Trophy hunters the true conservationists!

[MJB]

He's just a troll.....

[ja308]

Originally Posted by IVC

It is not possible to have a debate with a person who goes on emotional rants and won't accept scientific facts.

You cannot live without killing. Everything you eat that has nutritional value was alive at one point. You killer, you!

Also, bears, cougars and wolves are murderers and need to be brought to justice. Any idea how many innocent animals they kill all the time? Hunters provide revenge for the murder of Bambi's parents. Then they also eat Bambi, but that's just to piss off people like you.

LMAO !

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by nota33

Wildlife does not need to be managed. That's why we have bears, cougars, and wolves for. That is just another bogus myth that trophy hunters throw around to justify the animals that they kill. It is not possible to have a debate with a person who thinks killing is somehow conserving something.

If human civilization did not exist this might be the case. Again, in the real world, human civilization has taken the place of many top predators that naturally would keep populations in check. Also, I don't know about trophy or anything like that, I don't take trophy personally.

The "true conservationists" probably get wet in the pants watching and observing animals (Deer, Elk etc) afflicted with CWD. Watching them fall over and struggle and die, 100% of the time, must be very amusing for folks like that. One can certainly allow the torture of the animals to continue if they are sick monkeys.

Maybe some of the top chain predators can come eat the tainted meat and then they can watch mountain lions get CWD and end up with the same fate. Sounds like some voyeur sadistic fantasy.

Or the people like me who really do care about the environment can help cull out the sick ones so that the entirety of the populations gain health.

It is clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have never experienced CWD, HD, BTV up close and its effect on deer for example. If you wouldn't cull out these animals yourself then that says a heck of a lot about you as a person.

[ja308]

Looks Marin county could use some predators that feed on turkeys!
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...nias-bay-area/

I would sure pity the unlucky republican who got caught killing one of these birds!
Heaven could only guess at the penalty that would be imposed even though the birds are tearing up lawns, roofs and of course defecting over everything !

Now for the cal gunner who parroted swamp media by wrongly claimed President Trump inherited a great economy.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...aight-quarters
"12 Years Since GDP Grew 3% in 3 Straight Quarters"...

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by ja308

Looks Marin county could use some predators that feed on turkeys!
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...nias-bay-area/

I would sure pity the unlucky republican who got caught killing one of these birds!
Heaven could only guess at the penalty that would be imposed even though the birds are tearing up lawns, roofs and of course defecting over everything !

Now for the cal gunner who parroted swamp media by wrongly claimed President Trump inherited a great economy.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...aight-quarters
"12 Years Since GDP Grew 3% in 3 Straight Quarters"...

Yeah it's hilarious that the liberals in Marin complain when they are on their "walking paths" and a mountain lion eats their children. This is EXACTLY what they want. Why is it news worthy so much of the time?

As for Obama/Trump and the economy don't get me started.

Everyone who has a high school education knows that GDP is a lagging indicator.

Bottom line:

Obama added 11.2 Million jobs (net) in total to the non-farm payroll. This is a middle of the pack of the great job creators in comparison. Both Reagan (16 million) and the king of jobs Clinton (23 million) did better. In comparison, Trump so far has added ~1.4 million in his first 11 months which makes Trump more like Kennedy or Eisenhower, very lack luster so far (3 years left!)

Unemployment rate under Obama: High -- 10.1% . Low -- 4.6%
Unemployment rate under Trump: High -- 4.8% . Low -- 4.1%


As even the most basic third world understanding will tell you, when the economy recovers, the order of recovery is market, jobs, GDP... in that order. It takes the market recovery (put in motion by the Bush bailouts, god bless that man) followed by consistent job growth to expand the GDP by more than a percent or two.

It is most realistic to believe that Bush Jr set the stage with the bailouts for the economy to recover under Obama (which it did) and have a period of accelerated growth under Trump. It is likely a combination of all 3 presidents that get the glory and not just one or the other. You of course knew this because we all knew GDP could grow 3% at the end of a robust recovery, so the current state of affairs is more a situation where the last presidents haven't meddled much with the economy which has been good and Trump has carried the American recovery forward and not screwed it up. Credit to Trump!

[ja308]

Building pipelines (blocked by Obama) and cutting stupid global warming regulations has led to a great economy and President Trump gets all the credit because he has put people in place who understand job creation and cheap energy's role in it .

Im certain your stock portfolio has reflected this. Right Root !

It would seem the folks in Marin just do not have enough predators to keep a healthy balance by having these turkeys running all over the place!

I believe more mountain lions could fix that problem. Now some will talk about mountain lion waste. This could easily be solved by homeowners or even city, county,state providing litter boxes for the big cats!
We all know cats like litter boxes so that potential health hazard would be eliminated by this simple solution!

A side benefit would be the big cats would feel welcome and join the community as pets. As a result of feeling welcome they would only eat the ruinous turkeys, leaving pets and weaker humans alone !

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by ja308

Building pipelines (blocked by Obama) and cutting stupid global warming regulations has led to a great economy and President Trump gets all the credit because he has put people in place who understand job creation and cheap energy's role in it .

Im certain your stock portfolio has reflected this. Right Root !

It would seem the folks in Marin just do not have enough predators to keep a healthy balance by having these turkeys running all over the place!

I believe more mountain lions could fix that problem. Now some will talk about mountain lion waste. This could easily be solved by homeowners or even city, county,state providing litter boxes for the big cats!
We know cats like litter boxes so that potential health hazard would be mitigated by this simple solution!

LOL. We should start a petition: Gun Owners for More Marin Mountain Lions

Imagine the streets of Marin replete with mountain lions eating all the pocket Corgi dogs, swimming in the pools, pissing all over the wine grapes. Sounds like an environmentalists dream.

I do agree with you about cheap energy being part of keeping an economy going. It can't by itself fix fundamental problems, but it can certainly become a catalyst for disaster (The 70s gas crisis).

[ja308]

Originally Posted by rootuser

LOL. We should start a petition: Gun Owners for More Marin Mountain Lions

Imagine the streets of Marin replete with mountain lions eating all the pocket Corgi dogs, swimming in the pools, pissing all over the wine grapes. Sounds like an environmentalists dream.

I do agree with you about cheap energy being part of keeping an economy going. It can't by itself fix fundamental problems, but it can certainly become a catalyst for disaster (The 70s gas crisis).

Thats where the idea of "litter boxes" really takes effect !
The big cats will feel an affinity to a culture that provides in effect public toilets for animals.

As a result the lions will only eat food that humans have designated. In this case wild turkeys!

[Redpenny]

Originally Posted by nota33

The people who shoot wildlife with a camera are the REAL CONSERVATIONISTS. They drop a lot of money to view wildlife with their lens and cameras and not with rifles.

Ever heard of Ducks Unlimited? Their conservation programs can be matched up with anyone's. They replant forests, restore watersheds, work with land owners and state and federal agencies. They acquire land, make conservation easements, and enter into wildlife management agreements for the land they purchase.

Yes, they support duck hunting but for the millions and millions of ducks that are not hunted each year they provide habitat, flyways, and water bodies on migration routes. If that is not conservation then there is no such thing. That is why I support them with dues and donations. How much is that guy with the camera contributing in hard dollars and restoration projects? Hmmm?

Maybe I am partial because I'm a waterfowl hunter, but do not dare say that the the people who make up DU are not in the business species preservation. You run the danger of sounding less educated then you already do. I mean, if that is possible....

[Sutcliffe]

Originally Posted by Redpenny

Ever heard of Ducks Unlimited? Their conservation programs can be matched up with anyone's. They replant forests, restore watersheds, work with land owners and state and federal agencies. They acquire land, make conservation easements, and enter into wildlife management agreements for the land they purchase.

Yes, they support duck hunting but for the millions and millions of ducks that are not hunted each year they provide habitat, flyways, and water bodies on migration routes. If that is not conservation then there is no such thing. That is why I support them with dues and donations. How much is that guy with the camera contributing in hard dollars and restoration projects? Hmmm?

Maybe I am partial because I'm a waterfowl hunter, but do not dare say that the the people who make up DU are not in the business species preservation. You run the dange
r of sounding less educated then you already do. I mean, if that is possible....

Up until a decade ago the amount of wetlands saved or created by duck hunters was far more than any other source. Now the various agencies restore habitat but at enormous expense to the taxpayer.

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by Sutcliffe

Up until a decade ago the amount of wetlands saved or created by duck hunters was far more than any other source. Now the various agencies restore habitat but at enormous expense to the taxpayer.

Which isn't a bad thing. Both hunters and government working together will cost money, but help the environment in the long run and preserve species, allow for humane hunting conditions, slow down poaching, and protect flocks that need protection. This is all a good thing IMHO.

[DisgruntledReaper]

Trophy hunters and poachers are on the same level far as im concerned,only difference is paying for the option of having the animal treed,baited,driven,etc into a zone where the trophy hunter can shoot it with little fear of risk to life and breaking a sweat.

You want a trophy,go hunt the lion buffalo,leopard, impala,etc,with a fkn knife or spear,put your skin in the game. You succeed you get your "trophy" you dont,oh well,you live or you become part of the cycle of life.

Also i dont think "trophy hunters" fully understand the full consequences of what happens when they hunt the the big cats as an example. Go look up the breeding cycle,life cycle , social structure,etc.

Far as im concerned "trophy hunters" and poachers can fall and rot in the areas they ply their trade in .
I donate a decent amount of money to conservation groups in an effort to keep the big cats around as well as the prey species.

Im always amazed at some peoples desire to kill everything to the point of leaving a sterile landscape or at least leave inadequate numbers of predators to keep the prey species under control,then btch about the rodents or number of prey that are out of control,blah blah blah.

[ja308]

Originally Posted by DisgruntledReaper

Trophy hunters and poachers are on the same level far as im concerned,only difference is paying for the option of having the animal treed,baited,driven,etc into a zone where the trophy hunter can shoot it with little fear of risk to life and breaking a sweat.

You want a trophy,go hunt the lion buffalo,leopard, impala,etc,with a fkn knife or spear,put your skin in the game. You succeed you get your "trophy" you dont,oh well,you live or you become part of the cycle of life.

Also i dont think "trophy hunters" fully understand the full consequences of what happens when they hunt the the big cats as an example. Go look up the breeding cycle,life cycle , social structure,etc.

Far as im concerned "trophy hunters" and poachers can fall and rot in the areas they ply their trade in .
I donate a decent amount of money to conservation groups in an effort to keep the big cats around as well as the prey species.

Im always amazed at some peoples desire to kill everything to the point of leaving a sterile landscape or at least leave inadequate numbers of predators to keep the prey species under control,then btch about the rodents or number of prey that are out of control,blah blah blah.

Thank you for the Disney version of hunting and animal behavior.
Just curious if you read the link posted ?
https://townhall.com/notebook/steves...unked-n2412201

[Citadelgrad87]

Originally Posted by DisgruntledReaper

Trophy hunters and poachers are on the same level far as im concerned,only difference is paying for the option of having the animal treed,baited,driven,etc into a zone where the trophy hunter can shoot it with little fear of risk to life and breaking a sweat.

You want a trophy,go hunt the lion buffalo,leopard, impala,etc,with a fkn knife or spear,put your skin in the game. You succeed you get your "trophy" you dont,oh well,you live or you become part of the cycle of life.

Also i dont think "trophy hunters" fully understand the full consequences of what happens when they hunt the the big cats as an example. Go look up the breeding cycle,life cycle , social structure,etc.

Far as im concerned "trophy hunters" and poachers can fall and rot in the areas they ply their trade in .
I donate a decent amount of money to conservation groups in an effort to keep the big cats around as well as the prey species.

Im always amazed at some peoples desire to kill everything to the point of leaving a sterile landscape or at least leave inadequate numbers of predators to keep the prey species under control,then btch about the rodents or number of prey that are out of control,blah blah blah.

Faulty logic for a thousand, Alex.

Why don’t you call for deer hunters to use spears? Why do they get to kill frightened prey animals with a rifle, they should use a rock or something.

Im always amazed at the aggressive ignorance and projection any time someone vents like this.

Trophy hunters are THE ONLY REASON there are ANY rhinos, elephants, and lions in the wild.

Period. There’s nothing barren and sterile. You purposefully confuse hunters with poachers, and do so intentionally. Hunters take specifically chosen examples, poachers take them all.

[TMB 1]

Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87

Faulty logic for a thousand, Alex.

Why don’t you call for deer hunters to use spears? Why do they get to kill frightened prey animals with a rifle, they should use a rock or something.

Im always amazed at the aggressive ignorance and projection any time someone vents like this.

Trophy hunters are THE ONLY REASON there are ANY rhinos, elephants, and lions in the wild.

Period. There’s nothing barren and sterile. You purposefully confuse hunters with poachers, and do so intentionally. Hunters take specifically chosen examples, poachers take them all.

^this^

Hunters pay to take specifically chosen examples, poachers pay nothing and take them all.

[Citadelgrad87]

Originally Posted by TMB 1

^this^

Hunters pay to take specifically chosen examples, poachers pay nothing and take them all.

And his “decent amount” he donates to big cats, combined with all other such donations.....is dwarfed by the REAL money to find wildlife protection and game management costs, thats right, TROPHY HUNTERS.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by DisgruntledReaper

You want a trophy,go hunt the lion buffalo,leopard, impala,etc,with a fkn knife or spear,put your skin in the game.

Wait, you believe in evolution, right?

Well, those animals evolved speed and strength, we evolved brains. We then use our brains against their speed and strength. If you want to remove evolutionary advantage, you also have to tie three of their paws behind their back - we can't use our brains, they can't use their strength.

I would still rather use a rifle for a clean kill than have to bludgeon a lion to death with a coconut while it's trying to escape jumping on one paw...

[IVC]

Originally Posted by DisgruntledReaper

I donate a decent amount of money to conservation groups in an effort to keep the big cats around as well as the prey species.

"Prey species???" How insensitive. Have you considered how those animals you call "pray species" feel about being chased and killed by the cats?

[ja308]

Originally Posted by IVC

"Prey species???" How insensitive. Have you considered how those animals you call "pray species" feel about being chased and killed by the cats?

I have considered how a helpless deer, antelope or other species feels when a large predator viciously chases it down rips out its throat and savagely gulps it down while the animal is still struggling with its little heart still pumping blood.

To think some cal gunners want to protect and even encourage such brutal acts makes want to rethink my cal gunner status as a humanitarian meat eating cal gunner!

Seriously what makes these higher stature cal gunners actually write thats its OK for one animal take another animal from its mothers warmth and nuturing love?
Doesn't every animal have a right to warm itself in the summer sun or reproduce itself according to mans law?

IVC you convinced me ! Thank you Sir for bringing out the obvious some of us missed in our zeal to choose one animal over another !

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by IVC

Wait, you believe in evolution, right?

Well, those animals evolved speed and strength, we evolved brains. We then use our brains against their speed and strength. If you want to remove evolutionary advantage, you also have to tie three of their paws behind their back - we can't use our brains, they can't use their strength.

I would still rather use a rifle for a clean kill than have to bludgeon a lion to death with a coconut while it's trying to escape jumping on one paw...

"Environmentalists" completely fail to grasp one thing: we are at the top of the food chain because nature, through evolution, arranged it. We have our brains and our ability to create and use tools because evolution generated those things in us, and we have spent tens to hundreds of thousands of years developing our skills to the fine point they exist at today. In the end, we did that precisely because it was evolutionarily advantageous, either due to competition with other species, or competition against the environment, or competition against others within our own species.

If the "environmentalists" were truly interested in "letting nature run its course" then they would have no problem with us doing any damned thing we please with respect to the species they care about so much, precisely because we are the product of nature, and in nature, species that cannot adapt to their environment, which includes the presence and actions of other species, die. That is evolution in action, period.

If we refrain from killing a species through considered action, that is artificial selection in action, not natural selection. If we do whatever we damned well please, consistent with our nature, then that, and only that, truly results in natural selection. If other species can't adapt to our presence and actions, well, you can thank nature for not handing them the necessary survival capabilities. It's not our fault those other species can't survive our actions.


Now, there may be good self-preservation arguments for keeping other species alive, but make no mistake: if we choose to keep other species alive for that reason, it is only because it is to our evolutionary advantage. Any other argument for keeping any given species alive, save for "because we want to", is invalid on its face in light of the above.

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by CAL.BAR

Well, you have some points, but HISTORY is against you. Plain old MAN has wiped out countless species without any government interference. (buffalo for example) And by blaming unethical governments (ie. those that are supposed to PROTECT the animals) you are ADMITTING that MAN as a species can't help but wipe out every species he hunts. If not, why do we need governments to protect the animals in the first place.

See, there is no such thing as an"ethical hunter" AS A WHOLE, because no matter how "ethical" YOU think YOU are, someone else isn't. And you KNOW that. Which is why just about any hunter if left to his own devices will kill just about every last member of a species. After all, there MUST be more out there, this CAN't be the LAST one. And... even if it were the last one better YOU kill it than someone ELSE gets to (right?)

THAT is why we have to set VERY strict game limits etc. on ALL hunters. And, of course, in order to SAVE animals, we MUST DEMONETIZE them. For if we allow ANYONE to bring in elephant ivory or heads etc. then bang! There is a market for them. And who pays more for stuff than Americans! (on the whole) Once you let ANY game trophy into the country, you no longer have any reliable way to determine if it were legally hunted or poached. Ban ALL imports, and you take away the market (at least here in the US).

The effort to wipe out buffalo was fueled by a desire to subdue the Indians, so it can be said killing them was in great numbers was a government goal.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...illers/482349/

"Then again, a buffalo is a lumbering, hirsute cow, and the men were outfitted with some of the quickest horses and held the best guns owned by the U.S. Army, which was outfitting the hunting expedition. The Army wasn’t in the business of guiding hunting trips for soft-skinned Wall Streeters, but it was in the business of controlling the Native Americans in the area, and that meant killing buffalo. One colonel, four years earlier, had told a wealthy hunter who felt a shiver of guilt after he shot 30 bulls in one trip: "Kill every buffalo you can! Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone.”

Regarding the balance of your post it is the diatribe of an anti-gunner, not just someone who hates hunters and hunting. You suppose everyone is evil and selfish, that they lack self-control and the ability to moderate. Now that may reflect your character, whether real or as imagined by anti-gunners who would prefer a total prohibition. And it may be true of some hunters. But over my 50 years or so of shooting and hunting (mostly accompanying hunters) it doesn't reflect my experience and I doubt that of others here.

You of course didn't respond to my question regarding gun control, but I'll take a chance at wasting time and asking another - what is your experience hunting and do you suppose that banning imports will have any effect on animal populations? After all, do we suppose these animals aren't killed by locals?

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87

So, if another hunter’s ethics can wipe out my hunting ethics, then there are no ethical businessmen, either, since my ethics are wiped out by others’ lack of ethics.

Logic fail. Epically proportioned.

Also, especially when poaching is THE problem, prohibition is not the answer.

Steaming pile you posted there.

I would suggest his "logic" means there are no good gunowners because there is an abundance of criminals who misuse guns. Gunowners, and that would mean him too, are defined by the lowest denominator. Makes banning things rather easy, doesn't it?

There is a philosophical point to be considered, though I doubt it will ever be resolved. I'll start with the short version of a funny joke that was presented as a true event -

In one part of Paris a fellow was showing off his prized falcon to to a gathered crowd. He'd release it, they'd watch it wing skyward out of sight and in a few minutes come barreling home. A marvelous demonstration of a fine hunting bird and its skilled owner.

On the opposite side of the city assembled another crowd, unaware of the other, watching a fellow with an endangered and decidedly docile bird of flight. And at one point the falconer and the bird enthusiast happened to release their animals at the same time .....

Need I say more? Well -

The falconer's crowd again watched the bird of prey rocketing home. A bit slower, it's legs carried ever so slightly lower. And as it approached was seen some sort of exotic and endangered bird, deposited dead at the feet of the somewhat chagrined falconer.

All of this begs the question - is man part of the animal kingdom or are we above it? If we are part of it then it seems to me there is no stewardship responsibility. Like the fast bird with talons or lion or lowly spider, we have natural given abilities and if it includes eliminating a species, that's merely nature at work. That bird neither knew nor cared that it was killing the last of a kind. Now, if we are above the animal world, then I suppose a certain amount of responsibility is suggested. Until our place is reconciled I suppose such discussions will endure.

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by kygen

Conservationists preserve animal life for the sake of the animal, hunters preserve the general population in order to harvest for their own gain/pleasure. Hunters are not the "true" conservationists.

By way of example, how do conservationists accomplish that and how successful are they?

I don't particularly care about motivation. And the folks who apply their own judgement of who's best or who is "true" - always subjective and usually self-serving. I'll take contributions from those who are likeminded but have a perhaps different approach.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by ja308

Seriously what makes these higher stature cal gunners actually write thats its OK for one animal take another animal from its mothers warmth and nuturing love?
Doesn't every animal have a right to warm itself in the summer sun or reproduce itself according to mans law?

It's quite interesting because it's a result of a denial about how the world works. Very similar to eating meat, but not wanting to know where it comes from, or understanding evolution and natural selection, but not wanting to accept the consequences of it.

I get a kick out of talking to vegans and pointing out the number of animals they kill per pound of grain they eat. Those animals are killed either because they are in the way of the harvesting equipment, or simply because they want to eat those same grains. It's like "trophy hunting" - killing just for the pleasure of the vegans, not using *any* part of the animals they kill.

The reason it's funny with vegans is that they try to ride a high moral horse by making distinction between killing animals and killing plants based on the lack of nervous system in plants. Well, the animals they kill and discard are every bit as mammals as the animals any hunter would kill.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

"Environmentalists" completely fail to grasp one thing: we are at the top of the food chain because nature, through evolution, arranged it.
...
If the "environmentalists" were truly interested in "letting nature run its course" then they would have no problem with us doing any damned thing we please with respect to the species they care about so much, precisely because we are the product of nature, and in nature, species that cannot adapt to their environment, which includes the presence and actions of other species, die. That is evolution in action, period.
...
Now, there may be good self-preservation arguments for keeping other species alive, but make no mistake: if we choose to keep other species alive for that reason, it is only because it is to our evolutionary advantage. Any other argument for keeping any given species alive, save for "because we want to", is invalid on its face in light of the above.

Heh, nothing like good ole' cynicism and telling it the way it is.

(Needless to say, I make the same arguments when talking to people who are clueless, but want to feel good about their role in protecting the environment. It's worth just for the faces and looks it produces.)

[MJB]

Originally Posted by IVC

It's quite interesting because it's a result of a denial about how the world works. Very similar to eating meat, but not wanting to know where it comes from, or understanding evolution and natural selection, but not wanting to accept the consequences of it.

I get a kick out of talking to vegans and pointing out the number of animals they kill per pound of grain they eat. Those animals are killed either because they are in the way of the harvesting equipment, or simply because they want to eat those same grains. It's like "trophy hunting" - killing just for the pleasure of the vegans, not using *any* part of the animals they kill.

The reason it's funny with vegans is that they try to ride a high moral horse by making distinction between killing animals and killing plants based on the lack of nervous system in plants. Well, the animals they kill and discard are every bit as mammals as the animals any hunter would kill.

Well said

[ja308]

Originally Posted by IVC

It's quite interesting because it's a result of a denial about how the world works. Very similar to eating meat, but not wanting to know where it comes from, or understanding evolution and natural selection, but not wanting to accept the consequences of it.

I get a kick out of talking to vegans and pointing out the number of animals they kill per pound of grain they eat. Those animals are killed either because they are in the way of the harvesting equipment, or simply because they want to eat those same grains. It's like "trophy hunting" - killing just for the pleasure of the vegans, not using *any* part of the animals they kill.

The reason it's funny with vegans is that they try to ride a high moral horse by making distinction between killing animals and killing plants based on the lack of nervous system in plants. Well, the animals they kill and discard are every bit as mammals as the animals any hunter would kill.

I think you have provided some clever ad agency another way to sell a product!
Recently at Sams club my GF and I were getting eggs. She grabbed a box that said " Cage free" .

While I didn't say anything my 1st thought was I want those chickens in cages so they get their shots and for sanitary reasons.

The vegan ad could be " All our products are picked by hand so no animals will be harmed during harvest". Naturally it need not be true ! lol

Its my understanding based on actual trophy hunts that trophy hunters make good use of every animal part. Mostly by native population that use these animals for food .

[Win231]

Originally Posted by nimroder

My brain hurts reading your ignorance and drivel crap.

Your brain pain is caused by the notion that someone knows more than you.

[rootuser]

Originally Posted by ja308

I think you have provided some clever ad agency another way to sell a product!
Recently at Sams club my GF and I were getting eggs. She grabbed a box that said " Cage free" .

While I didn't say anything my 1st thought was I want those chickens in cages so they get their shots and for sanitary reasons.

The vegan ad could be " All our products are picked by hand so no animals will be harmed during harvest". Naturally it need not be true ! lol

Its my understanding based on actual trophy hunts that trophy hunters make good use of every animal part. Mostly by native population that use these animals for food .

Can't speak to trophy hunters but normal hunters like myself never, ever, waste any part of the animal. That is completely unacceptable behavior.

Until quite recently I had a dashmat made of pig-hide. Lasted a good long time and didn't fall apart like those cheap ones.

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by ja308

I think you have provided some clever ad agency another way to sell a product! Recently at Sams club my GF and I were getting eggs. She grabbed a box that said " Cage free" .

When the Prop 2 Cage Free folks were canvassing SF for signatures one of the gatherers approached me, started explaining. "So you don't have a problem with eating animals?" I asked and was assured "no, not at all ...." The only interest was allowing chickens to roam free and live in the great outdoors. But she was aghast and turned a even whiter shade of pale (if that was possible) when I told her "that's great, I eat free range too - right after I shoot and butcher it".

These folks are by and large duplicitous, self serving busybodies with a touch of hypocrisy for seasoning.

[nimroder]

Originally Posted by Win231

Your brain pain is caused by the notion that someone knows more than you.

I see you have set aside your special time to share a moment with us all. Your point is taken. I shall forever cherish your misconception and I am a better human being after being enlightened by your unique point of view. So....Thank You. I hope the rest of your Holiday season is as pleasant as you are.

[moonshade0227]

I don't agree killing for fun. I believe nature has it's own balance and humans should only hunt limited amount that is insignificant to the wild population. However trophy hunting is a practical solution to stop poaching.It is a known sustainable model. Otherwise, government cannot fund rangers to stop greedy poachers. That said, it depends on reliable management. I am not sure these african governments are capable of managing such complicated business in the long run.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by moonshade0227

I don't agree killing for fun.

Both cats and dogs do it. What do we do with them?

[chris]

Originally Posted by ja308

Thank you for the Disney version of hunting and animal behavior.
Just curious if you read the link posted ?
https://townhall.com/notebook/steves...unked-n2412201

I read it. good information. Thanks for the article. I hunt and understand the benefits of it.

[chris]

Originally Posted by dfletcher

When the Prop 2 Cage Free folks were canvassing SF for signatures one of the gatherers approached me, started explaining. "So you don't have a problem with eating animals?" I asked and was assured "no, not at all ...." The only interest was allowing chickens to roam free and live in the great outdoors. But she was aghast and turned a even whiter shade of pale (if that was possible) when I told her "that's great, I eat free range too - right after I shoot and butcher it".





These folks are by and large duplicitous, self serving busybodies with a touch of hypocrisy for seasoning.

hahahahahahahaah

[Citadelgrad87]

Originally Posted by Win231

Your brain pain is caused by the notion that someone knows more than you.

That maybe why your head hurts, but it is not applicable here.