Hunters Are Awesome

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So you are all for depriving animals of their right to life if it means you can eat tasty beef.

Rupert, I'm actually on your side when it comes to population control of predators- I don't think that's the sort of thing that should be offered via hunting licenses because I don't think the populations are large enough to sustain recreational hunters who are itching to display their own wolf skin. It's not like people eat wolf meat. When it comes to big predators, I really think population control should be performed by Parks Departments, and not by the private citizen.

But it's very true, as others have pointed out, that hunters are an economic force for wildlife conservation because in order to have good hunting, you must have good HABITAT, and habitat loss is the greatest threat to most species of animals, not hunting. And in the case of herbivores like deer, that have thrived to excess in the absence of large predators, hunters help control the population, and their zeal for their sport will, I hope, help conserve wild habitat which benefits us all, including the species they hunt. And most of the hunters I've known have eaten at least some of what they kill.

Your proposal to move animals is sweet, but in the absence of enough habitat, not possible. There have been a fair number of coyotes showing up in Central Park over the years. Because they have are getting pushed out of habitats further north. Freaking coyotes. In Manhattan, which is as non-rural as you can get.

The other option for population control is involuntary birth control (because of course, with animals, it must be involuntary), which has been tried in some areas, but I don't know to what success.

That said, I hope PA doesn't follow through on the occasional threats to opening hunting up seven days a week (currently, I think, it's not permitted on Sundays). While I support hunters in their sport, I do think hikers, trail walkers, horseback riders, etc. should get one day a week during the season when they don't have to fear getting accidentally shot.

except that many are limited to wknd hunting, and no sundays means they're limited to saturday only.

as for the latter, wear orange. i wear it when i walk around where we live during hunting season, because we're in the country.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

except that many are limited to wknd hunting, and no sundays means they're limited to saturday only.

as for the latter, wear orange. i wear it when i walk around where we live during hunting season, because we're in the country.

Yeah, I'm sure the orange vest will keep a horse quiet when guns are firing. A lot of hikers and horseback riders are also limited to weekends only, so they too, are only getting one day a week. It seems a reasonable share to say one weekend day off so other weekend warriors can enjoy their own sports safely.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Yeah, I'm sure the orange vest will keep a horse quiet when guns are firing. A lot of hikers and horseback riders are also limited to weekends only, so they too, are only getting one day a week. It seems a reasonable share to say one weekend day off so other weekend warriors can enjoy their own sports safely.

people hunt from horseback around here. and hunters are limited to a few weeks a year, whereas everyone else has all year long.
and there are a lot more places to go hiking and riding, whereas hunters are limited to where they can go. not exactly a fair sharing of areas.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Yeah, I'm sure the orange vest will keep a horse quiet when guns are firing. A lot of hikers and horseback riders are also limited to weekends only, so they too, are only getting one day a week. It seems a reasonable share to say one weekend day off so other weekend warriors can enjoy their own sports safely.

There isn't enough orange in the world for me to risk my horse.

They also run deer in VA with dogs which bothers a lot of horses even more than the occasional gun fire.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

There isn't enough orange in the world for me to risk my horse.

They also run deer in VA with dogs which bothers a lot of horses even more than the occasional gun fire.

Is that both weekend days, or is there a safe day for riding?

My elderly gelding is a former Queens trail horse; he crossed a busy parkway every day without turning a hair and dealt in the park with loose dogs, joggers, people running those stupid motorized toy cars that are louder than real ones, etc.. But when I took him to my uncle's after I bought him when the stable closed, he absolutely freaked at the first gunshots. And they were some distance away. Fortunately, he was in an enclosed paddock and I was not on his back at the time.

There's a reason police horses have to be desensitized to gunshots before they can work for the force. It's not the horse's safety; it's the safety of the officer on his back.

[Honu]

Where I grew up in western PA if there was not hunting season the deer would die of starvation or be killed more than they already are crossing roads and highways to find food. I guess if the non kill people would like to invest their time and money sterilizing deer and making sure there is enough food for them to get through the winter then I guess I would agree to stricter hunting laws. But as it is I have no problem with legal hunting, there is a reason for it like it or not.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Honu

Where I grew up in western PA if there was not hunting season the deer would die of starvation or be killed more than they already are crossing roads and highways to find food. I guess if the non kill people would like to invest their time and money sterilizing deer and making sure there is enough food for them to get through the winter then I guess I would agree to stricter hunting laws. But as it is I have no problem with legal hunting, there is a reason for it like it or not.

And, as has been said before, hunting really does provide economic incentive for habitat preservation. In addition, to some extent, it also provides incentive for public lands. People have a right to declare no hunting on their own properties, so public lands and forests become even more essential to preserve and not sell off to private interests.

One of the books I recorded this year was a text on European history. For a long time, hunting was absolutely forbidden if you weren't a nobleman. If you owned no land of your own, you could not hunt because you were "stealing" some nobleman's game. Even something a small as a rabbit.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And, as has been said before, hunting really does provide economic incentive for habitat preservation. In addition, to some extent, it also provides incentive for public lands. People have a right to declare no hunting on their own properties, so public lands and forests become even more essential to preserve and not sell off to private interests.

One of the books I recorded this year was a text on European history. For a long time, hunting was absolutely forbidden if you weren't a nobleman. If you owned no land of your own, you could not hunt because you were "stealing" some nobleman's game. Even something a small as a rabbit.

yeah, you'd be killed for 'poaching the kings/earls deer'.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And, as has been said before, hunting really does provide economic incentive for habitat preservation. In addition, to some extent, it also provides incentive for public lands. People have a right to declare no hunting on their own properties, so public lands and forests become even more essential to preserve and not sell off to private interests.

One of the books I recorded this year was a text on European history. For a long time, hunting was absolutely forbidden if you weren't a nobleman. If you owned no land of your own, you could not hunt because you were "stealing" some nobleman's game. Even something a small as a rabbit.

In traditional foxhunting attire the direction of the bow strings running up or down on the back of your helmet signified if you were a land owner or not. I wonder if this 'rule' began when this law was changed or because the noblemen did bring their non land owning stable hands as mounted grooms along with them? (I'm too short on time to research this right now )