People who don't eat what they Kill

[Nicodemus]

As a boy part of the job was helping look after the farm. If coons, rabbits, crows, wild hogs, or any other varmint got into the crops or garden, they got shot. If rain crows started raiding the catalpa trees for worms, they got shot ( and I got a nickle apiece for each one brought in). If crows and jaybirds were stealing pecans, they got shot. If possums or any other predator was into the chickens, they got shot.

I was taught early on by my old subsistance farmer-trapper Grandfather that although critters and varmints can be the same animal or bird, there is a very fine but distinct line between them, and sometimes a critter can become a varmint. And when it did and got caught, it was dealt with.

I don`t expect anybody to understand it, but that`s the way it was, and not all of the varmints got eaten.

 

[sghoghunter]

As a boy part of the job was helping look after the farm. If coons, rabbits, crows, wild hogs, or any other varmint got into the crops or garden, they got shot. If rain crows started raiding the catalpa trees for worms, they got shot ( and I got a nickle apiece for each one brought in). If crows and jaybirds were stealing pecans, they got shot. If possums or any other predator was into the chickens, they got shot.

I was taught early on by my old subsistance farmer-trapper Grandfather that although critters and varmints can be the same animal or bird, there is a very fine but distinct line between them, and sometimes a critter can become a varmint. And when it did and got caught, it was dealt with.

I don`t expect anybody to understand it, but that`s the way it was, and not all of the varmints got eaten.

Exactly the way I am with hogs and any other predators

 

[1gr8bldr]

After years of nicely packing away in the freezer, it became apparent that our family was wasting more by keeping it than by giving it away. So, I found a guy who really wants the deer meat. i just call him up and he is happy to come get it. Legality of that where I live is that I write a slip with my check in and phone number. I don't often pull the trigger, exception, this year, trying to thin out the overpopulation. However, when I do decide to keep meat for the freezer, jerky, whatever, we usually shoot several because it's easier to do several at once than spread out over different weekends

 

[brownhounds]

I kill 2 hogs a year and one cow a year as well as eggs and produce from the garden. I don't need the deer meat so we can all of it. I guess you could say I donate it because I normally take jars to deer camp. We eat very little deer meat at home because of the beef and pork. But no deer meat gets waisted.

And I don't agree with donating the meat to just anybody. I think it should be camp meat. People ask me every year to "catch them a deer." I always refuse because they normally have no idea what's involved. It ain't nothing but work after you pull the trigger.

 

[Possum]

I don't understand the whole mindset of folks like that, myself.

Did you eat all the carp you shot bowfishing?

 

[geebler]

I don't think shooting game to donate is good at all. I'm all for sharing your kills with folks but can't stand when someone kills so they can donate.

So I guess if I pay for meat (or any food) from the grocery store and donate it to a homeless shelter or food bank I would be somehow wrong for that? It's the same concept as donating a deer.

I really do not understand how some one could be opposed to the 'hunters for the hungry' programs. I do not care if it is a pig, cow, chicken, elk, or deer, if it gets eaten by someone who needs something to eat, then it wasn't wasted.

 

[NCHillbilly]

Did you eat all the carp you shot bowfishing?

No, but they all get used for fertilizer or compost. Carp are an invasive fish from Asia that wreak havoc on our waters. Every one taken out is a plus for everything else. The introduction of carp to North America was one of the biggest ecological disasters in history. And they are not fit to eat-I've tried. I certainly wish that they tasted as good as deer. I also don't eat mice that I catch in mousetraps in the house. Every gar I shoot gets eaten, for sure. The carp would too, if they tasted like gar. And I wouldn't shoot gar if I didn't eat them, because they are native and belong here and have their own niche in the ecosystem. Carp don't. They root other native fish out.

Comparing carp to deer is a big stretch, by the way. I have never shot a deer that I didn't eat. And I also usually use the hides, sinew, bones, hair, and antlers.

And I already know your next move, so I'll save you the trouble-coyotes are not carp. They are native to North America, at least. And do some good along with the harm. And don't cause half the damage overall that carp do. And yes, I've shot and trapped a pile of coyotes myself too, when I had reason to. As Nic said, when they become a varmint, there is cause to shoot them. No, I didn't eat them. Yes, I used their hides, bones, and skulls.

 

[NCHillbilly]

So I guess if I pay for meat (or any food) from the grocery store and donate it to a homeless shelter or food bank I would be somehow wrong for that? It's the same concept as donating a deer.

I really do not understand how some one could be opposed to the 'hunters for the hungry' programs. I do not care if it is a pig, cow, chicken, elk, or deer, if it gets eaten by someone who needs something to eat, then it wasn't wasted.

I think the point is that some folks see someone who kills deer just to be killing them, kills way more than they can use, and uses the donations as an excuse to kill more deer, as being a bit greedy and trigger happy. I have killed deer myself for someone who I knew really needed the meat at the time, but I don't go out killing every deer I can kill, then looking for something to do with the meat because I don't like it to begin with. If I didn't eat deer myself , I wouldn't deer hunt. The meat in the grocery store is from animals raised to be killed, and they were already killed whether or not you buy it for someone. A bit different from going out and killing deer just to be killing them.

And nothing is ever truly wasted in nature. But, we don't have an unlimited number of deer.

 

[Mexican Squealer]

So I guess if I pay for meat (or any food) from the grocery store and donate it to a homeless shelter or food bank I would be somehow wrong for that? It's the same concept as donating a deer.

I really do not understand how some one could be opposed to the 'hunters for the hungry' programs. I do not care if it is a pig, cow, chicken, elk, or deer, if it gets eaten by someone who needs something to eat, then it wasn't wasted.

Nope, not the same concept at all. The donation would be on your dime, with your resources-not the States resources. Pretty simple.

 

[across the river]

Nope, not the same concept at all. The donation would be on your dime, with your resources-not the States resources. Pretty simple.

This state's resources argument doesn't hold water. Lets say you have one 1000 acre club that is extensively managed for quality bucks. Plenty of time and money is spent on habitat, supplemental feeding, etc... Only a few guys hunt it, so they need to harvest some does off the properly periodically. They donate most of the does they kill to hunters for the hungry, a shelter, whatever, since most of them don't eat a lot of deer meet.

Now you have another 1000 acre club with 30 members on it. They plant a little but it isn't extensively managed. They have thirty members to keep the club dues cost down, but all of the members want a deer or two for the freezer. There is no rhyme or reason behind what is shot, so it is pretty much a brown its down situation. All of the deer killed on the property are eaten by the family of the hunter who killed it. Now you tell me how the second club is being a better steward of the state's resources than the first. They aren't.

I'm not arguing that someone should just kill 12 deer to kill 12 deer and donate them to the all. I also don't think someone should shoot 5, 10, or 12 deer on a small tract, or have clubs with 25 acres per member that they allow to get shot out either. I don't care who eats it. Being a good stead of the land and the states resources has way less to do with what ultimately happens to the resource in the end than it has to do with the manner and reason for which it was harvested to begin with.

 

[Jack Ryan]

worrying about what a man does with the game he harvest from his own land or lease within the regulations after he cleans and processes it, WOW ! You guys sound like a bunch of Liberals all up in everybody's business!

Wild game in Indiana, is only there because HUNTERS put it there. With their effort, with voluntarily taxing themselves to fund the restocking programs after they were wiped out of the state by market hunters. It's a public resource created and still supported and funded by hunters FOR hunters. It's not a state welfare program for dead beat losers to be given away free by liberal give away programs. That is why honorable men buy a license instead of begging on the street corners.

Hunters who sounded quite a bit like you.

I don't care much what of how you decide to run things in Georgia but that is the way it is in Indiana and that is the way I feel about it.

 

[NCHillbilly]

This state's resources argument doesn't hold water. Lets say you have one 1000 acre club that is extensively managed for quality bucks. Plenty of time and money is spent on habitat, supplemental feeding, etc... Only a few guys hunt it, so they need to harvest some does off the properly periodically. They donate most of the does they kill to hunters for the hungry, a shelter, whatever, since most of them don't eat a lot of deer meet.

Now you have another 1000 acre club with 30 members on it. They plant a little but it isn't extensively managed. They have thirty members to keep the club dues cost down, but all of the members want a deer or two for the freezer. There is no rhyme or reason behind what is shot, so it is pretty much a brown its down situation. All of the deer killed on the property are eaten by the family of the hunter who killed it. Now you tell me how the second club is being a better steward of the state's resources than the first. They aren't.

I'm not arguing that someone should just kill 12 deer to kill 12 deer and donate them to the all. I also don't think someone should shoot 5, 10, or 12 deer on a small tract, or have clubs with 25 acres per member that they allow to get shot out either. I don't care who eats it. Being a good stead of the land and the states resources has way less to do with what ultimately happens to the resource in the end than it has to do with the manner and reason for which it was harvested to begin with.

The man who thinks he knows better than nature how the deer need to be "managed" is the one who causes the most harm. People who overhunt small tracts do a lot of damage for sure, but so do the falsely "enlightened" folks who do "quality" deer management and decide that they need to kill most of the does off their tract to manage the ratios. Deer managed themselves just fine for hundreds of thousands of years until we came along and about wiped them out. Managing for trophy bucks is not in the best interest of the deer, any more than shooting everything you see is. Both are selfish human-centered ways of looking at deer hunting, putting our wants above the deer-no matter whether your goal is backstraps in the freezer, or horns on the wall. Managing for "quality bucks" is creating an un-natural state of being in the deer, just as much as blasting every deer you see and putting it in the freezer.

The man who takes more off a piece of land than the land will stand, and thinks there will always be deer is hurting the deer and everyone else. So is the man who tries to domesticate deer and manage them for an unnatural balance of mature bucks, and thinks he knows what is best for them.

In the end, if you protect the habitat, don't take more deer than you need, and leave most of the does alone to raise young, there will always be deer. In the end, a young buck or an old, barren doe is the deer that the herd will miss the least. Killing nothing but the finest, prime individuals is contrary to the laws of nature and predation that have worked perfectly for eons.

 

[swamp hunter]

For the most part Hunters for the Hungry is good for folks that just like to kill animals and it's a great excuse.
I shot 12 this season and donated 10..what the heck is that ?? It's a Mental problem is what it is.
If'n they ain't bothering you let them live.

 

[across the river]

The man who thinks he knows better than nature how the deer need to be "managed" is the one who causes the most harm. People who overhunt small tracts do a lot of damage for sure, but so do the falsely "enlightened" folks who do "quality" deer management and decide that they need to kill most of the does off their tract to manage the ratios. Deer managed themselves just fine for hundreds of thousands of years until we came along and about wiped them out. Managing for trophy bucks is not in the best interest of the deer, any more than shooting everything you see is. Both are selfish human-centered ways of looking at deer hunting, putting our wants above the deer-no matter whether your goal is backstraps in the freezer, or horns on the wall. Managing for "quality bucks" is creating an un-natural state of being in the deer, just as much as blasting every deer you see and putting it in the freezer.

The man who takes more off a piece of land than the land will stand, and thinks there will always be deer is hurting the deer and everyone else. So is the man who tries to domesticate deer and manage them for an unnatural balance of mature bucks, and thinks he knows what is best for them.

In the end, if you protect the habitat, don't take more deer than you need, and leave most of the does alone to raise young, there will always be deer. In the end, a young buck or an old, barren doe is the deer that the herd will miss the least. Killing nothing but the finest, prime individuals is contrary to the laws of nature and predation that have worked perfectly for eons.

Here you go again with the horn hunter hate. I wasn't saying shoot all of the does, so please stay on topic. It was said that people who kill deer, don't eat them, and donate them aren't being good stewards of the "state's resources", like people who do eat what deer they kill always are. I was giving an example to prove that was hogwash, but you four point slayers want to get defensive over nothing. I don't care what you shoot. You can pass every doe you want to and shoot every spike on your place, I don't care. In the same light, I don't expect people to tell me what to shoot on my place or what to do with them once I kill them.

 

[Blisterapine]

They should stop huntn - sound like dorks to me.

 

[ProAngler]

horn hunters.....I know lots of people that catch fish but don't eat them too....

I would say fish have a better chance of survival after the experience

 

[Possum]

I think the point is that some folks see someone who kills deer just to be killing them, kills way more than they can use, and uses the donations as an excuse to kill more deer, as being a bit greedy and trigger happy. I have killed deer myself for someone who I knew really needed the meat at the time, but I don't go out killing every deer I can kill, then looking for something to do with the meat because I don't like it to begin with. If I didn't eat deer myself , I wouldn't deer hunt. The meat in the grocery store is from animals raised to be killed, and they were already killed whether or not you buy it for someone. A bit different from going out and killing deer just to be killing them.

And nothing is ever truly wasted in nature. But, we don't have an unlimited number of deer.

Your previous post you said you have never killed a deer you didn’t eat and then immediately afterwords you posted you killed a deer for someone you knew really needed the meat? I guess I’m a little confused why it’s ok for you to do things you criticize others for. And yes, I was going there with the coyote thing because you have jumped on my case and others in the past for killing them. So as long as a species is not native to North America you can go slaughter them for amusement? Oh wait you repurposed their carcasses for garden compost.

 

[swamp hunter]

I think you might be reading too much into his reply.
Feral Cats..I kill them when I can but I don't eat them.
I do save many Native Birds life's for everyone I kill.
Non Native is a Big thing down here in the Glades cause we are slap full of them..
FWC puts Bounty's on lot's of them.
Lot's of fish , No limits, Pythons..kill every one. Tegu and Iguanas..run them over if you can.
I've never shot a Cayote in my life..

 

[ProAngler]

When I have all the deer my family can eat until next deer season starts my deer hunting for the year is over. I would get no enjoyment out of killing something to just watch it die. I still regret all the birds and squirrels I killed as a kid with my BB gun that I didn’t do anything with.

 

[Mako22]

I have killed many living things without eating them and feel no remorse for doing so, dead is dead, eating it does not change the fact that you killed it.

Then its just a waste of an animal. You shoot it then you should eat it or give it to someone who will.