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.
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.


Also, I don't mind hunting for food if you need food.

In article ,
says...

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

In article , 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?

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?

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.

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.

On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:09:14 -0400, 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.


LOL!

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.

On 5/4/12 2:54 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:50:50 -0400, 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 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.


I suppose to pseudo machomen, "canned" hunting is real.

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.

On 5/4/2012 1:10 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

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

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?

How did your pea-brain come to that conclusion?

On 5/4/12 3:44 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:24:53 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 5/4/12 2:54 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:50:50 -0400, 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 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.


I suppose to pseudo machomen, "canned" hunting is real.

I am not a fan of canned hunts but I am more opposed to extinction.

In fact most of these exotic hunts do not guarantee that the hunter
actually gets anything.

You mean, they let the animals out of their pens for the "hunt"?
:)