Hunting ban

[christelsabine 1]

Each and very word of that post is fully correct in my eyes.
Nothing missed, nothing to add (even discussions between hunters and non-hunters will never end).
I would say exactly the same in my own language.

You explained it perfect. Every non-hunter should be able to understand. That's one good report to read.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Stumpy 256]

incidentally - the hammers are west ham - tottenham hotspurs are "spurs"

....i think

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[christelsabine 1]

OK. In which league may I find them now?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Zep 0]

Quote

incidentally - the hammers are west ham - tottenham hotspurs are "spurs"

....i think

I wondered when someone was going to pick me up on that one.

Gone fishing

[Stumpy 256]

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/fo/

See the tables on the right hand side!!!

your wish is my command!!
(btw i hate football!)

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[AMax 0]

The discussion is heating up I cannot sit here any longer because of work. To summarize my points again:
I do believe that people hunt because it is fun. Not trying to suggest that the vast majority of hunters do got give a damn about the environment, but I do not think that the hunters are driven by the will to keep the mother nature in balance. Repeat, it is FUN what drives most hunters. Not the good will to save the Nature or starvation. Been there seen it. Now, lets see that we gonna get with new poll

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

The discussion is heating up I cannot sit here any longer because of work. To summarize my points again:
I do believe that people hunt because it is fun. Not trying to suggest that the vast majority of hunters do got give a damn about the environment, but I do not think that the hunters are driven by the will to keep the mother nature in balance. Repeat, it is FUN what drives most hunters. Not the good will to save the Nature or starvation. Been there seen it. Now, lets see that we gonna get with new poll

Oh man, you are a nail to my coffin. For myself, finally I have to admit: Hunting is fun! But, guy, it's not what you want to imply: Frustrated office folks with pale faces enjoying to kill poor little bambi at the WE to forget what an a***hole the boss is!

It is the total: What Steve1 said, is fully correct. Additionally, there is a social side. Same with skydivers, BTW. Sitting together, the joint is doing its circle.... No. Of course not. Hunters - after hunting day is over - sit together to kill the dinner, joint is doing.... No sorry. Wrong text. Hunters are much older. They take a Whiskey.

In fact, it's that being together, beeing interested in what is far away from boring day life. And something else: I never was feeling disappointed only to have seen a pretty bird, a young fox hunting mice in the morning, flies around me, but: Not shooting one cartridge one time. The deer won. It's just that wonderful feeling beeing outside all night long, watching, listening to nature. Oh well, exactly that. Spending one complete WE in a little wooden house 5 m above the ground, not that comfortable, I tell you! But: It's simple pleasure. Leaving after 2 days, all sweet bambis still are alive as I was a lousy hunter, didn't have a good chance to pull the trigger... same moment I open my eyes and look outside, bambi and mother slowly are moving away into the forrest. It's daylight, I will no more shoot!

That's just a small impression about the other side of hunting. The side I love the most. If it's in Germany, France, Poland or Africa. Result is the same. I'm afraid, non-hunters will not understand. I don't mind that

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[steve1 5]

Quote

The discussion is heating up I cannot sit here any longer because of work. To summarize my points again:
I do believe that people hunt because it is fun. Not trying to suggest that the vast majority of hunters do got give a damn about the environment, but I do not think that the hunters are driven by the will to keep the mother nature in balance. Repeat, it is FUN what drives most hunters. Not the good will to save the Nature or starvation. Been there seen it. Now, lets see that we gonna get with new poll

I won't disagree with you here. Hunting is great fun. A few years ago my family and I drove to Alaska on a do-it yourself hunt. I harvested a nice caribou bull above the Artic Circle with my bow. My wife and kids even helped me follow up on the blood trail to where it went down. We packed it back to camp and canned all the meat into jars for the trip home. We saw grizzly, Dall sheep, moose, and plenty of other neat critters. The North side of the Brooks Range is an awesome sight. That hunt was one of the high points of my life and I'm not a bit ashamed to say it was fun. One of the best parts was that my family was there to share it with me.

I do disagree when you say that hunters are not driven by the will to keep Mother Nature in balance. I don't think anyone is more concerned about Nature than a hunter is. If nature and wildlife are destroyed, that means no more hunting. As I mentioned earlier, millions (if not billions) of dollars are collected each year through hunting licenses and even gun sales. This money goes to finance wildlife refuges, Game departments, and proper wildlife management. The reason we have animals to hunt today is because hunters care. If you wanted to do something to promote wildlife, you could buy a hunting license.....Steve1

[billvon 2,434]

>I do disagree when you say that hunters are not driven by the
>will to keep Mother Nature in balance.

I believe that most hunters would like to keep nature in balance. But staying in a static balance is not what nature is all about. The ecosphere has been working on its own for billions of years before we got here - and it will work with or without us. On balance, we do a lot more screwing with nature than we do 'balancing' it.

For an example, check out any predator-prey cycle in a small ecosystem, one where there aren't a lot of external factors. There are a few islands with ecosystems like this.

Now, let's say you arrived on this island and tried to see if things were in balance. For the first year. everything seemed fine. There were lots of rabbits and lynxes, and both seemed healthy. By your best estimates, there were about 250 rabbits and lynxes. But then after a few years, things began to go awry. The lynxes exploded, and the rabbits seemed to be going extinct. The only answer is to kill almost all the lynxes, before they kill off all the rabbits!

But let's say you couldn't do that. No poison, or no guns, or no ammo. After a while you'd notice the lynxes dying off by the hundreds, from starvation and disease. And after a few years, lo and behold. the rabbits come back.

Now the rabbits are the problem. They're eating everything in sight! There won't be a plant left on the island if this continues! And all the lynxes are dead! Again, the only reasonable answer is to kill as many rabbits as possible to keep this calamity from occurring.

But once again, you have no ammo. And after a few years, the lynxes start coming back. They gorge themselves on the rabbits, and soon their numbers drop - and things are like they were when you first got to the island. Two disasters, yet in the end, the cycle continues exactly as it always has, without any intervention from us.

I have no doubt that most hunters want to help out the ecosystem, which is great. But almost every time we screw with nature, we make things worse, not better. What we assume are ecological disasters are often just how the ecosystem works - and it works best when we leave it the hell alone.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with hunting. We were part of the ecosystem too, and provided we don't mess with things too much (i.e. don't take too much, don't damage the environment we hunt in) hunting doesn't do much damage. But the idea that the hunter is 'balancing the ecosystem' is more a way to sell hunting to people than reality. "No, really, we're SAVING the deer, not killing them!"

[Kennedy 0]

BIll, I understand where you're coming from, but you're basing all that on hunters entering a functioning ecosystem.

Well, there aren't exactly a whole lot of deer predators left in New Jersey. Zero is porbably a pretty good estimate, unless you count cars.

Therefore human intervention is the only means left to reduce the nubmer of deer, unless you want to wait for starvation and wasting diseases to kick in.
(this won't happen in many areas because farmers replant their fields every year, and they're not planting for the whitetails)

edit to add
Of course there is a measure of self interest involved in hunts. Deer-car collisions, ruined crops, et alia for deer, and protecting herds of commercial and game animal populations (revenue) by bagging wolves, and so on.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[AMax 0]

Quote

But the idea that the hunter is 'balancing the ecosystem' is more a way to sell hunting to people than reality. "No, really, we're SAVING the deer, not killing them!"

Amen

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

But almost every time we screw with nature, we make things worse, not better.

The only times I can think of this seems true is when polluting manufacturers or land developers are allowed to practice their business unchecked, or when forests are mistakenly thinned to prevent fire. Got any other examples?

Referring to your well told story, what is the harm in "man"-ually keeping the number of lynx and rabbits in balance? Is nature's disease and starvation method better? What's specifically wrong with managing wildlife populations through hunting?

. . =(_8^(1)

[ahegeman 0]

If you ever chased a wounded animal for hours you know what I am talking about. Yes, there are "clean" shots, but there are "not so clean" shuts too. While hunting with my dad (who I must say is pretty good at it) we lost a number of wounded animals including wolves and foxes. Tell me they suffer less than a slaughtered cow

I started this argument because I truly believe that "control of animal populations" is a plain BS that hunters use to justify their hobby. If you have some evidence against this statement – please post it.

[steve1 5]

Bill,
In some cases you are correct. Man messing with nature sometimes does make it worse. I've looked at cycles with rabbits and predators before and this does result in a wild oscillating cycle. For a while there are a lot of rabbits, then the predators increase greatly. Then there aren't many rabbits and a lot of predators. Then the predators die out, and on and on.

This up and down cycle can also be present with big game herds. Usually it isn't nearly as extreme though if proper game management is allowed. All game management is doing is allowing hunters to harvest some of the surplus. None of us are going out there trying to save the world by killing off the surplus of animals. Game management isn't perfect, but it works quite well.

Leaving everything the hell alone is not the answer. They tried that prior to the 1900's. Without proper wildlife management and game laws, entire species were nearly slaughtered off. At present our game laws are enforced by game wardens paid for with Sportsman's dollars. Can you imagine how much poaching would go on if hunting were not allowed.

Don't you think Wildlife Refuges are a good deal for Migratory water foul and other critters. Without them the number of duck and geese would be considerably less. Again these refuges are being paid for almost entirely with sportsman's dollars.

I think the real enemy of wildlife is not hunters. The real enemy is the loss of their habitat. Every year our population is increasing at a tremendous rate. Cities, suburbs, and highways are eating up land and wetlands where birds, fish, and game animals once lived. So, no matter what plan we come up with, the future doesn't look real bright for wildlife in my opinion ....Steve1

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Now, let's say you arrived on this island and tried to see if things were in balance. For the first year. everything seemed fine. There were lots of rabbits and lynxes, and both seemed healthy. By your best estimates, there were about 250 rabbits and lynxes. But then after a few years, things began to go awry. The lynxes exploded, and the rabbits seemed to be going extinct. The only answer is to kill almost all the lynxes, before they kill off all the rabbits!

But let's say you couldn't do that. No poison, or no guns, or no ammo. After a while you'd notice the lynxes dying off by the hundreds, from starvation and disease. And after a few years, lo and behold. the rabbits come back.

Now the rabbits are the problem. They're eating everything in sight! There won't be a plant left on the island if this continues! And all the lynxes are dead! Again, the only reasonable answer is to kill as many rabbits as possible to keep this calamity from occurring.

But once again, you have no ammo. And after a few years, the lynxes start coming back. They gorge themselves on the rabbits, and soon their numbers drop - and things are like they were when you first got to the island. Two disasters, yet in the end, the cycle continues exactly as it always has, without any intervention from us.

An honest question - in your scenario what impact do the rotting carcuses have on the environment?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Just to remind you all... while there's nothing wrong with discussing hunting in general, the recent ban in the UK is in relation to a very specific way of hunting and as such entertains arguments quite distinct from some of those dealing with hunting in general.

Previous legislation sought to prevent the hounds on a fox hunt from ripping the fox limb from limb at the end of the hunt. Instead the huntsmen were required to hold the dogs off and shoot the fox. That was all well and good and removed the pro-banner's most forceful arguments… and their most forceful footage. The huntsmen would have been fools not to stick with the rule, right?

Well they couldn’t do it. One of the major facts which precipitated this current ban (together with general pressure from tree huggers of course) was the fact that some hunts were shown to be failing to keep to the compromise reached. They were still, for whatever reason, allowing the hounds to rip the crap out of the captured quarry. I have little sympathy with this action. Not only is it unnecessarily barbaric, it's downright stupid. Why play into the tree huggers hands like that?

In summary, the govt. said: "hunting foxes with hounds is fine, so long as you don't let the dogs rip the fox into pieces at the end. If you flout this rule we'll stop you hunting altogether. Oh, you're flouting the rule... fine if you can't stick to the rules you loose your sport - don't say we didn't warn you".

Whilst I am far from being anti-hunt, I personally find it relatively difficult to argue with that stance.

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

But almost every time we screw with nature, we make things worse, not better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The only times I can think of this seems true is when polluting manufacturers or land developers are allowed to practice their business unchecked, or when forests are mistakenly thinned to prevent fire. Got any other examples?

How about introduction of alien species into an ecosystem? (slightly off topic, sorry)

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[steve1 5]

I don't think there is much evidence to support the argument that game management is an evil thing. I think if one were to really research this topic you would find one success story after another.

Here in Eastern Montana you can see a drastic change for the better. About 80 years ago deer and antelope were nearly extinct here. Homesteaders had been poaching them off. I've talked to old timers who grew up here, who said they didn't have a clue what a deer looked like, when they were young, because they had never seen one.

If you go to Eastern Montana today there are litterally thousands of deer and antelope. This is proper game management in action (paid for by Sportsman's dollars).

About 30 years ago there were very few turkeys in Eastern Montana. Now there are few places (where the proper habitat exists) that does not have turkeys. The Fish & Game planted them all over the state, and their numbers are doing quite well.

Some places that held no Mountain Sheep, or elk now have huntable populations in those areas. Again this was due to transplanting efforts by the Fish & Game. (This agency is funding almost entirely through money from license sales to Sportsmen.)

At one time wolves were extinct in Montana. Thirty years ago their were absolutely none. Now there are hundreds if not thousands. Again they were transplanted. Some of this was financed and controlled by the Feds. I don't know if this is really a success story or not. They are now beginning to cause all sorts of problems, and still no legal hunting of them is allowed. Wolves don't always stay where they are supposed to and often develop a taste for sheep, beef, and family pets.....Steve1

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

How about introduction of alien species into an ecosystem? (slightly off topic, sorry)

That's a good one.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Ripple 0]

Quote

population control is a crock, guns work much better.

Whilst I wouldn't dispute the efficency of using guns to cull animals of any description, fox hunting using horse and hound has been somewhat effective.

I readily agree that this claim can be disputed by many sources. However, I cannot believe that farmers would request a hunt if they didn't believe it would be effective.

http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evidence2/4exmoorhunts.htm
[/url]
http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evidence/welshfarmersfox.htm

About 300,000 foxes are killed each year, roughly the equivalent of the number of cubs born each year. Of these 300k, roughly 20,000 are killed by hunts. Perhaps not as many as fox hunts would like people to think, but not an insignificant number?

Although I don't object to hunting per se, I do object to certain hunt's methods at times. I can't agree with cub-hunting, nor can I agree with the practice of 'bagging' a fox.

At the end of the day, as I said before, I didn't much enjoy sitting around waiting for something to happen. Oh, and barbed wire.... geez!

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[Zep 0]

I think it's time to see the lighter side of a heavy subject

Here's a picture of my son learning the correct way to throttle a cat
Note, he has the beast in such a manner that he's not in any danger

Not recomended for any other species other than Feline Domesticus


Edit, whoops I forgott the foto

Gone fishing

[AMax 0]

You forgot to attach the pic

[Zep 0]

Silly me

Gone fishing

[billvon 2,434]

>The only times I can think of this seems true is when polluting
>manufacturers or land developers are allowed to practice their
> business unchecked, or when forests are mistakenly thinned to
> prevent fire. Got any other examples?

-Killing all the wolves in Yellowstone to protect ranchers. It almost destroyed the park; it certainly changed the ecosystem immensely. They are now being reintroduced.

-Stopping the horrible forest fires. Now we realize that if you do that you get a massive catastrophic fire instead of periodic smaller ones.

-Introducing rabbits to Australia so hunters could hunt them. Turned vast parts of Australia into a desert. Imagine, a fluffy little critter causing all those problems.

>Referring to your well told story, what is the harm in "man"-ually
>keeping the number of lynx and rabbits in balance?

You can't. You can't possibly manage hunting licenses finely enough to replicate what nature does. We just don't understand the ecosystems well enough. Now, if your goal is to hunt, set the limit to a small fraction of the total population, and you probably won't affect the cycle unduly.

>Is nature's disease and starvation method better?

You may not consider them better, but they have been working for around 500 million years. With all that experience, nature may know things we don't.

[billvon 2,434]

>in your scenario what impact do the rotting carcuses have on the environment?

Food for scavenger animals. Return of nutrients to the soil. Balance of insects and bacteria in the ecosystem as a whole; there are some insects/pathogens that live only on carrion. American Indians would put fish guts under the soil when they were planting corn to enrich the soil.