BoatBanter.com - Sportsmen involved in humane harvest

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Sportsmen involved in humane harvest (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/112678-sportsmen-involved-humane-harvest.html)

Sportsmen involved in humane harvest

Harry wrote:
Jim wrote:

Seems like they are managing population just right. 0 population
growth. It's just like a liberal to find problems with everything
and then try to fix it.

What's funny is that a piece of **** like you sounds smarter when you
try to spoof the IDs of other posters here. When you post as flajim, you
come across as the idiot you are. I suppose it tasks you greatly to try
to come across as smarter than you are, but even when you try, you don't
seem very bright.

Do you think your remark sounds smart. I think you are just an angry
frustrated old man.

--

I get so upset by these spoofers, that I think I am going to make more
crossposts between rec.boats and numerous unrelated newsgroups, because
at least that is not detrimental to rec.boats. This group needs some
new blood, and that is always a good way to get some new posters who
enjoy boating as much as i do.

Sportsmen involved in humane harvest

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:05:03 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Dec 31, 10:11Â*am, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:30:58 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:31Â*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:22:17 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit
to shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day. Just
turn on the flood light and blast away. They are 180 pound rats up
there, evidently.

Same here in New Jersey. Â*Deer are like vermin. Â*I would argue
hunting is not an effective way to limit populations. Â*Each year,
here in NJ, hunters take @ 60,000 deer. Â*Yet, the population has
remained stable. Bad winters, or limited mast crop seem to have more
effect on the size of the herd than hunting.

Not an effective means, huh? Â*Ask yourself what the population would
be like without the hunters taking 60k of them out every year?

To help you out, the herd would be... larger. Â*And more destructive.
Because food supplies would be strained, they'd be weak and sickly.
More auto accidents and encroachment on farm and residential lands.

That's my point. Â*Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. Â*In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. Â*The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. Â*If it
weren't for hunting, I will agree the herd would become weak, sickly,
and prone to collapse, but as for controlling numbers, it ain't
working.

Well, let's recap... You agree that if they weren't hunted, the herd
size would increase, leading to a weak sickly herd becuase of lack of
food, etc. Sounds like you agree that the hunt is *indeed* controlling
herd size. Now if you want the hunt to *decrease* the herd size below
present levels, that would take a longer, more open season to allow more
deer to be taken, but there opponents to that as well, even from within
the hunters themselves.

Guy, if a hunter gets all his permits, fall bow, winter bow,
muzzleloader, shotgun, etc., he has 116 days of hunting allowed. With
multiple kills allowed per permit, I don't see how it could get more
"liberal". For the past ten years, or so, New Jersey has been trying to
reduce it's deer population through hunting. It isn't working.

Look, game are managed to provide a stable recreational resource, and at
that they do well. However, in this state, we have an explosion. Deer
are like vermin. Every wooded area has a distinct browse line, forget
about landscaping. Dead deer are a common site along the roadway.
Hunting just isn't enough to control this population.

Thinning the herd manages its size and keeps it healthier while
helping to limit its effects on man. Â*That's why its called "game
management".

And exactly what is it being managed for? Â*It's estimated that hunters
put @ $100 million into the economy each year. Â*I would say that is
what the herd is managed for, not to control numbers. Â*Look, I don't
have a problem with hunting. Â*It's a great outdoor, recreational
activity, but as numbers control, I think it's myth. Â*As you kill deer,
birth rates and survival rates increase. Â*It's the carrying capacity of
the land, the food sources, the mast crop, the winter weather, that
control the numbers, not hunting, IMO.

OK, so the deer are a natural resource that is being managed and is
bringing 100M in to the state budget a year. What's the downside? You
could stop the hunting to allow them to overrun residential and farm
lands, allowing them to die from starvation and disease as their numbers
increase, while costing 10's of millions in crop and property damage.
Hunting is certainly more ethical, humane, and fiscally responsible than
that.

Look, hunting *does* control herd size. It's just being done with a
different focus in mind than you think it should be, or than you beleive
is being presented as its purpose. But in the end, hunting controls
numbers. The exact amount is managed by the hunting season length and
rules.

Sportsmen involved in humane harvest

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:25:04 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:36:58 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

On Dec 30, 12:36*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:00:16 -0500, Tom Francis

wrote:

Well, on this we can agree. *It's an atrocity.

If I was a PETA person I would point out, nobody cares if you round up
a dozen cows in that pen and kill them.
If you do eat meat you have to say "so what"?
At least they died fairly quickly in archery hunting terms and none
crawled off and died a slow death without being recovered.
What would the PETA folks say if it was a pack of wolves that had the
elk trapped in there?

You know, canned hunts are wrong, but I'm kind of with you on this
one. After all: "The hunting season was created to keep elk out of
the residential and farm areas in eastern Skagit County." Well, they
were most definitely in a farm area, the state wildlife commission
felt they needed a hunt to bring the population down, and it
accomplished exactly what they wanted. Unfortunately it was visible
to some cappuccino drinkers passing by, who want their steak medium-
rare on their plate but don't want to think about how it got there.

As long as the elk were dressed and eaten, in the end it wasn't ideal
but it was effective. If there are herds of elk that will stand
around and let themselves be surrounded and fired upon by men out in a
field, they definitely have an elk problem. They need to open the
season back up.

The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit to
shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day.
Just turn on the flood light and blast away.
They are 180 pound rats up there, evidently.

Technically, you can shoot a deer in your backyard from your elevated
deck if you are using a bow in Montgomery County, MD. Just make sure you
have the proper hunting license.

Don't suppose you'd consider renting your back deck and a bow some
evening, would you?
--
John H

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money." --Margaret Thatcher

Sportsmen involved in humane harvest

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:04:02 -0500, gfretwell wrote:

The reality with deer, raccoons, rabbits and the other "prey" species is
they do better around people than they do in the wilderness. There are
fewer predators. Maybe we should introduce Panthers (mountain lions) and
Black Bears into suburban areas to hold down the deer population ... and
make it illegal to harm them. That is what they are doing in South
Florida.

I think it's being done without our help. There have been denials by the
Dept. of Fish & Game, but I'm convinced cougars are returning to New
Jersey. I know two reputable friends that have stated they have seen a
cougar. One siting was with cubs. Now, perhaps it was an escape, but
there are cougars here.

Sportsmen involved in humane harvest

On Dec 31, 1:03*pm, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:05:03 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Dec 31, 10:11*am, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:30:58 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Dec 31, 6:31*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:22:17 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The last time I was in Chuck county Md a farmer could get a permit
to shoot any deer they saw on their property, night or day. Just
turn on the flood light and blast away. They are 180 pound rats up
there, evidently.

Same here in New Jersey. *Deer are like vermin. *I would argue
hunting is not an effective way to limit populations. *Each year,
here in NJ, hunters take @ 60,000 deer. *Yet, the population has
remained stable. Bad winters, or limited mast crop seem to have more
effect on the size of the herd than hunting.

Not an effective means, huh? *Ask yourself what the population would
be like without the hunters taking 60k of them out every year?

To help you out, the herd would be... larger. *And more destructive.
Because food supplies would be strained, they'd be weak and sickly.
More auto accidents and encroachment on farm and residential lands.

That's my point. *Here in NJ, food supplies are already strained. *In
most places, the land is already at carrying capacity. *The herd is
estimated to be 200,000, of which 60,000 are taken yearly. *If it
weren't for hunting, I will agree the herd would become weak, sickly,
and prone to collapse, but as for controlling numbers, it ain't
working.

Well, let's recap... You *agree that if they weren't hunted, the herd
size would increase, leading to a weak sickly herd becuase of lack of
food, etc. *Sounds like you agree that the hunt is *indeed* controlling
herd size. *Now if you want the hunt to *decrease* the herd size below
present levels, that would take a longer, more open season to allow more
deer to be taken, but there opponents to that as well, even from within
the hunters themselves.

Guy, if a hunter gets all his permits, fall bow, winter bow,
muzzleloader, shotgun, etc., he has 116 days of hunting allowed. *With
multiple kills allowed per permit, I don't see how it could get more
"liberal". *For the past ten years, or so, New Jersey has been trying to
reduce it's deer population through hunting. *It isn't working. *

The kill yield through bow and primitive weapon is a good bit lower
than with rifle and shotgun. Much of your season is limited in what
weapon you can use. Add in all the restrictions on *where* you can
hunt and *what* you can kill, and the season isn't nearly as
productive as it could be.

In any case, your are correct, it is managed with a purpose, through
hunting. The hunters want plenty of good deer, with protected times
for their chosen weapon. The farmers want the herds thinned down to
decrease crop loss. Insurance companies want the same to reduce car
damage claims. The anti-gun and anti-hunting PETA droolers want it
completely outlawed. The lace-underwear cappuccino drinkers don't
want to see or hear about it, and certainly not in their backyard as
they are grilling steaks. Meanwhile, none of your taxpayers (or
legislators) are really willing to see the hunting income go away.
Your state wildlife department is probably doing the best they can
while being pulled in ten directions at once.

Sportsmen involved in humane harvest

Harry wrote:
Damn, these people have me so upset i made a typo.

I'll lend you my expensive shot gun. Point and shoot. Bang! Supper is
on the table.

You moron. A shotgun is used to GREET people who come to the front
door. i use my Glock 18 for hunting. it makes it much easier to
field dress the animal when you don't have to remove all the buckshot.

it is so easy to spot those spoofing me, you are all stupid as dog
turds, without any of the redeeming social value of a dog turd.