For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 1:07 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 12:54 PM, wrote:

The best example is the hunting ranches in Texas that hold the largest
populations of endangered African animals on the planet. Without the
incentive of allowing someone to shoot one now and then for outrageous
amounts of money, they would simply go extinct.
These ranchers ensure that there is always a healthy breeding
population and suitable habitat for them. That is a lot more than the
Africans are doing.
I find it strange that the animal rights people would rather see an
entire species go extinct than to allow them to be managed for profit.


What you are calling "hunting ranches" in Texas have nothing to do with
hunting. They're shooting fish in a barrel ranches, except they are not
shooting fish.

I put hunting animals and fish in the same category. It's noticeable
that you don't talk fishing anymore. Have you gone PETA?

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 1:31 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 12:25 PM, wrote:

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.
Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I won't even talk about what fishermen do to the bait. That is down
right medieval.



I have some issues with "sport hunters," the most significant probably
being their referencing what they do as "sport," implying there is
something "sporting" about shooting animals with a firearm.

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an elk or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

What sort of hunting are you in favor of?

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an elk or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a
game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat
sinks.

I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting,
and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you
have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the
boat sinking.

What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here.
How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out
the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat)


You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a
pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back
strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun
poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things?

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 1:08 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:42:28 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.

Since I wrote the above, I take it you are talking about me. I catch and
release.

Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I catch and release.

I won't even talk about what fishermen do to the bait. That is down
right medieval.

I know! Those rubber worms and Rapalas that I use are SO abused.....




Do you sleep better at night, knowing one species didn't have to die so
you could catch your target species?

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:08:23 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:42:28 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.

Since I wrote the above, I take it you are talking about me. I catch and
release.

Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I catch and release.



So if I just dragged the deer up to the truck, ripped the hooks out
and let him stagger away, it would be OK.

You do understand that a very significant number of "released" fish
die from the experience?

Harry and Iboaterer are struggling for the dumbest poster award. There's
no challenge in hooking these dudes. It's like catching dog fish.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 12:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 5/3/12 8:25 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 18:44:24 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 5/3/12 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

I'd be impressed if the "hunters" preserved habitat and didn't kill the
animals on it.

I live just outside Des Moines, and the local deer are so numerous as
to be catagorized as vermin. I lost an auto to one. They cross my lawn
on a daily basis. It would be great if hunters would kill vast numbers
of them.

Casady


Typically, the problem you describe is the result of man encroaching on
the natural habit of woodland critters and decimating it. So, we take
away the land on which critters live, eat, and breathe, and then we
shoot them.


-----------------------------------------------
This is more the result of man killing the predators and then growing
great food crops for the deer. A lot more deer than the natural world
would support.


How many trees had to be cut down to build Harry's cave? How many more
trees had to be cut down to make room for Harry's cave? Besides causing
the loss of habitat, Harry feeds the wild animals to lure them back to
where their habitat was destroyed. Harry loves interacting with the
wildlife from the safety of his IPE deck.
If it sounds like Harry is one sick ****, that's because he is.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/12 4:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:54:33 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an elk or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a
game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat
sinks.

I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting,
and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you
have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the
boat sinking.

What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here.
How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out
the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat)


You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a
pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back
strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun
poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things?

I am sure that pales in comparison to the number of hunters who fall
out of tree stands, drown in freezing water, get attacked by the
animal they are hunting, get bit by snakes, get shot by other hunters
or just shoot themselves. They still have all of those exposure risks,
knife injury risks and strain injuries trying to drag that elk out of
the woods. I suppose we could get some kind of numbers but I don't
care that much because they are probably meaningless.

You are still ignoring all the fishermen who are simply bottom fishing
off their dock. (probably analogous to shooting squirrels off your
porch)


Indeed, I was discussing big game fishing, since you mentioned sportfish
boats, tuna, ballyhoo and mates.

Oh, I wouldn't shoot a squirrel or any other animal.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 3:17 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an elk
or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high
powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a
game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat
sinks.

I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting,
and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you
have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the
boat sinking.

Boating can be a dangerous passtime no matter what. I'm surprised you
are brave enough to assume the risks.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 3:54 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an
elk or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high
powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of
the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did
was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot
more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a
game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat
sinks.

I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting,
and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you
have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the
boat sinking.

What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here.
How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out
the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat)


You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a
pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back
strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun
poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things?

A tree could fall on you in your backyard if you are brave enough to
venture off your deck out into the wilderness. Every breath you take
brings with it new dangers. BOO!

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 4:22 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 4:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:54:33 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an
elk or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high
powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one
of the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you
did was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a
lot more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about
on a
game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat
sinks.

I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular"
hunting,
and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you
have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with
the
boat sinking.

What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here.
How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out
the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat)


You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a
pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back
strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun
poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things?

I am sure that pales in comparison to the number of hunters who fall
out of tree stands, drown in freezing water, get attacked by the
animal they are hunting, get bit by snakes, get shot by other hunters
or just shoot themselves. They still have all of those exposure risks,
knife injury risks and strain injuries trying to drag that elk out of
the woods. I suppose we could get some kind of numbers but I don't
care that much because they are probably meaningless.

You are still ignoring all the fishermen who are simply bottom fishing
off their dock. (probably analogous to shooting squirrels off your
porch)


Indeed, I was discussing big game fishing, since you mentioned sportfish
boats, tuna, ballyhoo and mates.

Oh, I wouldn't shoot a squirrel or any other animal.


Man is animal.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 3:43 PM, Oscar wrote:
On 5/4/2012 12:01 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 11:50 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 5/4/2012 11:42 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They
don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

Figures you would bring it down to the single animal level to make a
point, when the conversation is about hunting in general... Frekin'
engineers... snicker



It takes a really brave man to shoot a deer. It's so...sporting.

I remember when Harriet was bragging about catching fish, ripping their
face apart and then throwing them back to be eaten by a larger fish.
Quite the sportsman, that Krause dude.

He's real brave too!

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 12:06 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 5/4/2012 11:42 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

Figures you would bring it down to the single animal level to make a
point, when the conversation is about hunting in general... Frekin'
engineers...snicker

What engineers came up with the notion that hunting in general is a good
thing? But, it DOES come down to the single animal. It's that simple. I
guess, that because of overpopulation of humans on the earth, then you
should be okay with killing off people, abortion, etc. right?

Um, right... that's it...

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 3:50 PM, Oscar wrote:
On 5/4/2012 1:07 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 12:54 PM, wrote:

The best example is the hunting ranches in Texas that hold the largest
populations of endangered African animals on the planet. Without the
incentive of allowing someone to shoot one now and then for outrageous
amounts of money, they would simply go extinct.
These ranchers ensure that there is always a healthy breeding
population and suitable habitat for them. That is a lot more than the
Africans are doing.
I find it strange that the animal rights people would rather see an
entire species go extinct than to allow them to be managed for profit.


What you are calling "hunting ranches" in Texas have nothing to do with
hunting. They're shooting fish in a barrel ranches, except they are not
shooting fish.

I put hunting animals and fish in the same category. It's noticeable
that you don't talk fishing anymore. Have you gone PETA?

Harry doesn't know **** about them, he has never been to one. If he had,
he would lie about it anyway, just sayin'...

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 1:50 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 12:06:26 -0400, wrote:

In , says...



Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

Figures you would bring it down to the single animal level to make a
point, when the conversation is about hunting in general... Frekin'
engineers...snicker

What engineers came up with the notion that hunting in general is a good
thing? But, it DOES come down to the single animal. It's that simple. I
guess, that because of overpopulation of humans on the earth, then you
should be okay with killing off people, abortion, etc. right?

Without the money hunters pump into the system you might actually come
down to that single animal, starving to death and bringing on
extinction.
The animal lovers barely collect enough money to support their own
bureaucracy and put virtually nothing into conservation efforts.

The best example is the hunting ranches in Texas that hold the largest
populations of endangered African animals on the planet. Without the
incentive of allowing someone to shoot one now and then for outrageous
amounts of money, they would simply go extinct.
These ranchers ensure that there is always a healthy breeding
population and suitable habitat for them. That is a lot more than the
Africans are doing.
I find it strange that the animal rights people would rather see an
entire species go extinct than to allow them to be managed for profit.
I wonder what our grand kids would say about that after the animals
are gone forever.

I know that in the imaginary utopia you lefties live in, animal lovers
would buy and maintain millions of acres of pristine habitat for the
animals to live in peace but the fact is, the animal lovers want
someone else to pay for that.
Those people are hunters.
They do it via a surcharge on all hunting equipment, license fees,
private club dues and direct payments to land owners for the right to
hunt there.

Well, kill 'em all then.

You are finally catching on.. pass the salt please!

For animal lovers...
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:39:01 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 5/3/2012 1:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

There's a place in gawds kingdom for all animals; usually right next
to my mashed potatoes.

Still folks out there that would rather see the things slowly starve to
death...

Makes you wonder how any animal species ever survived without man
killing them in mass.

Without man, there was nobody there to care, if they slowly starved to
death from poor weather, diminished food stocks, or overpopulation.

Who mourned the extinction of the dinosaurs?

Species go extinct each and every day. Why do we care?

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:42:28 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.
Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I won't even talk about what fishermen do to the bait. That is down
right medieval.


Yes, but private citizens can't protect themselves from Government with
fish hooks...

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 12:25 PM, wrote:

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.
Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I won't even talk about what fishermen do to the bait. That is down
right medieval.



I have some issues with "sport hunters," the most significant probably
being their referencing what they do as "sport," implying there is
something "sporting" about shooting animals with a firearm.

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an elk or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did was
reel it in.



Exactly, I can't imagine harry surviving a day in the woods...

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 3:54 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an
elk or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high
powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of
the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did
was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot
more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a
game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat
sinks.

I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting,
and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you
have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the
boat sinking.

What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here.
How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out
the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat)


You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a
pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back
strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun
poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things?


All of those injuries could happen walking through the woods, and
dragging back a 1200 pound animal... dumb ass...

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 4:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:54:33 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an elk or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a
game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat
sinks.

I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting,
and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you
have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the
boat sinking.

What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here.
How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out
the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat)


You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a
pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back
strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun
poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things?

I am sure that pales in comparison to the number of hunters who fall
out of tree stands, drown in freezing water, get attacked by the
animal they are hunting, get bit by snakes, get shot by other hunters
or just shoot themselves. They still have all of those exposure risks,
knife injury risks and strain injuries trying to drag that elk out of
the woods. I suppose we could get some kind of numbers but I don't
care that much because they are probably meaningless.

You are still ignoring all the fishermen who are simply bottom fishing
off their dock. (probably analogous to shooting squirrels off your
porch)

All about the agenda Greg... Anti gun for everybody but himself. Anti
anything he doesn't do himself (is jealous of)...

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 1:08 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:42:28 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.

Since I wrote the above, I take it you are talking about me. I catch and
release.

Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I catch and release.

I won't even talk about what fishermen do to the bait. That is down
right medieval.

I know! Those rubber worms and Rapalas that I use are SO abused.....




Bass fishermen are different, nobody wants to eat a freshwater bass
anyway, and artificials are perfect for them... Other fishermen catch
fish you want to eat, and they don't do as well with artificials. I
suppose you are gonna' tell us you never took a fish, never killed a
fish, and never used natural bait, right??? Pffffttt. I suppose you will.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:08:23 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:42:28 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.

Since I wrote the above, I take it you are talking about me. I catch and
release.

Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I catch and release.



So if I just dragged the deer up to the truck, ripped the hooks out
and let him stagger away, it would be OK.

You do understand that a very significant number of "released" fish
die from the experience?

You are talking to the plum, what he knows has no bearing on what he says...

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/12 6:46 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 5/4/2012 1:08 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:42:28 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They
don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.

Since I wrote the above, I take it you are talking about me. I catch and
release.

Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I catch and release.

I won't even talk about what fishermen do to the bait. That is down
right medieval.

I know! Those rubber worms and Rapalas that I use are SO abused.....




Bass fishermen are different, nobody wants to eat a freshwater bass
anyway, and artificials are perfect for them... Other fishermen catch
fish you want to eat, and they don't do as well with artificials. I
suppose you are gonna' tell us you never took a fish, never killed a
fish, and never used natural bait, right??? Pffffttt. I suppose you will.


Lots of people eat freshwater bass, jerkwater.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/12 6:36 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 5/4/2012 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:42:28 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.
Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I won't even talk about what fishermen do to the bait. That is down
right medieval.


Yes, but private citizens can't protect themselves from Government with
fish hooks...

You couldn't protect yourself from two prepubescent girls.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/2012 6:34 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:39:01 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 5/3/2012 1:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

There's a place in gawds kingdom for all animals; usually right next
to my mashed potatoes.

Still folks out there that would rather see the things slowly starve to
death...

Makes you wonder how any animal species ever survived without man
killing them in mass.

Without man, there was nobody there to care, if they slowly starved to
death from poor weather, diminished food stocks, or overpopulation.

Who mourned the extinction of the dinosaurs?

Species go extinct each and every day. Why do we care?

Why don't you tell us, you are the one crying about it..

For animal lovers...
 

X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 1:02 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 20:32:41 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/3/12 8:25 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 18:44:24 -0400, X `
wrote:


I live just outside Des Moines, and the local deer are so numerous as
to be catagorized as vermin. I lost an auto to one. They cross my lawn
on a daily basis. It would be great if hunters would kill vast numbers
of them.

Casady


Typically, the problem you describe is the result of man encroaching on
the natural habit of woodland critters and decimating it. So, we take
away the land on which critters live, eat, and breathe, and then we
shoot them.

There are significantly more deer in the suburbs than there ever have
been but the residents would not tolerate repopulating the predators
necessary for natural control. It turns out white tail deer are very
well adapted to suburban living. I have even seen them on the
Whitehurst Freeway in downtown DC.
Can you imagine the howl people would put up if we dumped a couple
dozen cougars around the beltway and in Rock Creek Park?
I doubt they would even tolerate that down in rural Calvert County.

(yet they did it near where I live here in SW Florida)


A few thousand cougars running loose in Florida could only improve the
quality of life for everyone in that state.
Isn't that the panther in FL?

For animal lovers...
 

X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 11:50 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 5/4/2012 11:42 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They
don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

Figures you would bring it down to the single animal level to make a
point, when the conversation is about hunting in general... Frekin'
engineers... snicker



It takes a really brave man to shoot a deer. It's so...sporting.
I'm not a hunter, but I'd rather see one shot for food than hit by a car
and killing the passengers.

For animal lovers...
 

wrote in message ...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:36:59 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

This is more the result of man killing the predators and then growing great
food crops for the deer. A lot more deer than the natural world would
support.

That is true.
There are far more deer in the US, particularly the east, than there
were when the Mayflower landed.
Crops are a real gravy train for them but it turns out that they also
thrive on ornamental plants in suburbia. I am still not sure why they
were on the Whitehurst freeway that night but I assume it was just a
short cut from the yummy food up on Foxhall road and the parkland in
Foggy Bottom.


------------------------------------------------
I live about 3 blocks from open space. Have had deer eat the roses, (local
nursery never has to prune their roses.) and eat the hibiscus on the front
porch. We have a mountain lion or 3 in the area. Friends have a sheep
ranch and had to have the state hunter kill one last year. They have been
seen on the local middle school grounds and the primary school. Probably
same lion as was same day. Grocery shopping? Lots of deer in the area. As
well as turkeys, that are not a native California bird. Almost hit one
today leaving town as it walked across the road. 55 mph speed limit. Most
of the game is because the hunters put up the money for the refuges.

For animal lovers...
 

wrote in message ...

On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:54:33 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an elk
or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high
powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of
the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did
was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot
more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a
game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat
sinks.

I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting,
and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you
have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the
boat sinking.

What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here.
How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out
the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat)


You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a
pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back
strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun
poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things?

I am sure that pales in comparison to the number of hunters who fall
out of tree stands, drown in freezing water, get attacked by the
animal they are hunting, get bit by snakes, get shot by other hunters
or just shoot themselves. They still have all of those exposure risks,
knife injury risks and strain injuries trying to drag that elk out of
the woods. I suppose we could get some kind of numbers but I don't
care that much because they are probably meaningless.

You are still ignoring all the fishermen who are simply bottom fishing
off their dock. (probably analogous to shooting squirrels off
porch)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry probably has not fished for big fish. Especially East Coast fishing.
they fish out of fighting chairs, where they are strapped in and have heavy
duty reels with set drag. I fish for tuna out of San Diego. We do stand up
fishing, no chairs, just a fighting belt. I have caught 100# tuna and never
felt that I was going to be pulled overboard. The drags on the reels
prevent the excess pull on your body. Even with 150# test line, you are
only going to feel maybe 35# pull. The line drag from the water will add a
bunch of drag to the line, but not to the reel. My last fish was 96# and
with about 350 yds of line out it took near an hour to land the fish. That
is with 65# PowerPro and 50# mono topshot. Probably 40# Flouro leader.
You are beat after the fishing landed, but still not feeling like you are
going to be pulled overboard. Big Marlin in Cabo are a fighting chair fish,
so still pretty safe except for stupidity.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/5/2012 1:40 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 19:28:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:


Bass fishermen are different, nobody wants to eat a freshwater bass
anyway, and artificials are perfect for them... Other fishermen catch
fish you want to eat, and they don't do as well with artificials. I
suppose you are gonna' tell us you never took a fish, never killed a
fish, and never used natural bait, right??? Pffffttt. I suppose you will.


Lots of people eat freshwater bass, jerkwater.

Not serious bass fishermen.

That is the old fish story isn't it? The largest recorded large mouth
was reportedly caught by an old woman who had it weighed at a local
store. When the word got out about it and the record people tracked
her down, they were just finishing it up ... or so the legend goes.

After all it is a fish story.

None of the guys I fish fresh water with keep a bass. They will catch
a mess of specks if they want a fish fry.

On the other hand all of the salt water people I know are in the
fillet and release club.

Of course nobody eats fresh water Bass, he just said it, it's what he
does...

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/4/12 9:07 PM, Earl wrote:
X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 1:02 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 20:32:41 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/3/12 8:25 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 18:44:24 -0400, X `
wrote:


I live just outside Des Moines, and the local deer are so numerous as
to be catagorized as vermin. I lost an auto to one. They cross my lawn
on a daily basis. It would be great if hunters would kill vast numbers
of them.

Casady


Typically, the problem you describe is the result of man encroaching on
the natural habit of woodland critters and decimating it. So, we take
away the land on which critters live, eat, and breathe, and then we
shoot them.

There are significantly more deer in the suburbs than there ever have
been but the residents would not tolerate repopulating the predators
necessary for natural control. It turns out white tail deer are very
well adapted to suburban living. I have even seen them on the
Whitehurst Freeway in downtown DC.
Can you imagine the howl people would put up if we dumped a couple
dozen cougars around the beltway and in Rock Creek Park?
I doubt they would even tolerate that down in rural Calvert County.

(yet they did it near where I live here in SW Florida)


A few thousand cougars running loose in Florida could only improve the
quality of life for everyone in that state.


Isn't that the panther in FL?

I've read several serious articles about the cats that indicate they are
what are commonly known as cougars.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/5/12 12:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
--

Harry probably has not fished for big fish.

You would be wrong, though I haven't done so in a long time.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/5/12 1:40 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 19:28:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:


Bass fishermen are different, nobody wants to eat a freshwater bass
anyway, and artificials are perfect for them... Other fishermen catch
fish you want to eat, and they don't do as well with artificials. I
suppose you are gonna' tell us you never took a fish, never killed a
fish, and never used natural bait, right??? Pffffttt. I suppose you will.


Lots of people eat freshwater bass, jerkwater.

Not serious bass fishermen.


Note that in my comment, I singled out "lots of people." I've seen
people eating largemouth freshwater bass they've caught, right in your
state.
I wasn't talking about "serious bass fishermen."

There are many, many recipes on the internet for largemouth bass. In a
simple search, I found 10,000+ hits for "recipes for largemouth bass."

Here's one from a Florida resident:


Title: Baked Bass Teriyaki
by retired1950
Type: Entree
Servings:
Difficulty: Easy
Prep Time: Marinate overnite
Cook Time: 25 minutes
Ingredients: Bass Fillets
bottle of teriyaki sauce
lemon juice
lemon pepper
1 medium onion, thinly sliced
Directions: Marinate the bass fillets overnight in the teryaki sauce.
Place bass in bread pan lined with aluminum foil. Sprinkle lemon juice
and lemon pepper over the fillets. Place onion slices on the fillets.
Cover the bass fillets with aliminum foil and bake at 375 for
approximately 20 - 25 minutes. Enjoy
Other Notes: One of my favorites - Very tastey!
Date Added: 04/16/09 11:10 AM


As I posted, lots of people eat largemouth bass.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/5/12 1:47 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 21:10:05 -0400,
wrote:

X ` Man wrote:

It takes a really brave man to shoot a deer. It's so...sporting.

I'm not a hunter, but I'd rather see one shot for food than hit by a car
and killing the passengers.

Good point. The most dangerous animal in the US is the white tailed
deer. They kill more people in car accidents than all the other animal
related deaths combined.




The deer don't kill people, in the sense they are targeting people.

For animal lovers...
 

On 5/5/12 6:42 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 5/5/2012 1:40 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 19:28:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:


Bass fishermen are different, nobody wants to eat a freshwater bass
anyway, and artificials are perfect for them... Other fishermen catch
fish you want to eat, and they don't do as well with artificials. I
suppose you are gonna' tell us you never took a fish, never killed a
fish, and never used natural bait, right??? Pffffttt. I suppose you
will.


Lots of people eat freshwater bass, jerkwater.

Not serious bass fishermen.

That is the old fish story isn't it? The largest recorded large mouth
was reportedly caught by an old woman who had it weighed at a local
store. When the word got out about it and the record people tracked
her down, they were just finishing it up ... or so the legend goes.

After all it is a fish story.

None of the guys I fish fresh water with keep a bass. They will catch
a mess of specks if they want a fish fry.

On the other hand all of the salt water people I know are in the
fillet and release club.

Of course nobody eats fresh water Bass, he just said it, it's what he
does...


You're an ignorant ass who knows nothing about anything.

For animal lovers...
 

On Sat, 05 May 2012 01:40:21 -0400, wrote:

On the other hand all of the salt water people I know are in the
fillet and release club.

===

Absolutely.

For animal lovers...
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:08:23 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:42:28 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.

Since I wrote the above, I take it you are talking about me. I catch and
release.

Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I catch and release.



So if I just dragged the deer up to the truck, ripped the hooks out
and let him stagger away, it would be OK.

You do understand that a very significant number of "released" fish
die from the experience?

Actually, treated correctly, most do NOT die and most don't hardly
suffer at all. Fish don't have the same neurology network that other
animals do.

For animal lovers...
 

In article , says...

On 5/4/2012 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:08:23 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 11:42:28 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 5/4/2012 9:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 03 May 2012 12:54:44 -0400, John
wrote:

...and those who find hunters despicable.

http://dribbleglass.com/images/billboards/animals.jpg

More species are saved by hunters than all the PETA and "save the
animals" kooks combined.

Hunters put their money where their mouth is and they actually do
things to preserve habitat and encourage species survival. They don't
just whine about it.

BTW I don't hunt.

Yeah, killing animals saves them. Got it!

Finally...

Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

I do think it is funny that these avid fish hunters draw the line at
killing a deer or a rabbit.

Since I wrote the above, I take it you are talking about me. I catch and
release.

Maybe if we rigged an ear of corn with big treble hooks. snagged the
deer, dragged the deer up to the truck with a winch, kicking and
bleeding. Then put him, live, in an air tight box to slowly suffocate
it would be OK.

I catch and release.



So if I just dragged the deer up to the truck, ripped the hooks out
and let him stagger away, it would be OK.

You do understand that a very significant number of "released" fish
die from the experience?

You are talking to the plum, what he knows has no bearing on what he says...

Well, first of all, treated correctly, most fish do not die when caught
and released. Secondly, if someone needs food, I'm all for the killing
an animal for meat. Thirdly, fish do no have the same neuro network that
animals have.

For animal lovers...
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:10:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 12:06:26 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


What engineers came up with the notion that hunting in general is a good
thing? But, it DOES come down to the single animal. It's that simple. I
guess, that because of overpopulation of humans on the earth, then you
should be okay with killing off people, abortion, etc. right?

We do it all the time. It is called war.

The US has killed about a million brown people, either directly or by
proxy, since 1991(Iraq, Afghanistan and any number of smaller little
skirmishes).

So we should be able to go take a hunter's safety course, pay a license
fee and start killing people for sport?

Yes, they call it boot camp. You don't even have to buy a license. In
fact the DoD pays you.

Where did I say anything about joining the military and/or killing
foreigners? I simply said do you think we should be able to take a
hunter's safety course then go killing people for SPORT? To say that
those in the military kill for SPORT is a slap in the face to them.

These days guys don't even need to leave the country. They can kill
people with a drone from half way around the world then go home and
have dinner with the family.

See above.

For animal lovers...
 

In article , says...

On 5/4/2012 3:54 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man

I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more
sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an
elk or a
moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high
powered
rifle and scope.


How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your
sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of
the
ballyhoo you are trolling?
The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did
was
reel it in.



Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot
more
dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that
sort of "hunting," either.

It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a
game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat
sinks.

I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting,
and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you
have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the
boat sinking.

What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here.
How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out
the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat)


You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a
pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back
strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun
poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things?


All of those injuries could happen walking through the woods, and
dragging back a 1200 pound animal... dumb ass...

Really? You're going to be bitten by a pelagic, and be impaled with a
large fish hook in the woods???

For animal lovers...
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:50:50 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 4 May 2012 12:06:26 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...



Well it figures that you'd think that killing an animal is saving it.

Figures you would bring it down to the single animal level to make a
point, when the conversation is about hunting in general... Frekin'
engineers... snicker

What engineers came up with the notion that hunting in general is a good
thing? But, it DOES come down to the single animal. It's that simple. I
guess, that because of overpopulation of humans on the earth, then you
should be okay with killing off people, abortion, etc. right?

Without the money hunters pump into the system you might actually come
down to that single animal, starving to death and bringing on
extinction.
The animal lovers barely collect enough money to support their own
bureaucracy and put virtually nothing into conservation efforts.

The best example is the hunting ranches in Texas that hold the largest
populations of endangered African animals on the planet. Without the
incentive of allowing someone to shoot one now and then for outrageous
amounts of money, they would simply go extinct.
These ranchers ensure that there is always a healthy breeding
population and suitable habitat for them. That is a lot more than the
Africans are doing.
I find it strange that the animal rights people would rather see an
entire species go extinct than to allow them to be managed for profit.
I wonder what our grand kids would say about that after the animals
are gone forever.

I know that in the imaginary utopia you lefties live in, animal lovers
would buy and maintain millions of acres of pristine habitat for the
animals to live in peace but the fact is, the animal lovers want
someone else to pay for that.
Those people are hunters.
They do it via a surcharge on all hunting equipment, license fees,
private club dues and direct payments to land owners for the right to
hunt there.

Well, kill 'em all then.

You will if you shut down the hunting ranches where these exotics are
raised. It is certain that the Africans are not going to save them.

Right... No animal species on earth can survive without man killing
them, huh?