Harry Krause wrote:

If you want to hunt "humanely," then use a camera.

What drivel from someone who fishes.

You really are schizo.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

If you really care about losing natural habitat, I recommend you burn your
house, turn the land over to a trust to preserve the land as a park, and
then move into the city.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
F330 GT wrote:

Harry wrote:

In hunting or fishing, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing
your
catch.

If you were a deer, which would you prefer:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of
control
and
the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when
hunting
is severely curtailed.

2. Ending up as a hood ormament on the front of a speeding car. Also a
major
problem in some areas where the heards are too large.

3. A quick shot to the heart.

Nature doesn't provide animals or fish with many humane choices for
death.
Most
don't die of old age like humans.


Barry


If I were a deer, I'd prefer NOT to be shot. Period. There is no such
thing as "humane" hunting or fishing if, in the end, you kill the
critter. I understand how we humans like to use softer language to make
our slaughter of the animals we hunt or fish sound better but killing is
killing is killing.

In most cases, the land can no longer support the critters because we
have encroached upon the land, or have killed off all the "natural"
predators. In other words, if there are too many deer in an area, it
isn't because the deer just copulate all day. It is because we have
destroyed their habitat and the room they used to have for free roam
isn't there anymore.

We have deer wandering through our property all the time, and the
property of our neighbors. We're in a "hunter free" zone, and so far, we
are not overpopulated with deer. Once or twice a month, a deer and a car
have an unfortunate encounter out on the county roads, and the deer
almost always loses. Wish we could establish a "deer crossing" that
really was.

If you want to hunt "humanely," then use a camera.


So Harry, what's your solution to the problem? Should we give the land
back? In
fact, should we just give it back to the Indians and all move back to
Western
Europe. Thant presents a whole new set of problems.


The issue was over the "humane" killing of animals for sport. My posit
is that there is no "humane" way. I also made the point that it was our
fault, not the fault of the animals, that their habitat was taken.

There's no single solution, but what we should consider is a halt,
wherever possible, to the destruction of remaining habitat.



Reality has to fit into your perception of what is right and wrong. I'm
not a
big hunter but I'm a realist. And I don't see the difference btween
eating
venison and eating beef, chicken, pork, or store bought salmon. They all
die
pretty much the same way.

I make no claim that buying packaged beef is higher-minded than shooting
it for sport, although I do maintain there is no "sport" in hunting.


And you being a avid fisherman, I'm surprised to hear that you practice
strictly "catch and release". What about the poor crabs in those
crabcakes that
you love? What an untimely death to be thrown into a cauldron of boiling
water.
Shame on you.


Barry

That wasn't my point, Barry.


--
Email sent to is never read.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:24:52 +0000, F330 GT wrote:

Subject: See you all in the spring.... From: thunder

Date: 12/13/2003 9:16 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:


On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:38:50 +0000, F330 GT wrote:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of
control and the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite
often when hunting is severely curtailed.

I don't have any problems with hunting, but there is more to the equation
than curtailing hunting. I live in New Jersey, and the deer population
here has exploded. Hunting has not been curtailed, on the contrary,
hunters are allowed many does, and several bucks, depending on
licenses/permits. Here, the Dept. of Fish & Game manage the herd as a
resource, I've heard it argued perhaps too successfully.

And you have successfully stated a problem but you haven't suggested a
solution.

I was trying to make the point, that in this state, the herd is managed
for hunting, not that hunting manages the herd. If this state wanted to
control the *size* of the herd, and loose the economic benefits of
hunting, it would be managed differently.

Unfortunately, the human virus has taken up the land and resources that
once belonged to the wildlife. Since we are unable to manage our own
herds, we must try to successfully manage the animal population. We do
this in ways that try to maximize their herds without them encroaching on
our lifestyle. Hunting is just one of the ways that we do this.

Exactly, hunting is just one of the ways.

Unless we are willing to give up our own breeding habits, I guess we are
going to have to continue managing theirs.

Don't get me wrong, I think hunting has considerable economic and
recreational benefits. Today wildlife is more abundant and varied here,
than when I was younger. Bear, turkey, beaver, otter, coyote, all have
returned, and this in New Jersey. I think hunters, and their dollars, are
largely responsible.

F330 GT wrote:

Harry wrote:

In hunting or fishing, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing your
catch.

If you were a deer, which would you prefer:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of control and
the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when hunting
is severely curtailed.

2. Ending up as a hood ormament on the front of a speeding car. Also a major
problem in some areas where the heards are too large.

3. A quick shot to the heart.

Nature doesn't provide animals or fish with many humane choices for death.
Most don't die of old age like humans.

Nature does many things which, to people driven by emotion, looks cruel
and inhumane. But it makes perfect sense from a ecosystem standpoint.
The weak and frail become food for the next in the food chain. The
strong survive and are allowed to proliferate. Eventually, the species
as a whole evolves, as the gradual genetic improvements become more
integrated into the general population.

Dave

Harry Krause wrote:

F330 GT wrote:

Harry wrote:

In hunting or fishing, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing your
catch.

If you were a deer, which would you prefer:

1. Dying of starvation or disease as the population grows out of control and
the land can no longer support the herd. This happens quite often when hunting
is severely curtailed.

2. Ending up as a hood ormament on the front of a speeding car. Also a major
problem in some areas where the heards are too large.

3. A quick shot to the heart.

Nature doesn't provide animals or fish with many humane choices for death. Most
don't die of old age like humans.


Barry

If I were a deer, I'd prefer NOT to be shot. Period. There is no such
thing as "humane" hunting or fishing if, in the end, you kill the
critter. I understand how we humans like to use softer language to make
our slaughter of the animals we hunt or fish sound better but killing is
killing is killing.

In most cases, the land can no longer support the critters because we
have encroached upon the land, or have killed off all the "natural"
predators.

So then we become the "surrogate" predator. So again, which is
preferable, dead by a hunter's bullet, of mauled to death by a mountain
lion.



In other words, if there are too many deer in an area, it
isn't because the deer just copulate all day. It is because we have
destroyed their habitat and the room they used to have for free roam
isn't there anymore.

So by hunting, we assume the role of the predator, to keep the deer
population in balance.


We have deer wandering through our property all the time, and the
property of our neighbors. We're in a "hunter free" zone, and so far, we
are not overpopulated with deer. Once or twice a month, a deer and a car
have an unfortunate encounter out on the county roads, and the deer
almost always loses. Wish we could establish a "deer crossing" that
really was.

If you want to hunt "humanely," then use a camera.

More "compassion"? When your car becomes the next "victim" of a deer
crossing, you might think twice about letting the deer population grow
unchecked.

Dave