PDA

View Full Version : Environmentalism & Hunting



e_taylor
09-17-2008, 06:41 AM
The only reason I'm starting this thread is because I have vowed to stay out of the politics thread, and I'm a man of my word.

.....


I had to come back and post this. I knew Sarah Palin supports aerial wolf hunting because I signed a petition sponsored by one of the wolf preservation organizations to which I belong. I didn't realize she also supports aerial bear hunting. State-sponsored, too.


WARNING: Disturbing images of wolves being shot.
Sarah Palin Champions Barbaric Aerial Hunting of Wolves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPFPBmzRrQ)

*sigh* Really off to work now.


Although I agree that aerial hunting seems very inhumane; I think its important to note that hunters/fishers are some of the few champions of the environment and animals that have any clout to do anything. Environmentalist hippies will stage protests trying to get government and big business on board to protect animals and their habitat, but fail miserably. Hunters have actually given their own time and money to actually make a difference.

For example, Ducks Unlimited was started by duck hunters who not so much cared about wetlands, but wanted the duck population to be sustainable.

Another example, the seal hunt we have here in Canada, that gets celebrities denouncing us every year (mainly because they don't know the facts) is the only reason the seal population had remained so high and has been a sustainable industry for over 600 years. Its in the seal hunters' best interests to make sure there are an equal number, or more seals each year.

So, what I'm saying, is although hunting isn't always viewed in the greatest light; hunters often are the only ones who care enough about animal populations and their habitats to do anything about it. That said, I'll have to look more into this particular case, as the $150 bounty baffles me - unless wolves are considered a "menace", or are hugely overpopulated, it doesn't make sense.

theBeamisHome
09-17-2008, 06:58 AM
hmmm... well i'm not sure i would call myself an environmentalist hippie, but i have a hard time stomaching animals being shot from planes for sport. and while i understand what you're saying about hunters trying to keep populations up, they're doing it for selfish reasons. they try to keep populations up so that they'll have something else to hunt. not because they actually care about the animals.. that's my opinion anyway. i can't imagine that they particularly care about the animals if they're just shooting them for sport. I can understand if you need what you hunt for food or clothing and that you respect the animal that you have just killed. there was nothing respectful about what those people were doing. it saddened and sickened me.

e_taylor
09-17-2008, 07:20 AM
hmmm... well i'm not sure i would call myself an environmentalist hippie, but i have a hard time stomaching animals being shot from planes for sport. and while i understand what you're saying about hunters trying to keep populations up, they're doing it for selfish reasons. they try to keep populations up so that they'll have something else to hunt. not because they actually care about the animals.. that's my opinion anyway. i can't imagine that they particularly care about the animals if they're just shooting them for sport. I can understand if you need what you hunt for food or clothing and that you respect the animal that you have just killed. there was nothing respectful about what those people were doing. it saddened and sickened me.

The environmentalist hippie wasn't directed at you. But thats the thing, people don't do anything effectively unless they have something to gain. Why is it that the only successful environmental efforts have come from those that rely on animals for their livelihood (seal hunt) or for sport (Ducks Unlimited)?

What significant accomplishment can PETA or Green Peace claim?

jayson
09-17-2008, 07:41 AM
There are many many environmental/conservation groups at work besides PETA and Greenpeace. Incidentally, many of these are not comprised of "hippies" which is a sociology term about a very specific group of people at a very specific time period.

You asked for accomplishments...

Let's take the Environmental Defense Fund as an example.

- The group, founded in the mid-60's facilitated the banning of DDT as a pesticide in New York and then nationally.

- Led efforts to have hunted whales added to the Endangered Species list in the U.S.

- Performed a study of the Mississippi River which led to the Safe Drinking Water Act

- Designed Title IV of the Clean Air Act, which incorporates market-based methods to cut air pollution and reduce sulfur dioxide pollution faster than expected, and at a fraction of the cost.

-Co-authored the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

- Invention of the Safe Harbor concept which led to additions to the Endangered Species list

This is but a small list of their accomplishments, but it shows that not all environmental protection groups can be brushed aside as not having accomplished anything in the realm of conservation.

Matt
09-17-2008, 07:45 AM
We're not talking about "culling" here are we? Meaning, the wolf and bear populations are too big and they are killing livestock?

I thought that was what the wolf thing was all about for sure. But I could be wrong.

theBeamisHome
09-17-2008, 11:40 AM
i thought livestock had to do with animals being kept in captivity sort of... and this isn't about culling really i don't think, but i seriously doubt there is that much of an overpopulation of wolves and bears in Alaska.... i mean, it's basically all open space!!

oh and i know the hippie thing wasn't directed at me.. i wasn't offended.. just a disclaimer. like Jayson said, i'm too young to be a hippie.

Matt
09-17-2008, 12:39 PM
Took a bit of digging but I was able to get info on the Wolf thing. Turns out it is to save other wild life from them. The law has been in place for a while in Alaska and has only been ramped up because numbers are behind.

They are trying to save the Caribou


The state created its current wolf-kill program four years ago to protect the moose and caribou that wolves eat, and it's been controversial since day one. Animal-rights groups have sued unsuccessfully, sponsored "howl-ins" and urged tourists to boycott the state.http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/story/8726730p-8628810c.html

Some folks haven't liked it since the beginning of course but it is not sport hunting.

theBeamisHome
09-17-2008, 12:48 PM
sounds like voodoo to me.. asking for the leg of a slain wolf. :lol: i see why they said they're doing it but i don't buy it.
i also think it's just an excuse. personally, i don't think we should really interfere with nature. the fact that they're paying people to kill wolves, giving people opportunities that couldn't get a permit is a little unsettling to me. wolves have always had big litters.. maybe there are people that have reduced the caribou population and now the wolves are taking the punishment. they were living balanced with each other before we started trying to regulate things.

Matt
09-17-2008, 12:51 PM
Very true and I agree.

I just wanted to put the "sport hunting wolves" rumor to rest.

The article goes on to say that because Wolves have large litters and Caribou only have one calf during a birthing season, they are not returning to the wilderness at the same rate.

theBeamisHome
09-17-2008, 12:54 PM
i saw that, but that would have to mean that the caribou population has always been decreasing in relation to the wolf population. they've always been there. it just seems suspicious that it's a problem now. i think it was an excuse to allow people to go out and shoot wolves... and do bears eat caribou?

Matt
09-17-2008, 12:59 PM
The do indeed!

Jean
09-17-2008, 01:10 PM
and do bears eat caribou?
... or shit in the woods?

(no, we don't really eat caribou. We eat only fallen leaves.)

theBeamisHome
09-17-2008, 01:49 PM
i didn't think they did.. maybe the bears in Alaska are different?

Matt
09-17-2008, 02:00 PM
Bears are omnivorous like we are as far as I know

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_do_bears_eat

theBeamisHome
09-17-2008, 02:03 PM
i know they're omnivores lol... but i didn't think they hunted things like caribou.

Matt
09-17-2008, 02:09 PM
Extreme northwestern black bear menu (British Columbia, Canada and Alaska): In all seasons the same as above, with salmon, caribou and moose calves added where those animals are found.

http://www.covebear.com/BlackBearFoods.htm

:D

theBeamisHome
09-17-2008, 02:13 PM
that's funny.. they're like the only kind of bear that eats something that big :lol: they need the fat!
i still stand by my position that it's the natural order of things and not really our place to try to regulate it. and it's like a mass murdering, though! why couldn't they just relocate them???

Matt
09-17-2008, 02:17 PM
I think it is the same as any situation where we have intervened in the past and screwed up the local ecology. Wolves are exploding up there with very high birthrates and (as wolves do) they are hunting the shit out of things like the caribou.

Since there is no profit in killing them (until now) people are reluctant to hunt because its not like you can eat a predator animal.

Relocating would be fine but where, no one wants an exploding wolf population which is why they are killing a certain amount of them.

Woofer
09-17-2008, 04:54 PM
From the wiki article: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin#Predator_Control)


Predator Control

In 2006 the Alaska Department of Fish and Games and The Board of Game extended areas in which the aerial gunning of wolves is allowed, under the Predator Control Program. This was met with a legal challenge by the Friends of Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, and the Sierra Club, who sued the Department.[27][28]

In 2007, Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing Alaska the hunting of wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose populations.[29] In March 2007, Palin's office announced that a bounty of $150 per wolf would be paid to the 180 volunteer pilots and gunners, to offset fuel costs. This drew protest among wildlife activitists, [30] who took the state to court and won. Though the activists failed to stop aerial hunting, a state judge forced the state to stop paying the bounty.[31]

The program prompted U.S. Representative George Miller of California to introduce a federal bill (H.R. 3663) that would protect wolves, bears, and other wildlife from airborne hunting. [29]

In May 2007 Palin introduced Bill 256 to streamline the Predator Program,[32] and make it more difficult for conservation groups to sue the State. Critics of the Bill claimed it removed scientific standards and claim the programs are expensive and not effective.[33]

In August, 2007, both lawmakers and Governor Palin approved appropriating $400,000 from the state treasury to explain the aerial hunting program to Alaskans.[34] Since Alaskans were voting on an initiative against the practice the following year, many felt the funds were an attempt to influence the vote against the initiatve.[35][36] Alaskans had voted already against the aerial hunting of predators in 1996 and 2000; both times the state legislature overturned the results.[37] The measure had been allowed to expire after two years each time; hence the controversial vote. The program also allowed the fly-and-shoot, liberalized hunting of black bears with no bag limits in the same areas, in addition to the area from Anchorage across Cook Inlet in Game Unit 16.[38]

In March 2008 a federal judge's invalidated the aerial gunning program of wolves, by banning the practice in four areas covering up to 15,000 of the total of about 60,000 square miles covered by the program. The areas removed from the program were where the game board decided to extend it , the Judge said the board had extended into new areas for predator control without making any new findings on the wolves, caribou and bears in those areas.[39][40][41] On August 26, 2008, Alaskans voted against ending the state's predator control program.[42]

I have no objection to responsible hunting for food and have and would do it again myself were it necessary. I also believe you should try to use/and or donate all other usable parts; for example, give antlers and hooves and hide to artisans. If you want to hunt for sport, donate the meat to shelters or preserves.

Moreover, even if Alaskans feel that they have to control the wolf and bear populations, there are much more humane ways of doing it that shooting from a plane. There should only be one shot: the killing shot. Most aerial hunting videos I have seen do not make the first shot a killing shot. It's damn hard to make a kill when both you and your target are moving - unless you are an exceptional shot.

Darkthoughts
09-18-2008, 02:24 AM
Yep, you could have 50 people with dogs on horse back chasing one little fox...I best not get started on that!

;)

Jean
09-18-2008, 02:29 AM
Yep, you could have 50 people with dogs on horse back chasing one little fox...I best not get started on that!

;)

big bearhugs for the little fox...

Darkthoughts
09-18-2008, 02:34 AM
:D *Foxy cuddles for the big Bear* :huglove:

Woofer
09-18-2008, 02:49 AM
Yep, you could have 50 people with dogs on horse back chasing one little fox...I best not get started on that!

;)

Another barbaric practice that should be outlawed.

In his young adulthood, Mr. Woofer rescued a baby kit fox whose mother and siblings had died from cold. Mr. Woofer was hunting for food at the time.

*sigh*

bluelph24
09-18-2008, 02:54 AM
i, being a deer hunter and understanding the idea of overpopulation and preservation, completely disagree with this. i mean, with guns don't we already have a huge advantage over animals? do we really need to give ourselves a greater one with airplanes? where's the sport? if the wolves are causeing the caribou to die out, fine. hold a public hunt for them, but using planes is cheating.

Woofer
09-18-2008, 03:02 AM
i, being a deer hunter and understanding the idea of overpopulation and preservation, completely disagree with this. i mean, with guns don't we already have a huge advantage over animals? do we really need to give ourselves a greater one with airplanes? where's the sport? if the wolves are causeing the caribou to die out, fine. hold a public hunt for them, but using planes is cheating.

:thumbsup: That's more like it. *looks at forum name* Although I would hope that relocation would come first (where feasible). Hell, anybody who has read the dream thread knows that I would love to win the lottery and start a huge wolf preserve. I'd take in these guys and aerial any hunting of wolves would be completely unnecessary. (Hey, it's a dream so I'm going to dream that I have sufficient money for all of them.)

Jean
09-18-2008, 03:10 AM
i, being a deer hunter and understanding the idea of overpopulation and preservation, completely disagree with this. i mean, with guns don't we already have a huge advantage over animals? do we really need to give ourselves a greater one with airplanes? where's the sport? if the wolves are causeing the caribou to die out, fine. hold a public hunt for them, but using planes is cheating.
I actually agree with this. I am not (obviously) a hunter, but I wholeheartedly support hunting for food if it is necessary (which doesn't apply to advanced societies), and do not support, but do not condemn hunting for sport if it is a sport. Give the bear equal chances, see? And then let the Association of Hunters or whatever it is called pay pension to the disconsolate widow...

Woofer
09-18-2008, 03:26 AM
Well, it shouldn't be necessary in advanced societies, but sometimes it is. Not everyone makes liveable salary.

theBeamisHome
09-18-2008, 05:23 AM
yeah you know what, i may have to edit what i said before.. it's not exactly the hunting for sport that i'm against. but it's things like this that make me against it. like bluelph24 said... it's not a very sportsmanlike way to do it... it's just mass murder... i agree with the bear too of course :D

not flip flopping... just clarifying :lol:

Darkthoughts
09-18-2008, 11:26 AM
I applaud Mr Woofer for his kindness to foxes :clap:

Hunting for food I'm down with, I'm an omnivore and don't feel you can make a stance on all hunting unless you're a vegan - well, a stance that isn't in any way hypocrytical that is.

If ever I eat trout, venison or pheasant, it'll be when someone I know has poached :lol: hunted for it and I'm fine with that because there was a purpose to the death.
But fox hunting, in the UK, I'm so adverse to. If it's about population control fine - shoot them - but fox hunting in this country is so much upper class bollocks, it's one more way for the dying British aristocracy to distinguish themselves from the plebian masses and it stinks!

Woofer
09-18-2008, 03:39 PM
I applaud Mr Woofer for his kindness to foxes :clap:

Hunting for food I'm down with, I'm an omnivore and don't feel you can make a stance on all hunting unless you're a vegan - well, a stance that isn't in any way hypocrytical that is.

If ever I eat trout, venison or pheasant, it'll be when someone I know has poached :lol: hunted for it and I'm fine with that because there was a purpose to the death.
But fox hunting, in the UK, I'm so adverse to. If it's about population control fine - shoot them - but fox hunting in this country is so much upper class bollocks, it's one more way for the dying British aristocracy to distinguish themselves from the plebian masses and it stinks!

Thanks, Darkers (for Mr. Woofer).

I completely agree about sport hunting - including fox hunting.

The way the economy is going I might just have to take up hunting again. I work with several people who do not make enough to live on as it is. Venison is definitely a big part of their diet.

valtr0n
09-19-2008, 11:09 AM
It really bugs me that people against hunting don't look at what happens when hunting stops...

Starvation, sickness and extreme overpopulation come to mind, first. I'm pretty sure most animals would prefer a quick death than a slow one. Either way, they're going to die. One way serves a purpose. The other doesn't.

I hunt every year, and I hunt many things. Squirrel, rabbit, coyote, deer, groundhog, you name it. Coyote we hunt because it's a pest and they're getting a bit too brave lately.

I too think it should be fair. A very few hunters give everyone else a bad name (what with the helicopters, etc). A lot of people pay good money to go to an enclosed space where the animal they want to hunt is raised... then they're guided to it, shown which one to kill, and then they pull the trigger. Do I think they have a right to do this? Sure. Would I ever do it? No. It's not fair.

I don't even feel like using a tree stand is fair. I don't even use a 4-wheeler to get to where I'm going or to drag the deer out. I personally think 4-wheelers, at least in my area, should be banned during hunting season. If you're too damn lazy to find the deer on foot, then drag it out by hand, you don't need to be hunting.

Really, most hunters are people who genuinely care about the preservation of nature, the preservation of game, and the preservation of thousands upon thousands of years of history. I personally feel that anyone who eats meat should, at least once in their life, be responsible for killing, cleaning, and preparing their own food, just so they have a more personal understanding of what it means to be the predator, and not just a consumer.

Ruthful
09-19-2008, 12:15 PM
- The group, founded in the mid-60's facilitated the banning of DDT as a pesticide in New York and then nationally.


Not to derail another perfectly good thread-which seems to be a specialty of mine-but why is that a good thing?

The reason Western countries banned DDT-conveniently, after the conditions that necessitated its use there had been eliminated-was because of spurious claims made by anti-pesticide alarmists like Rachel Carson-and yes, I know banning DDT wasn't a major component of her seminal work-which were later completely debunked.

Fast-forward three or four decades in the future, and millions upon millions of poor African children are dead, simply because of a shortsighted reaction among a group of insular luddites, and we're trying to mitigate the continent-wide disaster with mosquito nets.

Yes, mosquito nets!

Ruthful
09-19-2008, 12:21 PM
As to the hunting issue, I don't see what the problem is. Leaving aside issues like caged hunts and tree stands-which I agree aren't ethical-I don't see what's wrong with a species that's omnivorous hunting for a portion of its food supply.

The problem I have with people who object to seal hunting in Canada, or whale hunting in Japan, is that they use purely emotional arguments in defense of their position, which, to someone who was trained in classic forensics, isn't at all convincing. I'm sure there are several legitimate arguments to make against hunting certain species of animal, but they should revolve around empirical evidence and rational proofs.

Matt
09-19-2008, 12:23 PM
I figure its okay because if a person was in the wilderness, they would be hunted. :lol:

They hunt us, we hunt them, its all the big plan

Ruthful
09-19-2008, 12:29 PM
http://www.bruddabear.com/photo/BearCavalry.jpg

LadyHitchhiker
09-19-2008, 04:21 PM
I, being the animal lover must make a statement here.

I understand hunting - couldn't ever do it, but I understand it - and I HATE PETA. Peta wants us to fix all the domestic animals, not have pets, and liberate all the animals in capitivity, so they can fend for themselves. So let's have diseased animals breeding everywhere and not take care of them? I think it's our responsibility to take care of these animals that we decided to breed and domesticate. I also think (and this is my opinion) that God put animals on the earth first, and so therefore we are supposed to take care of them. Does that mean we cannot eat them? No. Does it mean we should be cruel to them? Absolutely not! We must find a fair balance, and we this is imfo part of our responsibility.

I actually love animals more than all the people I know... well except maybe you guys and maybe well my husband and my mom and my brother. I think they are just as intelligent as people; a different kind of intelligence albeit, and I would never eat a billybumbler.. :D

valtr0n
09-19-2008, 04:33 PM
I have never understood why it's so difficult for PETA and other such organizations to understand the food chain, cycle of life, whatever you want to call it. It's a very clear, simple concept. We are not above it.

We are part of it, forever.

LadyHitchhiker
09-19-2008, 04:34 PM
That was so poetic!!!

cozener
09-20-2008, 12:30 PM
its important to note that hunters/fishers are some of the few champions of the environment and animals that have any clout to do anything. I see this as a very important point. Often hunters and fishers are cast as the villains in this issue and they really are champions of the environment. They have a true love and appreciation of not only the adventure, but also the beauty, sustenance, and planetary health the natural world has to offer us.

Its too bad that these folks and us liberal hippies tend to be diametrically opposed on just about every other issue :lol:

John_and_Yoko
09-20-2008, 03:09 PM
its important to note that hunters/fishers are some of the few champions of the environment and animals that have any clout to do anything. I see this as a very important point. Often hunters and fishers are cast as the villains in this issue and they really are champions of the environment. They have a true love and appreciation of not only the adventure, but also the beauty, sustenance, and planetary health the natural world has to offer us.

Its too bad that these folks and us liberal hippies tend to be diametrically opposed on just about every other issue :lol:

As George Carlin said, the environment doesn't need us protecting it. We don't have the ability to either destroy or save it, even if we tried. If it survived the oxygen crisis it can take care of itself.

The whole environmental issue should therefore only discuss what directly affects us as humans, as that's where we do have the power of destruction or salvation. And while we do need to look at the big picture for that, I don't think we need to save every last species of jungle insect just because it currently exists. Nature didn't spare the dinosaurs, did she?

valtr0n
09-20-2008, 03:25 PM
John_and_Yoko,

When we, as citizens of this earth, are the ones destroying said environment, then yes, it does need us to protect it. Nature itself killed the dinosaurs. There's nothing natural about our destruction of the environment.

John_and_Yoko
09-20-2008, 03:51 PM
John_and_Yoko,

When we, as citizens of this earth, are the ones destroying said environment, then yes, it does need us to protect it. Nature itself killed the dinosaurs. There's nothing natural about our destruction of the environment.

But relatively speaking, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we're doing LESS damage than, say, the oxygen crisis I mentioned. That involved the pollution of water and air to the point where a fairly large percentage of the pollutant has remained in both ever since, forcing life to adapt in order to cope with this. Have we humans done anything on that scale? We may need to protect ourselves (and species we depend on for our own existence), but are we really 100% responsible for everything that goes on in the environment?

Also, what's unnatural about it? Aren't we part of nature? Are we the only species that engages in pointless destruction? I think it's a difference of degree rather than kind.

Brice
09-21-2008, 05:04 AM
I'm neither for or against hunting since I do eat meat. I do however think someone should be hunting those aerial hunters from a plane or helicopter with an automatic weapon and a laser sight. I think I could agree that's a sport.

theBeamisHome
09-22-2008, 11:27 AM
i'm with Brice :thumbsup:
hunting... ok... i'd even like to try hunting a deer like valtr0n said, to get the experience of having to be the predator and not just a consumer... but what those guys were doing just leaves me feeling a lil peckish.. and very angry.:onfire:

Girlystevedave
09-22-2008, 12:03 PM
The world is overpopulated by humans. I think it's time I get in my helicopter and start eliminating the people that I like the least.
<_<

theBeamisHome
09-22-2008, 12:06 PM
good point Amanda... the way the logic of this thing works, if we're trying to control populations i think we're the most overpopulated... why don't they start hunting humans? i can think of a few to start with.

valtr0n
09-22-2008, 12:16 PM
Sick as it is, I agree with the "hunting humans."

Anyone who's on death row should be given the option to live out the rest of their lives in a maximum security, forested enclosure. Charge rich people to come hunt them.

Not only would it save us billions, we'd make tons of money, too.

Matt
09-22-2008, 12:17 PM
I'm not sure about that but I'm all for putting them down quickly.

(tries not to turn it into a DP discussion)

theBeamisHome
09-22-2008, 12:17 PM
yeah... especially since it costs so much to kill a prisoner... <_<
and the education budget looks like shit... wtf is wrong with our priorities???

Girlystevedave
09-22-2008, 12:25 PM
My whole point was that: The hunting is going to be allowed because the wolves are decreasing the moose population. So, they are basically saying: "Oh, the moose are more important. We like tham more. Kill the wolves!!"
F*ck! Let nature takes it's course. By nature, I don't mean a bunch of idiots in helicopters with f'n guns trying to take down as many wolves as possible so they can brag to their buddies about it later on.

I can see the headlines years from now: "Conservationists Adding Wolves to Endangered Species List"
:nope:

valtr0n
09-22-2008, 01:11 PM
Girlystevedave, I don't think it's so much "we like moose better", but "oh shit, we let the wolf population get out of control and now it's affecting the moose population, we better kill a bunch of them!"

More often than not, hunting regulations and practices are based on correcting our own past mistakes. I don't agree with hunting wolves from helicopters, but I do agree with hunting wolves if the population isn't being kept in check. The only reason to hunt wolves from a helicopter is because you're afraid of them... and, well, if you're afraid of them, you ought not be hunting them in the first place, because you're a coward.

That's just my opinion.

Matt
09-22-2008, 01:14 PM
I looked it up a bit again and what they are doing is using the helicopter to track (scare the shit out of them...round them up) them then landing to kill.

Actually shooting at animals from the air is prohibited by a federal law.

Some interesting information about it here.

http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/policy_and_legislation/aerial_hunting_q_and_a.pdf

The article writer is obviously very "pro" stopping this which is cool, it also doesn't reflect well on the state government of Alaska (including Palin) but I don't care...its interesting. :D

theBeamisHome
09-22-2008, 06:19 PM
on the video it really looked like they were shooting from the air...

Woofer
09-23-2008, 02:37 AM
on the video it really looked like they were shooting from the air...

On the video it was pretty clear they were shooting from the airplane. You can clearly see the wolf react to being shot as it turns and snaps at its backside in confusion and pain.

ETA: It reacts very similarly to how our cat Gabbette did when the yellow jacket stung her on her back.

valtr0n
09-23-2008, 03:32 AM
That's yet another reason a respectable hunter shouldn't hunt from the sky...

If you can't get a clean kill shot on the first try, you shouldn't ever fire in the first place. It's against the ethics of hunting, and it's not fair chase in any way. No animal should ever be made to suffer because of your lack of skill and/or judgment.

Woofer
09-23-2008, 04:15 AM
Moreover, even if Alaskans feel that they have to control the wolf and bear populations, there are much more humane ways of doing it that shooting from a plane. There should only be one shot: the killing shot. Most aerial hunting videos I have seen do not make the first shot a killing shot. It's damn hard to make a kill when both you and your target are moving - unless you are an exceptional shot.


That's yet another reason a respectable hunter shouldn't hunt from the sky...

If you can't get a clean kill shot on the first try, you shouldn't ever fire in the first place. It's against the ethics of hunting, and it's not fair chase in any way. No animal should ever be made to suffer because of your lack of skill and/or judgment.

http://psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif <---thumbs up

Exactly.

Matt
09-23-2008, 06:38 AM
I totally agree. I think shooting something from the sky is wrong as hell.

My only reason for posting the link is that if the video shows them shooting animals from the sky they are in violation of a federal law and should be held accountable for it.

Also that what is being supported by the State of Alaska is a "land and shoot" policy so those shooting from the air are breaking the established federal law.

Even though "land and shoot" sucks just as bad.

theBeamisHome
09-23-2008, 10:01 AM
yeah... that's not really hunting... it's an unfair advantage and disgusting... someone should hunt them from a hot air balloon... :lol:

valtr0n
09-23-2008, 04:31 PM
Here's a good example of why hunting, and conservation, are important...

Coyotes in my area are getting out of hand. Extremely.

Today, we found a deer carcass. Cornered in an outside stall on the barn. It's head and neck were dragged under the lowest board on the stall. It's head was severed, nowhere to be found. All meat is gone from the bones. Skeleton is completely exposed. It's literally skin and bones, and it's less than 1/4 mile from where the farm ends, and houses begin. They used to stick way back on the farm, but apparently no longer. If they're hunting deer, and coming in that close to the lights, they're a problem. They have no known predator in this area any longer, they can have several litters a year, and they are very difficult to hunt.

Where do an animals rights end and a humans rights begin? The animals are obviously becoming a danger to humans, and coyote season is open year round, but night hunting is restricted.

Woofer
09-23-2008, 04:50 PM
I'm not sure how developed it is where you live, but that could also illustrate why we shouldn't continue to thoughtlessly destroy any and all habitats just to build more bloody houses (or, as is usually the case here, condos). We mow down or plow under the woods where these animals have been living for years just to build another Pines at Bay Point* or another bloody golf course. There is plenty of housing in this area already, and there are far too many golf courses. Hells bells, I pass three golf courses on the 15 mile drive to my office.

Most of the problems we have at our house, however, are with raccoons. They will even come in the cat door and help themselves to food.


*Housing development name completely made up.

valtr0n
09-24-2008, 01:39 AM
It has nothing to do with development, and everything to do with overpopulation due to no natural predator.

There are houses near (not developments, mostly trailers, very sparse), but this is a 100 acre farm bordering on a 40,000 acre segment of a National Forest.

Hbgunslinger
09-24-2008, 02:08 AM
I have hunted most of my life, I never use semi automatic rifles or anything like that I always use Blackpowder rifles or a bow. I agree with Val on the fact that if someone cannot use only one shot to get a deer or whatever they are hunting then they should not be in the woods. I worked for a guide in Maine for a few years and I had a complete idiotic asshole who if I was to ever see again better go the other way who shot and killed a bear that maybe weighed 100 pounds. I efectively got my guide license pulled and I think problably gotten arrested if it wasn't for the fact that the Game Warden agreed with me. I took the douches gun and broke it told him to leave go back to whatever suburb he came from. I have more respect for animals than I do 90% of the people I know. Bears most of all, I have never had the honor of hunting a bear but if/when I do I will do it on his terms, just me my black powder (no back up) and him no bait no dogs I will track him and if he figures me out then I will leave (or become dinner.)

I also agree with valtron on the issues with Coyotes, I am not sure where val is actually from but the Coyotes up my way are awful. On a daily basis dogs cats cows sheep goats are getting picked off in my area. It's 10 fold worse during the winter. And they are a real challenge to hunt unbelievably smart.

Edit: I also ate all the meat and kept the skins of the animals I have hunted. I would never let them go to waste. And the 100 pound bear that the douche shot I wouldn't let him take it I donated it to a local church for a game dinner.

valtr0n
09-24-2008, 11:08 AM
Hbgunslinger, I'm in Kentucky.

The coyotes have gotten progressively worse over the past year. Areas they wouldn't have dared come to last year are now the areas they no longer fear. And you're right, they're incredibly difficult to hunt, especially here. The longest shot you might get is 200 yards, and that's an incredibly lucky positioning. Most of the time, you're going to be hunting the brush. An ice storm 6 years ago knocked most of the tree canopy down, and now the majority of the forest here is full of nothing but undergrowth. The past 6 deers I've seen while hunting have been within a stone's throw.

Coyote here are almost impossible unless you have the perfect setup and the perfect place. The fact that turkeys are so plentiful (and move around so much) just compounds the matter, because the coyotes will follow them.

But something has to be done about them. I'm all for an animal's rights, but when a group of them is coming in so close, where there's a big light over the barn, and cornering and killing a deer, it's just a matter of time before it's a kid.

Hbgunslinger
09-24-2008, 09:39 PM
My dad lives in West Virginia and they are getting awful down there too. The one coyote I ever got was about 7 years ago it was January the farmer me and my dads are friends with was having an issue with the coyotes coming in and attacking the livestock and his barn cats. So when they finally killed one of his cows he had had enough and had me and my dad come up to try and help. I layed on my stomach in the snow with a rather heavy blanket over me for just about 5 hours waiting for a coyote to come in to the cow that was killed. It was the only time I used a semi atuomatic rifle and I'm glad I did cause the coyote got within about 250 300 yards and knew something was up.
Their favorite way of getting deer in the winter are chasing them onto the ice then taking out the legs and eating the deer that way.
They are really bad in Maine too, it's just to hard to hunt them and people are to lazy.

cozener
09-25-2008, 08:41 AM
Are you near Louisville Val?

valtr0n
09-25-2008, 10:34 AM
I'm about 2 hours east of Louisville, Cozener.