If you’re alluding to some of the claims by Ducks Unlimited, then remember where their donations came from, big oil companies and pipeline and rail companies etc

And they “DU” have often been accused of being quite non-vocal when their sponsors wish to utilizes parts of the land in not so environmental ways

Still I will give them their due they do do a lot more work in conservation than any other hunting group that springs to mind (which is none)

The reason for that is that there are so many "anti" movements/groups/voices out there that hunting has become politicised. Instead of just being something a man and his dog (or buddy, spouse, kid)does quietly, it's become an "issue."

Because the anti lobby is so loud and one sided in their approach you've got to learn to answer them.

However, since I come from the anti hunting, anti gun side of the fence I know believe that MY arguments were

naive

and

sentimental

And the last thing you want to do to someone who is naive and sentimental is to upset them more (and risk the wrath of their rage) and say you enjoy squeezing that trigger and seeing bambi's mother crumple in a heap.

Lots of thing give me adrenaline rushes - I used to show jump. That is a rush. Rugby, karate, judo, mountain climbing, motorcycle riding. All things that give me a rush. In a way the closer to one's own death the bigger the ruish. Maybe this translates to hunting in that the hunter is more close to death than at any time except his/her own death. I don't know. I think this is over thinking it.

Like sex, hunting is more exciting in the run-up (so to speak) than in the climax. And the climax is really anti-climactic in many ways. In other words the chase is more exciting than the kill.

I truly believe that hunters enjoy the chase more than the kill: but there would be no chase without the posibillity of a kill. There doesn't have to be a kill, but there has to be the possibility.

Why do I believe my previous stance was naive and sentimental.

Naive, because it ignores the more "impactful" effects that we have on the world and our ecology, and ignores the fact that humans are OF this world, not apart from it.

Our technology, everything we wear, eat (mostly) and use for shelter and security and pleasure impacts the world.

Maybe that's OK? Gaia (whoever she is - the workld, nature etc personified) doesn't look for stasis, but balance. And the balance shifts as the variables shift. Gaia shifts in reponse. Humans evolved from the world, and came with a brain. Maybe this is Gaia's best acheivement.

We cry, moan and wail under the guise of not wanting any harm to the world because that new balance may affect us personally and as a society. We don't really give a damn about the world, because as individuals we can neither comprehend or control the world in any meaningful way.

I want to see bambi dappled in the sunlight damn it! Even if I've got to capture bambi and tame him to do so.

And so comes the sentimentality: we emotionalize and anthropormorphize creatures. We don't want wildlife, we want a Disney set.

We don't want to shoot bambi, we want to adopt bambi and give him milk out of a bottle - turn him into a pet, call him cute, cuddle him, protect him.

Sometimes the way humans protect things is the absolute worst thing we can do.

You know what: I'm going to shoot bambi's dad, eat his meat and if they are good enough, mount his antlers on my wall.

Bambi will survive, and when he's had a harem and lots of kids, and he's nearing the end of his life and his antlers are large, and if I get a tag, I'll shoot and eat him too, and raise a toast to both of them!

"To life!"

I know the thrill of the kill

And it is a lot like sex, and I believe the lead up influences the intensity of the ending, and (at least for me)it’s not anti climatic ….!!!

Certainly from active fighting sports such as judo, to hold somebody’s head in a lock knowing how close you hold them and what could happen next and then the submission to follow is one hell of a rush if the competition is close and evenly matched

I see hunting as a lot like that, but for modern hunting it seems not to be very evenly matched or the hunter being exposed to much risk at all, but still getting to enjoy the kill…. Bit like a Judo match but with a much smaller guy who’s been softened up a lot first…

And that is why in part I feel that denying the critical key reason of why you hunt is one of the key factors as to why the argument of the average hunter look so two faced

I can see the cull being needed but I also know it’s better if it’ s done by experts, however the government /landowners can make a lot of money of people by allowing the enthusiastic amateur to come in and shoot away, along with creating a small industry in clothing gadgets and accessories

I sincerely believe that whist the hunting lobby fails to openly acknowledge why they do it, they will continually and slowly lose ground to their opposing lobbyists
However if they openly admitted it was about the primitive hunter in all of us, it would be a much harder case to fight, in the same way we know today to suppress sexual urge can only lead to problems
I think controlled hunting parties would be a great method for allowing modern man to vent some of his pent up frustration a bit of “flight or fight” however I wouldn’t condone hides or cameras or even guns, maybe on foot with a bow even it up a bit

I think the hides, camera technique of almost remote computerized stalking removes much of the credibility of the talk of its all about the build up to the kill, and shows that many do as little as possible almost waiting for the animal in question to walk right onto the guns sight and then they pull the trigger
Then it comes down to cheap meat, or just killing for the sake of killing

I completely agree.

Surely modern day hunters are in more danger of death from their own kind rather than the animals they hunt.

I agree with you on this. I would also add that the hunters also enjoy the ease of the hunt. By this i mean that the chances of them becoming the hunter or victim is very slim indeed. If hunters went back to their roots and hunted with limited weaponry (hands, knives, spears, clubs) then the actual number of willing participants would be reduced.

Now that's more like it

Nothing. It was an excellent TV series.

Or drink-drive.

Espescially if Dick Cheney is part of your group.

It started off with an interesting premise and a potentially good story arc, but quickly degenerated into 'good looking people being chased by a variety of dinosaurs' each week which paled after a while. And then it got cancelled after series 3, literally leaving our hero's up a tree.

I thought he was left in the past...

I agree with you. It started good, then got stupid. There's apparently the possibility of a film to tie up loose ends.

I have been reliably informed that the weapon of choice in this household is a 270 (apparently always laoded when moh is away 'just in case you need it"!!!!! would not know where to start i'd more than likely hit someone with it!))

TBH I don't want to shoot the gun (though I have used the 22 for gophers!) because its too loud hence why I want to bow shoot. Also I can practice pretty much any time of the year and Its something I can practice alone, don't have to go anywhere to do it and once you have the equipment its cheap!

I haven't been on BE for quite some time but noticed your thread today & wanted to add my two pennies!

My hubby is a hunter and he also works for the hunter/conservation organisation AHEIA.
Hunting or culling is a very necessary part of wilderness conservation

If people did not hunt, there would be significant increases in the costs of wildlife damage to crops and property, and the maintenance of public safety

Hunters are effective partners in wildlife conservation and in the development of hunting laws and regulations because of the relationships and experiences they have with the natural environment.

Hunters are accountable for their actions and responsible for their behaviour.

Hunters respect and follow the laws and regulations that govern hunting privileges in this province.

Our standards of ethical behaviour go beyond mere adherence to laws and regulations.

We operate within the context of sustainable wildlife management where hunting and the activities of hunters contribute to the viability of wildlife populations.

Hunting is a useful and effective wildlife management tool in the maintenance of healthy and abundant wildlife populations in balance with the natural environment and society's acceptance of those populations.

We believe that hunting encompasses a wide variety of experiences that involve traditional social, family and personal values with regard to our use of the land and our relationship with the natural environment.

Promotion of sound wildlife conservation preserves hunting opportunities for the future.

ALL hunters in Alberta are legally required to pass a hunter education course before hunting for further info on the hunter Ed training www.aheia.com

Anyway, the short answer is yes I agree with hunting. I do not think I could personally pull the trigger & kill an animal but thanks to my hubby, I don't have to! I butcher the meat & we have a years supply of organic moose & venison.
x

WTF! You should never leave a loaded gun in the house

People shouldn't drink-drive, murder or do many other things such as speeding, drug-taking and domestic violence, but still do. Where do loaded guns in rural houses rank on your WTF scale now?

Very well put, I completely agree.

This thread is about hunting, not about drink driving, speeding, drug taking or violence.
I merely wanted to point out that it is both extremely dangerous & illegal to keep a loaded gun in your house!

with all due respect I have an o/h who works away 2 in every 3 leaving me alone, live a fair ways from anyone else in the middle of nowhere. I would keep a loaded cannon in the house if I saw the need.