or support with fertilizer or feed. You kill wild animals.

Dictionaries are very quick to enshrine common usage without applying the old standard: does it help us distinguish between concepts or does it mash different ideas together, blurring the differences?

Sorry, Esav, all due respect but the term doesn't have anything to do with political correctness or being a "pussy" term. That's utterly ridiculous and that was the point I trying to make in responding to PM's overly simplistic post.

Besides, how far back in the English dictionary are we reasonably expected to go before “applying the old standard” does more to confuse the issue than clarify it?

In Montana, the "wild" animals you refer to are "nurtured," "supported," "raised," and tended to as the result of a very complicated and long-term planning process known as the science and art of game management. Just like farming it involves weather trends, disease and pest impact, environmental benefits and deprivations and a host of other data based conditions, results and factors. The "crop" is managed, in part, based on "harvest" data and the subsequent year's "harvest quota" is then set based on that data. The "crop" in this instance just happens to be mobile and belong to the entire state. As a hunter, I act just like a farmer and I "harvest' the "crop" in a way that is sustainable and that yields the best and most productive harvest rates per square mile.

Should they change the terminology to "kill quota" to satisfy the delicate sensibilities of those who might disgree?" :yawn::barf:

Good God, it's semantics. Call it whatever you like but let’s not pretend that passing some kind of "political correctness" judgment on the use one term or another isn't just a little bit silly. YMMV

You say tomato and I say clamato. (sometimes I say "Yo Momma" but never, ever to a mod)

 

[go2ndAmend]

There is a reason, and a very good one, why the law treats as different game animals and nongame animals. Game animals have seasons, bag limits and are generally deemed to be a benefit to society. Game animals would include deer, turkeys, ducks, and rabbits. Nongame animals generally don't have any bag limits or seasons. They would include ground squirrels, starlings, rats etc. They are pests and, in general, do damage to society. They cause significant crop loss, destroy irrigation systems, carry disease, and undermine roads and dams.
I grew up on a ranch, still live on one, and was taught to shoot only what you can eat. That saying is one that I live by, but very few people living in a rural enviornment whose livlihood depends on the the land would think it applys to non game animals. This includes me. I am suprised by the lack of education on this issue by many who have posted.