Skip to main content

View Diary: How Wildlife Is Thriving Because Of Guns and Hunting (245 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can't tell if you're agreeing or not... (4+ / 0-)

    Are you arguing over my terminology? Or disagreeing with my statement?  Because it seems we're saying largely the same thing.

    I've had deer sausage and venison steaks.  I've eaten trout 15 minutes after it was caught in a mountain lake.

    I've also read about the Dallas Safari group that raffled off the chance to go to Africa and shoot an endangered black rhino.

    I've seen and read about the poaching that goes on in western North America; driven by trophy hunting, not by survival needs.

    Maybe it's an honest disagreement.  I wouldn't define  shooting an animal from a couple of hundred yards away using a telescopic sight and high-velocity ammunition as "being immersed" in nature.  Obviously, many people would disagree with me.

    •  What would you call a subsistence hunter who (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, Kasoru

      through war and upheaval immigrates to the US and was discussing having shot an antelope with telescopic sites at 200 yards. I was talking to a grandfather like that just last night. All the standard hunting rifles are high velocity.

      I think you misunderstand hunting. It's something you need to experience and I'm certainly not suggesting you do, but it's hard to explain otherwise.

      Do you know that major conservation groups supported that raffle? Do you know why? I could never afford to hunt in Africa, so it's easy for me to say I don't want to, but I do understand why it's good for conservation.

      Not sure what you've read about poaching in the west but I know it's rare and universally frowned upon. Hunters turn in poachers.

      “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

      by ban nock on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:27:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, I'm okay with responsible hunting... (0+ / 0-)

        I was reacting to your comment about being "immersed" in nature.  I freely admit that the idea of marveling over the beauty and majesty of an animal moments before shooting it from 200 yards away is foreign to me.  I'm not sure I can explain it, except to say that using a precision rifle and high powered optics and special ammo to kill from a great distance would seem (to me) to remove you from nature.  What's next, personal drones?

        To answer your main question:  I wouldn't deny anyone the right to hunt if it was for subsistence.  If I didn't make it clear in my earlier posts, I think that's my major criteria for defining "responsible" - that the hunting is primarily for food.  I have no respect for trophy hunting.

    •  I've heard that 50% of the kill in Washington is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, ridemybike

      taken by 2% of the 'hunters', they tend to be out of season and outside other regulations so are tagged 'poachers'

      I was once invited to be a game warden by some wardens, the faction of wardens that don't want to carry guns on the job, I turned them down, I don't think I have the temperament to deal with some of these people

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Law (30)
  • Environment (30)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Science (25)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Economy (21)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site