natureman
Senior Member
Stopped hunting when I picked up a camera. Just seemed right for me. Certainly do not begrudge anyone that hunts.
I'm not talking only about you, but about what I've experienced to be fairly common among the "respect and reverence" crowd. You may be an exception. Surely you have heard the fair chase arguments about why baiting deer should be illegal, why crossbows should be illegal in archery season, and/or why inline muzzle loaders should be illegal during firearms season. In Colorado, anglers offer the same "fair chase" arguments about why live bait should be illegal for trout.
I am not part of any crowd that I know of. I don't personally bait deer, hunt with a crossbow, or inline muzzleloader, but I certainly don't have anything at all against those who do. I have shot deer over bait in the past, might again somtime. Just generally not my cup of tea. I can see some situations where it would be the only effective way. I enjoy hunting deer with homemade primitive bows, cane arrows, hand-knapped flint points. I enjoy hunting deer with flintlock and traditional percussion muzzleloaders. I also enjoy hunting deer with modern rifles, including AR-15s. I still have respect for deer.
Thus some local governments are paying $500 a head for marksmen to remove deer in overpopulated areas when market trappers could and would do it for free. Yes, widespread market hunting is often unsound policy. But there are situations where it would be the wiser approach. We still allow market hunting for many furbearing animals. But whether it is a good approach depends on the strength of the local population and the effectiveness of the available management options.
In a strictly controlled and definite situation like that where deer are culled for population control outside of normal hunting, I don't have a problem with selling the meat. Just seems like when money gets involved with anything, it corrupts it. How many areas would be declared "overpopulated" if money were involved?
I should blend right in then! Some of mine is Walmart, some Realtree and some Mossy Oak.Mismatched camo works great.... probably best
We match, then. If you add in some old surplus woodland.I should blend right in then! Some of mine is Walmart, some Realtree and some Mossy Oak.
We match, then. If you add in some old surplus woodland.
I wore holes in all of mine and ended up with this other pile of hunting clothes that I found on clearance and in thrift stores. It don't matter none to the deer I bring home every year, they never saw me. It cracks me up going in Cabalas seeing pairs of pants in some new camo pattern going for $160 a pair. The shirt I'm wearing in my profile picture is at least 15 years old and it still gets worn. I don't hate on folks that spend that kind of money on their gear but it's not necessary. Sit still and hunt the wind and you could kill deer in your birthday suit if you wanted. Not that I recommend it!We match, then. If you add in some old surplus woodland.
I've been hunting this week in a pair of old Realtree Advantage camo fatigues I bought at a surplus store about 25 years ago for $15, and a Mossy Oak long-sleeved tshirt I bought at Walmart about 15 years ago for $9.99. I've had two bears and a doe from 20 yards to 15 feet of me, hunting on the ground, and they didn't see me. Or my blaze orange hat. (NC doesn't make you dress up in a punkin suit.)I wore holes in all of mine and ended up with this other pile of hunting clothes that I found on clearance and in thrift stores. It don't matter none to the deer I bring home every year, they never saw me. It cracks me up going in Cabalas seeing pairs of pants in some new camo pattern going for $160 a pair. The shirt I'm wearing in my profile picture is at least 15 years old and it still gets worn. I don't hate on folks that spend that kind of money on their gear but it's not necessary. Sit still and hunt the wind and you could kill deer in your birthday suit if you wanted. Not that I recommend it!
I agree. That article, because it was posted here, has been read more than any of his other leftist leaning writings combined. He is a college English professor that probably never really hunted.That article was all about the author trying to paint himself as a superior "deep thinker". Just another morally superior "elitist" trying to capture the moral high ground for his ego. The only people that would buy in to his attitude are other elitists, liberals or antis looking for afirmation of their self proclaimed superiority.
I can't imagine being so insecure in the way I live and my pursuits that I would abandon them just because other folks I don't even know are following some trend. Think about it. What possible affect can it have on you if somebody else has a sticker in their window or a lifted truck? What a joke.
He hunted, but he didn't inhale.I agree. That article, because it was posted here, has been read more than any of his other leftist leaning writings combined. He is a college English professor that probably never really hunted.
You keep on with that line of thinking and you won’t have any wildlife to worry about in a couple generations.I'll take you at your word that you have a fairly libertarian mindset when it comes to wildlife regulations. My perspective is closer to absolute libertarian. Since the wildlife belongs to the people, the burden rests on the government to show the scientific necessity of each wildlife rule and regulation for maintaining sustainable populations. "Tradition", "fair chase", and unproven concerns of "what might happen" should be insufficient for restricting the liberties of citizens in harvesting and otherwise enjoying the wildlife that belongs to them.
The US has drifted in the direction of Colonial England when it comes to wildlife management. The notion is that the government "owns" the wildlife and harvest is a privilege. Those wanting to harvest have the burden of proof that their approach is sustainable in order to be granted the privilege. That is an authoritarian and backwards approach and should be opposed by folks with libertarian values.
Well said.I don't think having a respect for life has anything at all to do with "elitism." It just shows that you are a person with some empathy and compassion. And, you realize the hard truth that you are alive because you take the life of something that wants to be alive just as much as you or I. I also don't subscribe to the "dominion over the animals" concept. I think we are a part of the overall picture, no more important than any other part to anyone except ourselves.
And, yes, I do have mere respect for a wild deer that belongs here than a domestic chicken or some invasive exotic species that is destoying our environment. I have killed a lot of all three. Killing a deer brings out very different emotions in me than axing a chicken or killing a carp. Whether or not that's good or bad, that's just how it is. Respect for life extends to domestic animals, though. If you've ever spent a year raising a hog or steer, feeding it and tending to it every day, that moment when you're standing there with the .22 and a bead between its eyes isn't easy; even though you know that's the way it works and that you and your family rely on this meat.
I will not apologize to anyone for respecting the life of animals and honoring their death at my hands with some respect. If that makes me some kind of "elitist" in your eyes, so be it. But nothing makes me more nauseous than watching one of those hunting shows where the feller shoots a deer and starts hollering "I smoked him!" at the top of his lungs, dances a jig, and then goes over there to where it's laying and hollers some antler number and keeps carrying on and doesn't even notice or give a flying durn about the dead deer under the antlers. I'm just wired up differently than you, I guess.