Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:05:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/19/2014 7:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:47:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 6:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:01:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


On 11/18/14 11:15 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

When I kill an animal or bird, TOAD, I eat it for dinner that night or
the next. If I didn't eat it for dinner, I'd be hungry that night.
Therefore I'm a subsistence hunter.


Or, you could hop on the 'guzi and run down to the supermarket to buy a
nice, thick steak.



My preference ;-)

Thick pork chop, better.



I go along with that. Not overcooked though. Too often chops are
overcooked and dried out.

The loin has little fat anyway. I think it should be cooked with a
little pink left in the middle. Trichinosis in store-bought pork is
pretty rare these days.



I saw a show on TV recently that described some of the work being done
to modify the DNA of pigs raised for consumption. The pigs are much
more lean with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids similar to that found
in some fish.

Well, the shoulder is still pretty well fat-endowed and is the best
cut for pulled pork anyway. Smoked ham is pretty good. Pork chops are
best breaded, IMHO, 'cause that tends to keep the juice inside. Of
course the breading and fat from frying isn't all that great, but once
in a while you just gotta live.

Well ....
 

On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive
exotics.


No, just not playing your ch
ange the subject game.

You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very
popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all.

For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations
all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too.
Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot?
I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse.
You think that is OK for other mammals we eat..


I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting
people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live
out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to
subsistence hunting.

Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting.

Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the
hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd
changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting.


No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in
morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were
about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as
generally defined.

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive
species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours.

In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring.



Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:05:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/19/2014 7:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:47:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 6:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:01:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


On 11/18/14 11:15 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

When I kill an animal or bird, TOAD, I eat it for dinner that night or
the next. If I didn't eat it for dinner, I'd be hungry that night.
Therefore I'm a subsistence hunter.


Or, you could hop on the 'guzi and run down to the supermarket to buy a
nice, thick steak.



My preference ;-)

Thick pork chop, better.



I go along with that. Not overcooked though. Too often chops are
overcooked and dried out.

The loin has little fat anyway. I think it should be cooked with a
little pink left in the middle. Trichinosis in store-bought pork is
pretty rare these days.



I saw a show on TV recently that described some of the work being done
to modify the DNA of pigs raised for consumption. The pigs are much
more lean with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids similar to that found
in some fish.

Well, the shoulder is still pretty well fat-endowed and is the best
cut for pulled pork anyway. Smoked ham is pretty good. Pork chops are
best breaded, IMHO, 'cause that tends to keep the juice inside. Of
course the breading and fat from frying isn't all that great, but once
in a while you just gotta live.


Pretty much same feeling here.. I posted that "recipe" figuring you
might like the sound of it. You can put different veggies or cheese in
to taste...

Well ....
 

On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive
exotics.


No, just not playing your ch
ange the subject game.

You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very
popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all.

For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations
all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too.
Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot?
I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse.
You think that is OK for other mammals we eat..


I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting
people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live
out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to
subsistence hunting.

Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting.

Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the
hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd
changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting.


No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in
morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were
about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as
generally defined.

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive
species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours.

In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring.



Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration.



If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of
non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the
"positivity" you want.

Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and
bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with
tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty
could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of
course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the
same and we don't need so many regulations.

Fun times in rec.boats, for sure.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Well ....
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/19/2014 7:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:47:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 6:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:01:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


On 11/18/14 11:15 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

When I kill an animal or bird, TOAD, I eat it for dinner that night or
the next. If I didn't eat it for dinner, I'd be hungry that night.
Therefore I'm a subsistence hunter.


Or, you could hop on the 'guzi and run down to the supermarket to buy a
nice, thick steak.



My preference ;-)

Thick pork chop, better.



I go along with that. Not overcooked though. Too often chops are
overcooked and dried out.

The loin has little fat anyway. I think it should be cooked with a
little pink left in the middle. Trichinosis in store-bought pork is
pretty rare these days.



I saw a show on TV recently that described some of the work being done to
modify the DNA of pigs raised for consumption. The pigs are much more
lean with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids similar to that found in some fish.

A couple years ago, the pigs were even leaner. I understand they have gone
back to a fatter pig, as people did not like the dry meat.

Well ....
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/18/14 9:49 PM, wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 01:52:03 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 20:27:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not drawing lines. I'm merely stating I have no objections to
subsistence hunting as it is generally described.

It does sound like you are saying homeless people could corner a fawn
in your neighborhood, beat it to death with baseball bats and that
would be OK if they were hungry enough.

You are trying much too hard.

I am just trying to figure out where the line is drawn with you. Is it
only that you do not like the idea of anyone on Rec Boats doing
something you don't do?
You have created this straw man of subsistence hunting but you don't
seem to be able to define it. Wouldn't a homeless person killing a
deer for food be subsistence?
Why isn't Tim doing it OK if he is eating the deer?

I assume fishing is morally repugnant to you too?

I don't do either one so I don't really have a dog in the fight but I
am curious about the rules.


I previously have stated over the years here my disdain for so-called
"sport" hunting. A homeless man without resources who kills a deer to eat
because he has no reasonable way to get food is not sport hunting.

Subsistence hunting as I am using the phrase is not a difficult concept
to understand except, perhaps, to you and a few other right-wingers here.




Nope, homeless person is breaking the law. We have problems with homeless
encampments in San Jose, who use grocery carts to trap endangered salmon
going up the Guadalupe to spawn. That OK because they are homeless?

Well ....
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive
exotics.


No, just not playing your ch
ange the subject game.

You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very
popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all.

For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations
all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too.
Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot?
I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse.
You think that is OK for other mammals we eat..


I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting
people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live
out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to
subsistence hunting.

Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting.

Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the
hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd
changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting.


No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in
morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were
about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as
generally defined.

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive
species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours.

In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring.



Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration.



If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of
non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the
"positivity" you want.

Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and
bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with
tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty
could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of
course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the
same and we don't need so many regulations.

Fun times in rec.boats, for sure.


And FOAD could tell us how he hunted a couple times for the best bankruptcy
lawyer.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/14 12:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/18/14 9:49 PM, wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 01:52:03 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 20:27:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not drawing lines. I'm merely stating I have no objections to
subsistence hunting as it is generally described.

It does sound like you are saying homeless people could corner a fawn
in your neighborhood, beat it to death with baseball bats and that
would be OK if they were hungry enough.

You are trying much too hard.

I am just trying to figure out where the line is drawn with you. Is it
only that you do not like the idea of anyone on Rec Boats doing
something you don't do?
You have created this straw man of subsistence hunting but you don't
seem to be able to define it. Wouldn't a homeless person killing a
deer for food be subsistence?
Why isn't Tim doing it OK if he is eating the deer?

I assume fishing is morally repugnant to you too?

I don't do either one so I don't really have a dog in the fight but I
am curious about the rules.


I previously have stated over the years here my disdain for so-called
"sport" hunting. A homeless man without resources who kills a deer to eat
because he has no reasonable way to get food is not sport hunting.

Subsistence hunting as I am using the phrase is not a difficult concept
to understand except, perhaps, to you and a few other right-wingers here.




Nope, homeless person is breaking the law. We have problems with homeless
encampments in San Jose, who use grocery carts to trap endangered salmon
going up the Guadalupe to spawn. That OK because they are homeless?




You're confusing "legality" with morality. Let me offer an analogy. When
the founders wrote and enacted the U.S. Constitution, they left the
document silent on the issue of slavery. Because of that, slavery
remained legal in the south. Legal, but not moral. The founders
deliberately sidestepped the issue, even though by doing so they were
morally wrong.

I don't have moral issues with a hungry person with no other means to
obtain meat-fish-poultry breaking the law by poaching an animal for his
fire and table. *That* is subsistence hunting/fishing. The legality of
it is an entirely separate issue.

If you have hungry homeless people in encampments in San Jose, and these
people cannot get food stamps or reasonably get to stores, then I am not
offended by their poaching salmon. If they all can get to stores easily
and have legal ways to buy enough decent food there, then there is no
reason for them to poach, is there...



--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 10:56 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D
wrote:

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive
exotics.


No, just not playing your ch
ange the subject game.

You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a
very
popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject
at all.

For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable
populations
all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too.
Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot?
I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse.
You think that is OK for other mammals we eat..


I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting
people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or
live
out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no
objections to
subsistence hunting.

Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting.

Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the
hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd
changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting.


No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in
morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were
about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as
generally defined.

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive
species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours.

In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring.



Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration.



If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of
non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the
"positivity" you want.

Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and
bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with
tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty
could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of
course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the
same and we don't need so many regulations.

Fun times in rec.boats, for sure.

Sad to see how you've turned into a sayer of gibberish. I guess that's
just part of getting old.

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:47 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive
exotics.


No, just not playing your ch
ange the subject game.

You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very
popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all.

For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations
all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too.
Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot?
I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse.
You think that is OK for other mammals we eat..


I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting
people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live
out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to
subsistence hunting.

Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting.

Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the
hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd
changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting.


No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in
morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were
about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as
generally defined.

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive
species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours.

In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring.



Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration.



If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of
non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the
"positivity" you want.

Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and
bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with
tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty
could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of
course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the
same and we don't need so many regulations.

Fun times in rec.boats, for sure.

The bitter Toad.