hunting via internet?

[joey]

Oddly Enough - Reuters


Texas Officials Wary of Plan to Hunt by Internet

Wed Nov 17, 8:45 AM ET Oddly Enough - Reuters


By Jeff Franks

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Hunters soon may be able to sit at their computers and blast away at animals on a Texas ranch via the Internet, a prospect that has state wildlife officials up in arms.



A controversial Web site, http://www.live-shot.com, already offers target practice with a .22 caliber rifle and could soon let hunters shoot at deer, antelope and wild pigs, site creator John Underwood said on Tuesday.


Texas officials are not quite sure what to make of Underwood's Web site, but may tweak existing laws to make sure Internet hunting does not get out of hand.


"This is the first one I've seen," said Texas Parks and Wildlife Department wildlife director Mike Berger. "The current state statutes don't cover this sort of thing."


Underwood, an estimator for a San Antonio, Texas auto body shop, has invested $10,000 to build a platform for a rifle and camera that can be remotely aimed on his 330-acre (133-hectare) southwest Texas ranch by anyone on the Internet anywhere in the world.


The idea came last year while viewing another Web site on which cameras posted in the wild are used to snap photos of animals.


"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.


Internet hunting could be popular with disabled hunters unable to get out in the woods or distant hunters who cannot afford a trip to Texas, Underwood said.


Berger said state law only covers "regulated animals" such as native deer and birds and cannot prevent Underwood from offering Internet hunts of "unregulated" animals such as non-native deer that many ranchers have imported and wild pigs.


He has proposed a rule that will come up for public discussion in January that anyone hunting animals covered by state law must be physically on site when they shoot.


Berger expressed reservations about remote control hunting, but noted that humans have always adopted new technologies to hunt.


"First it was rocks and clubs, then we sharpened it and put it on a stick. Then there was the bow and arrow, black powder, smokeless power and optics," Berger said. "Maybe this is the next technological step out there."


Underwood, 39, said he will offer animal hunting as soon as he gets a fast Internet connection to his remote ranch that will enable hunters to aim the rifle quickly at passing animals.


He said an attendant would retrieve shot animals for the shooters, who could have the heads preserved by a taxidermist. They could also have the meat processed and shipped home, or donated to animal orphanages.

********

Any thoughts?

Meh, sorry for the bizarre postings----I'm bored and it's crappy outside.... :(

[Tim and Julie B]

That is weird....armchair hunters??? So much for we go out to hunt to spend time with the guys and enjoy nature (by blowing it's head off). It will be to easy for people, you should have to get your hands dirty instead of it looking like a video game. I hope that gun has a lock out or some crackpot will shoot at the ranch employees as they are getting the deer.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by joey
"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.'
Sure sounds like a Texan! Yeehaw! :rolleyes:

[joey]

Originally posted by Tim and Julie B
I hope that gun has a lock out or some crackpot will shoot at the ranch employees as they are getting the deer.

THAT would be humorous!

[rocketjawa]

Are you sure this isnt a hoax, like that site that said for 10K you could hunt naked porn stars in the woods with a paintball gun??

hunting for bambie . com I think was that site...

[Will]

This might just be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long, long time...

Why doesn't it surprise me the guy is from Texas...?

For 10K you could hunt naked porn stars in the woods with a paintball gun??

Now if I were sitting on a mountain of money, that's something I could get into... :D lol.

[Neo]

people could get away w/ murder pretty easily w/ that thing

[peterm15]

i think its stupid.... now if he sai he would bring accident victems(quadrapoligics) that used to hunt go to the woods with them and have some sort of autimated gun like that for them to hunt it wouldnt be so bad..... like have some sort of hook up for them to aim and fire...

keep in mind i am against hunting, i just think everyone should have equal oppritunity....

[concept3]

way to go joey now all the tree huggers are going to start crying

[RepTylE]

What a nice way to desensitize people to killing. I hunted for the first half of my life and at least when I shot something I did it directly and if I had to dispatch a wounded animal I did it. I also went out and hunted in all weather and made the physical effort but now the process is reduced to not much more than a video game.
What's next? No wait don't answer, I don't want to know.

[noname]

I'm hardly a "tree hugger", but the thought of hunting anything, disgusts and infuriates me. Yeah, I'm sure it's great to spend a day outdoors with the boys, but why the heck would you need to kill an innocent animal in order to make your day pleasurable. HOW is that pleasurable? I understand that back in the day, hunting was a necessity, however, nowadays you can buy anything you could ever need at a store five minutes from your home. And heck, drive there if you're too lazy to walk. Society takes everything we have for granted, and it's going to bite us in the a$$ one day. Maybe not in our generation, but perhaps in that of our children, or their children. If we appreciated all the beautiful things that exist around us, rather than hunting them down for the adrenaline rush, our world would be a better place.

I'm fully aware that this post was intended merely to discuss this "game", but I just thought I'd put my two cents in. I'm not even going to bother discussing the laziness of the people who are thinking of this...I'm sure you all figure where I stand on that.

Courtney

[clint545]

This world can be a very sad place when you hear about this sort of thing, the whole mentallity of it. With all the leaps and bounds forward with technology that we should be using to better our lives and mend the Earth (from things we've caused it), there's still those yahoos that want to use it for sick and lazy purposes.

[Katt]

The whole live shot idea is kind of neat, but to hunt that way? Kind of lame. Sort of like canned hunts. How can you call yourself a hunter?? Where's the stalking and out witting your prey?

I have respect for most hunters, a lot of hunters believe in conservation b/c without species continuing on, there will be nothing left to hunt. I really admire bow and arrow hunters.

I would like to learn to hunt one day and eat the things I kill. Trophy hunting I don't understand too much b/c it's not like the hunter did anything to create the animal, he just got lucky enough to be there with a gun and shoot it.

I say boo to the lazy hunters!

[HeatherRose]

While I have some respect for hunters and come from a town where everyone hunts from the age of five, I find so many things wrong with this sentence:

"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.

:(

[Matt_K]

Originally posted by Katt
Trophy hunting I don't understand too much b/c it's not like the hunter did anything to create the animal, he just got lucky enough to be there with a gun and shoot it.

It's more like Hunting for Sport and getting lucky enough to get a Trophy..

I'm an avid fisherman and have many a fish on my wall.. All of which are Replica mounts but they're there none the less.. I fish for the sport of it, but when you catch a once in a lifetime fish, sometimes a picture just isn't enough..

With hunting, if you shot it, chances are it's dead anyway, so why not put the head on your wall as a trophy?? I see nothing wrong with it so long as the meat is used and the animal wasn't killed JUST for the head..

-Matt

[KrokadilyanGuy3]

Noname, you do realize hunters contribute most of the money for wild animal conservation right? Most parks were contributed by hunters. Bambi wouldn't be frolicing through the brushes if it weren't for us. Plus, turkey and pork bought from the store is far less appetizing than hunted animals. Not to mention Deer doesn't taste like chicken.. -Pretty much what Katt said.

As for the internet issue, I hope it's a hoax or doesn't pick up in popularity.
Zane

[Ptindy]

Parks wouldn't be needed if people didn't hunt. Also, the money comes from there permits to hunt, which makes sense. We need to register cars to drive on roads, why shouldn't hunters buy permits to hunt? Hunters wouldn't voluntarily pay for this animal conservation if they didn't have to. We buy fishing licenses so that ponds can be restocked. You buy permits so that wildlife can be maintained.

Mike

[noname]

Yeah, I do realize that hunters inadvertantly pay for parks, though I'm sure it's not by choice. But tell me this, why do we need animal conservation in the first place? It's because of human influence that animals go extinct, specifically because some people like to think hunting is a sport. If turkey and pork bought from the store don't taste as good as something you shot and killed, then check your recipe books 'cus you're doing something wrong. But hey, I don't eat any of the above, so what do I know, right? Oh, one more thing...have you even seen Bambi? His mother was shot by a hunter...

Courtney

[RepTylE]

There is more damage and need for conservation due to habitat loss than from hunting. You rip out a wood lot to build a new subdivision, how many animal species are displaced?
A hunter might take one deer and maybe a couple rabbits out of that same area. As far as devastating animal populations, a hunter seems a slacker by comparison.

[noname]

I know that Reptyle, as I was saying, the need for conservation and the creation of provincial parks and such, is because of human influence. This thread is about hunting though, and as much as everyone tries to defend it, I'm not going to agree. It's black and white really. Killing an animal living in a natural environment, for selfish purposes is wrong.

[Slannesh]

I WAS just going to ignore this thread till I saw a few outright incorrect things being stated as if they were facts.

Ptindy said
Parks wouldn't be needed if people didn't hunt. Also, the money comes from there permits to hunt, which makes sense. We need to register cars to drive on roads, why shouldn't hunters buy permits to hunt? Hunters wouldn't voluntarily pay for this animal conservation if they didn't have to. We buy fishing licenses so that ponds can be restocked. You buy permits so that wildlife can be maintained.

Not even sure where to start here. We need national and provincial parks to protect HABITAT, not individual animals. It has almost nothing to do with population loss that is a direct result of hunting, at least not in the last 60 or 70 years anyhow. Every year more and more natural habitat for hundreds of species is lost due to development and ever growing cities encroaching on surrounding land. Not to mention altering land to create new farmland to feed our ever bloated human population on this planet. Growth of the support structure to house and feed the human race is an inevitability but it comes at a very high cost for a lot of animal species. That is why we have Parks, not to protect poor little bambi from the ravening hordes of evil hunters just waiting for him to stick a toe outside the park boundary.

You do need a permit to hunt. Several in fact... A course and an FAC to even buy a gun, Another hunter education course before you can get ANY licence as well as individual tags for anything you plan to hunt. Big game anyhow, fowl is a bit different and i'm a lot less familiar with that. Not to mention Each and every big game hunter I know personally is at least a member of organizations like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) and Ducks Unlimited (DU) Both of which donate literally millions of dollars a year in money, time and land to the conservation of wildlife habitat. I find the line "Hunters wouldn't voluntarily pay for this animal conservation if they didn't have to." personally offensive. I've been a card carrying member of both organizations I mentioned above for twenty years and haven't even gone hunting in the last 10. How much have YOU personally done for wildlife conservation?

Noname continued with this gem
Yeah, I do realize that hunters inadvertantly pay for parks, though I'm sure it's not by choice. But tell me this, why do we need animal conservation in the first place? It's because of human influence that animals go extinct, specifically because some people like to think hunting is a sport. If turkey and pork bought from the store don't taste as good as something you shot and killed, then check your recipe books 'cus you're doing something wrong. But hey, I don't eat any of the above, so what do I know, right? Oh, one more thing...have you even seen Bambi? His mother was shot by a hunter...

Yes, mine and hundreds of other hunters in Western Canada just ACCIDENTALLY spent millions of dollars on wildlife and habitat conservation. Please pull your head out of your rear and at least TRY to look up the facts before you spout off about stuff you obviously know nothing about next time.

We NEED wildlife and habitat conservation because humans don't live by the normal rules of the animal kingdom. Animals have been going extinct for millions of years before humans ever evolved as well. We just help the process along a lot faster unfortunately.
Yes, i've seen bambi. It's a frigging CARTOON. Do us all a favor and at least have an IDEA about what you're spouting off about before you open your mouth next time. I really could care less if you agree or disagree with the concept of hunting. No, it's not necessary for survival of the human species any longer. I'd be stupid to argue that. But I can definately make a case that it's become necessary for the survival of many local populations of animals all over Canada and the US. Shrinking habitat, inability for natural migration patterns due to human development, lack of natural competition and predation not to mention environmental effects take a pretty awful toll on overpopulated herds.

As to your comment about "Killing an animal living in a natural environment, for selfish purposes is wrong." I don't suppose you consider keeping your reptile pets in an unnatural environment, being fed things they would never see in nature selfish would you? Try to make sure you don't live in a glass house before you decide to start throwing rocks next time.


Edit: BTW I think the internet hunting idea is incredibly stupid.

[joey]

I have to say that I totally agree with Slannesh(excellent post!) and I'm an admitted "tree-hugging, dirt worshipper" lol.


I much prefer hunted wild game meat as opposed to store bought factory farm beef, pork or chicken. I find nothing wrong with hunting as long as it's done for a purpose other than to get drunk and go out into the woods with a gun to kill ANYthing.

Where I live there are SO many deer that I see them everyday--a lot of times dead on the side of the road.

I have a neice, who on her 12th birthday went with her father and shot her first 12 point buck with a crossbow. I felt a little sad for the buck but proud as hell for my neice....something I couldn't have done at 12. !! Hunting brings out the instinctive 'hunter-gatherer", which I feel very strongly.

As far as the online hunting---- totally moronic, maybe they should instead make it 'Shoot a Redneck Texan' ...we certainly need less of that stereotypical mentality.

[ariesdragongirl]

I am new to this forum and just reading over what has been said, I am in awe of Slannesh's ability to put ideas into words so clearly. :) I grew up in a family that hunts and can skin a deer... and I don't let my boyfriend forget it!! :) I don't hunt on my own but will certainly take deer meat if it were offered to me! I think a lot of hunters have gotten a bad rap from the jerks who go out into the woods, shoot a deer and then cut it's head off to leave the carcass lying there. Killing for trophies is wrong to me because I feel that if the creature has lived that long then it deserves to keep on living. It should be respected, not killed.
I live in Alabama, USA and hunting is a way of life around here. My boyfriend and I went to the firing range last Sunday to try out my new pistol and could not even get in for all the people sighting their weapons in for deer season... So, I see it all the time. Anyhow... this short comment on another's comment has become... fairly long. :) Oh, and Joey.. like the "shoot a texan" comment. Most of AL voted for 'the other one' but the polls did not show that. wonder why???? :)

[RepTylE]

Not many people are supporting the idea of internet hunting here.....GOOD! I guess that in order to be interested in it you need good old boy genes.
The closest that I come to hunting with the computer is simulated hunting games which is the only hunting I will ever do.
I am not a treehugger because I am sensitive new ager type. I take the topic of the environment very seriously because you would have to be blind to not see that there is a big problem with the human race.

And I agree, Slannish does type real purty like :)

[joey]

Originally posted by RepTylE

I am not a treehugger because I am sensitive new ager type. I take the topic of the environment very seriously because you would have to be blind to not see that there is a big problem with the human race.



I'm ~very~ sensitive to the environment too. I believe that all life deserves the life it's been given. (well, scratch that---I can think of many individuals who make a real mess out of their existance and it effects everyone elses as well). BUT naturewise, ...ummm, I do have a freezer full of mice/rats. I eat meat, wear leather.....but trees, I LOVE trees. Whoa---I'm surrounded by paper that's all over my desk.

Man, I'm just a big walking talking contradiction, aren't we all??

Ain't life strange?

[RepTylE]

I guess that pointing fingers at greedy land developers and polluters is our way of hiding the fact that no one lives an ecologically sound life unless you live in a cave and eat grass and twigs. lol maybe not even then.
We ALL are part of the problem to one degree or another. Life exists because of consumption of resources. We have to eat, have shelter dispose of wastes and have jobs to provide for ourselves and our loved ones.
It's how to strike a balance between all that and the planet we live on. That is the issue.
So far out track record is not something that I would bet on for future events.

[joey]

.....balance is the key, indeed.

The sad thing is, there are alternatives that provide more of a healthy way to live, ie--hybrid cars, solar/wind power energy, healthy organic foods, factory free farming, but the greedy mofo's at the top won't have it ---top priority, defense--build things that destroys human life in as many horrid ways as possible--- this world has become terribly out-of-balance and ALL of us are suffering because of it.

Something is definately wrong when you have some idiots sitting around thinking, "hey! I know, let's start and online hunting site!" "bet we could make a sh*tload off that!"

[KrokadilyanGuy3]

Can't argue with that.

[concept3]

no name in parts of canada like lets say ALL of alberta hunting is necessary maybe not to live but for the protection of the animal we are hunting. Let me explain. When people in farm/ranch land areas bring the animals in (the ones you eat) they kill or scare off all the natural predetors ( such as coyotes because they kill the animals you eat so it makes sence) that naturally would have killed a large number of deer. So basically the deer have no predetors anymore and they become WAY over populated. It is happening in Alberta right now. But your probably too ignorant to know what happens when a species such as deer get over populated. They get BSE or parkinsons wasting disease which devistaes their population moreso than hunting ever can or will.
All hunters are doing is taking the place of the natural predetors that are no longer around to control populations. So it is pretty much a catch 22. If everyone ate meat from the grocery store their would be almost 0 population control (exept for cars) and all the deer would eventually die from overpopulation/disease.

[Ontario_herper]

Bambi would have ended up being wolf food. Bambi's mom fed a hunters family (which is much more environmentally friendly than buying beef). What's the problem?

[Cruciform]

Can wasting disease infect humans?

I've been thinking about learning how to dress a deer, since there's so many road hits around here.

I'll just keep a plastic tarp in my trunk, and a good knife to gut it on the spot.

I'm not big on getting some nasty prion disease from a roadkill deer though.

And I agree with Slan's post as well.

[joey]

If you want to get a roadkill deer you almost have to pick it up right after it happens. I think deer need to be dressed very soon after they die because their bodies (as all bodies do) start breaking down immediately. Gasses from the intestines can do some pretty nasty stuff rather quickly.

[KrokadilyanGuy3]

I'm not sure where you are but it's illegal to take roadkill deer. All hits are surpose to be reported, even if you didn't hit them.

[Cruciform]

I'm in Ontario, and if you hit a deer, it's yours.

In fact if you hit a deer here, chances are by the time you've stopped your car and got out to inspect the damage someone is loading the carcass into their truck.

I've had several friends have that happen to them. You have to be darn quick to scoop the animal up or you're outta luck.

[KrokadilyanGuy3]

Conspiracy..
In that case, if you can't miss it, avoid the hind corners.

[concept3]

yes wasting disease can infect humans. Its found more in the spinal cord and brain though.

[Ptindy]

Slannesh, I didn't even read your whole post I don't have the time. But from what I did read I gathered that you think that I only think conservation is needed from hunters? I wrote on the topic of hunting, not on the topic of conservation. I also didn't mean to offend you, and I'm sure there are many hunters who play a big part in conservation and I didn't mean it personally. Shoulda watched my mouth in a debate like this cause people take things the wrong way and start to bee otch. Always happens in forums and I don't want to argue. But I KNOW there are hunters who could care less out there, just like there are reptile breeders who could care less what happens to the snakes they sell. No matter what sport, hobby, game, show, movie we talk about, there are some who are good for it, and there are always the bad. I didn't read the rest so no comment. Also, you said what have I done for conservation? Well I do the small things and don't donate money, but I do more then some. I recycle, put my garbage where it belongs, pick up garbage that I see, pee off my balcony when I can to save flushing the toilet, and many other things. I'm done with this thread. I got jabbed at for all the wrong reasons and you said to take my head outta my behind or something? I could write a strong paper on all my statements except for my first sentence which is kind of biast. It shoulda been, Parks wouldn't be needed if humans weren't so bloody stupid.

Mike

[concept3]

hey Mike not trying to critisize your post in any way just 1 thing I want to clarify. The people who legaly hunt and kill game and then take it home to eat are called HUNTERS. The people who break gaming laws or kill anything they see or shoot from vehicles are called POACHERS. Their is a diffrence I just wish people could see that.

[noname]

Well guys, clearly I'm outnumbered here, and I don't particularly appreciate being called "ignorant" for stating my opinion. The thought of killing any animal breaks my heart, and I guess I just find it tough to understand how, on a site like this especially, people think it's alright to kill something equally as beautiful as a gecko or a snake. Also, thanks so much to the fellow who told me I had my head up my a$$, and that I didn't know what I was talking about. I have actually done a lot of research on animal rights and such, since becoming a vegetarian, and do happen to know that hunting fees (licenses etc.) are not really a major source of revenue for habitat restoration and wildlife management. The majority of this money actually pays for manipulation of the animal population, so there are more game animals to shoot(of course, not ALL of it goes to this). However, it is the taxpayers that pay for the land used by many hunters...there is very little money going into supporting "nongame" species.

I would have no problem at all with someone who was hunting out of necessity. However, that's definitely not the case. There are animals bred for the single purpose of providing food for the human race, so it is no longer necessary to hunt your own food. We no longer live in a society where men are the "hunters/gatherers". There is a grocery store for a reason, we should leave what is left of the rapidly shrinking natural world, to its own devices. And please, don't jump on me for having a different opinion than (apparently) everyone else here. Tolerance and respect seem to be hard to come by these days.

[Slannesh]

Ptindy:

In that context I do agree... As much as I wish every hunter was responsible and actively involved in conservation it's sadly not the case... Every hobby/job/activity has it's asshats, hunting is no different. It was the sweeping generalizations and just plain wrong information in your post I took exception with. For the record it was noname I told to pull her head out of her rear :)

This is obviously a topic i'm passionate about and I do appologize for being a little rabid in my defence. Seems that i'm drawn to hobbies that the general public simply doesn't understand or generally dislikes for the wrong reasons. No hard feelings I hope.

As for what you do to help the environment and conservation, no effort is wasted. Even if it's as small as tossing your slurpee cup in the trash instead of on the ground it's a step in the right direction. Hell if everyone did JUST that and nothing else we'd be a lot better off.

Noname:

I have no problem at all with people having their own opinions. However when you choose to broadcast that opinion on an internet chat forum be prepared for people to disagree. As for calling you ignorant, just calling a spade a spade. You obviously don't care enough about the topic to actually inform yourself and have chosen to decide that hunting is simply wrong and continue to ignore the facts that are placed in front of you.

As for your whole "the thought of killing any animal breaks my heart" speech. I really hope you only have herbivores in your collection then, if not i'll add hypocrite to ignorant on my list of 'words describing noname'

As I said to Ptindy above, there are hunters who fit the mold you're trying to press us all into, yes. But in my experience they are by FAR in the minority and most people who hunt are very concerned about Habitat and wildlife conservation. As for your comment "there is very little money going into supporting 'nongame' species" Again, try to inform yourself with facts before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it.

Habitat conservation benefits ALL species that live in that habitat, not just big game so i'll tell you again, pull your head out of your behind and perhaps look into the reality of things before blabbering on about it when you're quite obviously wrong. Better yet, (at least better for your current opinions and biases) Log onto the PETA website and join their forums. I'm sure they'd love you. Then again they'll call you a slave master for daring to have 'pets' no matter how much you love them since the PETA considers keeping pets for any reason as slavery.

Since you obviously either didn't read or understand my whole post i'll say it again. Hunting actually has become necessary again but for a completely different reason than before. Population control. People love deer, they're cute. People also don't like Mountain lions, wolves and bears near thier kids so we drive those out of areas while the deer remain. With no natural predators deer populations explode and entire herds die. So I guess you have no problem with hunting anymore. Thanks. Myself and thousands of other hunters in Alberta thank you for your support.

Respect is earned, not given. And since you seem to be so intolerant of differing ideas as well I suppose that's a two way street.

For the record, if you don't like hunting, fine. Don't engage in the activity, but to come on here and say it's 'wong' 'evil' or 'unnecessry' without even bothering to look up the basic concepts of how the ecology of the situation works IS ignorant.

[noname]

Slannesh, wow, where to start. First of all, I most definitely did my research, which clearly you did not, because you seem to believe that there is only one side to this argument. The New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, for example, states that "the deer resource has been managed primarily for the purpose of sport hunting". When you use the ridiculous "justification" of population control, you're likely referring to deer, right? I bet that you were unaware that deer only represent 3 percent of animals killed by hunters. None of the other 97% are over populated. I also bet that when you, and others like you go hunting for deer, or whatever it is you hunt, you don't search for the weak, sick animals, you likely hunt either the most readily available ones, or the strongest, largest animal. Because of this, there is less competition for breeding, and thus, more animals are produced. Population control, yeah, right. Also, ever heard of the ever popular "buck only hunt"? They leave as many as six does per buck, also increasing the population.

Second of all, no my Crested gecko, isn't a herbivore. But that is completely irrelevant. If you're trying to prove a point, you're doing a crappy job of it. My gecko eats crickets to survive - he doesn't hunt them down, just for the "fun" of it. Give me a break.

Yes, there IS very little money going into supporting nogame species. Clearly you need to do some research yourself...if anyone, you're the hypocrite. Our tax dollars are used to build roads through the wilderness, in order to facilitate the access to hunters. They are also spent on law enforcement, hunting education, and into changing habitats by clearcutting forests to create more grazing area for game species. If we didn't hunt for fun, our money could be better spent somewhere else.

Please, don't patronize or underestimate me. And definitely don't 'quote' me with words I never said. Yes, respect is earned, and I think I deserve an ounce, for having the guts to state my opinion, though I'm completely okay with not getting any of yours. Maybe if you took a second or two to read the PETA site, that you jokingly referred to, you'd better understand where I'm coming from. But wait, who am I kidding? You're going to be RIGHT no matter what I say...

Courtney

[noname]

I'm done. Arguing about this is ridiculous. We're never going to agree, so let's just agree to disagree.

Court

[Slannesh]

Sorry all, this is gonna be a long read :)

Well since you DID ask for it noname :)

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/hunting/huntingmgmt.html

Hunting and Wildlife Management
Hunting and wildlife management have a long association. It was organized hunters, concerned with the lack of numbers of game species at the beginning of the 20th century, who lobbied governments to introduce legislation regulating hunting. It was also hunters who supplied the support and funding for the development of the science of wildlife biology. Today, hunters — through their licence fees and donations — are the chief contributors of funds in support of wildlife conservation.

Hunting plays an important role in the management of game species. Each year, populations of game animals produce more offspring than their habitats can support throughout the year with food, shelter and space. The result is an annual surplus of animals that will die either from predation, disease or starvation. Regulated hunting helps reduce this surplus before the winter when food resources for these animals are at their lowest levels.

Regulated hunting also helps control the numbers of certain species that may be causing problems for farmers, ranchers and indeed residents of cities. For example, each year the Fish and Wildlife Division receives complaints from ranchers about deer and elk feeding on stored hay. Hunting seasons and bag limits in many of our agricultural areas are set to reduce this damage without threatening the viability of the deer or elk population. If these seasons and bag limits were not in place, the cost of food would increase for both rural and urban people.


As you can see the government of Alberta seems to agree with me. Hunters are very concerned with wildlife and habitat conservation as well as supports my claim that population control is a very important aspect of hunting in today's reality.

http://www.ab-conservation.com/your_dollars_at_work/index.asp

ACA is funded by hunters, anglers, corporate sponsors, and other conservationists. Every time a licence, stamp or tag is purchased in Alberta, or a donation is made by another conservationist, funds are put to work on the hundreds of wildlife, fisheries, and habitat initiatives throughout the province.

Those darned hunters again.. funding wildlife and habitat initiatives throughout the province. How dare they! :)

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/hunting/numberhunters.html

The number of licensed hunters in the province is a concern to many people for a variety of reasons. Wildlife managers need to know how many people are hunting what game animals so they can adjust hunting opportunities to ensure conservation of the resource. Also, by purchasing Wildlife Certificates and hunting licences, hunters make significant financial contributions to wildlife conservation in the province. If the number of licences purchased significantly changes, conservation programs that depend on these sales for funding could be affected


I really think these quotes speak for themselves, and support many of my claims.

Now let's have a look at some of yours shall we?

When you use the ridiculous "justification" of population control, you're likely referring to deer, right?

No, actually I was referring to pretty much all signifigant big game populations in Alberta, Read some of the above and you'll get the picture. So much for 'ridiculous justification'.

I bet that you were unaware that deer only represent 3 percent of animals killed by hunters. None of the other 97% are over populated
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Prove it. I think you're a little backwards on this one.. While I haven't looked up the figures i'd take a wild guess that probably 90% of big game animals that are taken in a year by hunters in north america are either whitetail or mule deer. Again, read above to refute your obviously baseless claim that deer are the only species of big game that could possibly be overpopulated anywhere.

I also bet that when you, and others like you go hunting for deer, or whatever it is you hunt, you don't search for the weak, sick animals, you likely hunt either the most readily available ones, or the strongest, largest animal. Because of this, there is less competition for breeding, and thus, more animals are produced. Population control, yeah, right. Also, ever heard of the ever popular "buck only hunt"? They leave as many as six does per buck, also increasing the population.
I've stated in other posts that I haven't been hunting in many years, but when I have what I do shoot really depends on a lot of factors, whether I have a doe or a buck tag... If I even see any animals at all. Whether or not i'm 100% sure of my shot, the time of day, how far away from camp we are. It's really quite complicated. I'm not a trophy hunter only by any stretch of the imagination and since I enjoy wild game so much my primary motivation is meat on the table when and if I finally do pull the trigger. Weak, old and sick animals are not competition for breeding regardless of if anyone is hunted or not. Especially with ungulates (Deer, moose, elk ect) only the biggest and most aggressive males get to mate. Elk typically keep harems of dozens of females to breed with and challenge all comers for rights to breed. It's the way things work in the natural world.

In alberta when you get a hunting license it specifies which sex the license is for... it's also very carefully regulated and only certain #'s of licences are sold at all. In fact, in many areas of alberta you can't simply buy one you have to enter a draw. I've been now waiting for 5 years for an elk licence. Your less competition leads to bigger populations also makes no sense. Breeding is instinctual behavior. The biggest bucks mate with the does because they've won the right to. If they lose the winner mates, You'd get the exact same number of new fawns produced in the spring regardless. The only thing that changes is who the sire was.

Second of all, no my Crested gecko, isn't a herbivore. But that is completely irrelevant

Oh but I think it is relevant. It was you that said "The thought of killing any animal breaks my heart" So don't the crickets you feed your gecko deserve the same defence you're trying to give deer and other big game here? They are animals afterall. If you didn't have your gecko you wouldn't have to kill hundreds of innocent bugs to feed him every year. That being said i'm glad you do feed it properly, I would be concerned for it's health if you didn't.


Yes, there IS very little money going into supporting nogame species. Clearly you need to do some research yourself...if anyone, you're the hypocrite. Our tax dollars are used to build roads through the wilderness, in order to facilitate the access to hunters. They are also spent on law enforcement, hunting education, and into changing habitats by clearcutting forests to create more grazing area for game species. If we didn't hunt for fun, our money could be better spent somewhere else.


Again I say, "prove it." When habitat is conserved it benefits all species that live there, that's a simple logical fact.
I think I can pretty safely say that no highway or road has ever been built by the Alberta transportation department for the expressed purpose of giving hunters easy access to anything. In fact when hunting I go out of my way to get as far as possible from any road. Discharging a firearm within 500m of a road is a criminal offence in Alberta.

And here we finally come to a point we can agree on. I don't much care for clearcutting forests either. Even if replanted immediately after it's very hard on the local ecology and dramatically effects local wildlife populations for years afterward.

I'm fairly certain I didn't quote anything you didn't actually say, but if I did I apologize. It was not my intent to misquote you. I've looked at the PETA site as have many of the people who frequent this board. If you're looking for support for that organization here, well, you're looking in the wrong place. I think their basic idea is very sound. Animals need protecting as well but they've proven themselves many times in the past to be nothing more than very crazy whack jobs that border on outright terrorism in many cases. So while I applaud their stated core goals, their chosen methods and extreme ideologies sicken me.

Hopefully this little debate has served to do more than just make you angry, I hope you do take a close look at the documents i've quoted above and learn a little about the subject at hand. For the record, your stance on hunting I have no problem with. Many people don't like it and will refuse to support it. It's your reasoning behing and in defence of your stance that I took exception with. While I do have to admit that in a couple of my posts I was intentionally trying to bait you that really isn't a terribly mature thing to do so I'll apologize again for that :)

With any luck a few people will take the time to read up on the subject and better educate themselves because of it.

And with that i'm about done here, unless someone else wants to have a go? ;)

[Ontario_herper]

Bear are over-populated. The ban on the spring hunt (in Ontario) for this species has caused a dramatic increase in nuisance bears.

[RepTylE]

Originally posted by Ontario_herper
Bear are over-populated. The ban on the spring hunt (in Ontario) for this species has caused a dramatic increase in nuisance bears.

Very good example. In areas where deer are underhunted (my area for example) there is a high number of vehicle vs deer incidents as well. Just last year I witnessed three deer run across a highway and almost caused a 5 vehicle pileup and that was on a clear day imagine if that occured at night?
I no longer hunt as I have stated in a previous post but I do see a need for it.
As far as hunting on computer, Why not just get a hunting sim program instead? If you can't be bothered to do the actual work of going out and hunt a deer then you don't deserve to call yourself a hunter,period!

[Gary D.]

Well, I thought to respond on this thread a while ago, but I figured Slannesh was handling it so well, I would just read. What I wiil interject here that while Slannesh's posts were not only informed opinion they contained lots of factual information. I would encourage anyone who skipped over them due to their length to go back and actually read them in their entirety. Even at that he really only touched on the imediately relevant points of the debate. My initial post secondary education was four years in college studying renewable resource management/environmental sciences. Believe me when I say that regardless of ones opinions on the ethics of hunting, the fact remains that the effects of the human condition on this planet make managed and responsible hunting a necessity throughout MOST of north america. That said there are certainly portions of North America where game hunting is not a necessity (in regards to wildlife populations), but with proper and controlled hunting practices, it is at worst harmless. I would also like to point out that illegal exploitation (poaching) of wildlife is a world wide problem. In North America hunting fees also contribute to enforcemant and prosecution of local and international wildlife protection laws. In Addition programs such as TIPs and Report-A-Poacher (in which responsible hunters and fishermen aid the authorities by doing just that) are vital and successful tools in protecting our wildlife from exploitation. Other factors not mentioned are that the hunting & fishing industry is worth millions annually, employing hundreds of thousands of individuals , which in turn supports other industries such as travel, tourism, etc. and makes the herp industry look like no more than a fly spec to a landfill. Perhaps some people's informed opinions and research are not as informed as one would think.

Gary D.

Edit: And on topic, I too agree online hunting is disgracefull. If you shoot an animal it is your responsibility to see that the animal is recovered and fully utilised. Now unless you can get on a private jet and be in Texas and claim and dress your kill in a matter of hours at best...

[Slannesh]

Wow... thanks Gary.

I know I didn't really go into a lot of detail, partially because while I know the basics I don't even pretend to understand the more indepth ideas and methods of ecology.. there's a reason people go to school for years to learn it. It's definately a VERY complicated issue that requires a ton of things to be balanced against each other to work.

You can thank my father for making sure that I was actually paying attention to the important stuff as opposed to the "OH COOL I GET TO SHOOT A GUN" that most 10-12 year olds would focus on :)

I'd also like to point out that while a lot of laypeople don't see the distinction, there is a HUGE difference between 'hunting' and 'poaching'. The latter makes the former look bad and trust me, hunters get way madder about poaching than normal people do.

[joey]

Poachers are evil.

[Gary D.]

Another fact: People often only hear what they want to hear.

[joey]

AP
Autumn Tradition Turns Deadly in Wisconsin

6 minutes ago

Add to My Yahoo! U.S. National - AP

By JOSHUA FREED and ROBERT IMRIE, Associated Press Writer

BIRCHWOOD, Wis. - As several deer hunters made their way through the woods of northern Wisconsin, they were startled to come upon a stranger in their tree stand. Asked to leave, the trespasser, wearing blaze-orange and carrying a semiautomatic assault rifle, opened fire on the hunters and didn't stop until his 20-round clip was empty, leaving five people dead and three wounded, authorities said. Another hunter died Monday.

Photo
AP Photo

AP Photo Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow Slideshow: Five Killed in Wis. Hunting Dispute

AP Video Hunters' Trespassing Dispute Leads to 5 Deaths
(AP Video)


The shooter was eventually captured.

The killings baffled authorities and stunned residents in a state where deer hunting is a rite of autumn — a sport practiced by thousands of people who scour the woods for nine days each November with hopes of bagging a trophy buck.

"This is an incredible tragedy, one in which a great family tradition like a deer hunt has turned into such a great loss," Gov. Jim Doyle said Monday.

Police identified the shooter as Chai Vang, 36, a hunter from St. Paul, Minn., who is a member of the Twin Cities' Hmong community. While authorities do not know why he allegedly opened fire, there have been previous clashes between Southeast Asian and white hunters in the region.

Locals have complained that the Hmong, refugees from Laos, do not understand the concept of private property and hunt wherever they see fit. In Minnesota, a fistfight once broke out after Hmong hunters crossed onto private land, said Ilean Her, director of the St. Paul-based Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans.

No one answered the door Monday at Vang's yellow, two-story house in a working-class neighborhood of St. Paul. A cardboard container for a hunting tree stand, an orange stocking cap and bottles of water could be seen through the windows of a front entryway. Several neighbors said they knew little about him, but some in the Hmong community have described him as an avid hunter.

Minneapolis police said they arrested Vang on Christmas Eve 2001 after he waved a gun and threatened to kill his wife. No charge was brought because she didn't cooperate with authorities, spokesman Ron Reier said. St. Paul police say they were called to Vang's house twice in the past year on domestic violence calls, but both were resolved without incident and no police reports were filed.

Other family members said they were shocked by the allegations in the hunting shooting.

"He is a reasonable person," his younger brother, Sang Vang, said. "I still don't believe it. He is one of the nicest persons. I don't believe he could do that. We are so devastated right now."

[Jeff Hathaway]

Well that's just nuts... Good argument for the benefit of not allowing 20 round magazines, or even semi-automatics for that matter. Not quite sure how it relates to the current debate about internet hunting (dumb, in my opinion), or the larger 'ethics of hunting' debate, anymore so than a report about a drive-by shooting in LA.

Hey, if someone shoots people from a moving car and it's called a 'drive-by', would this incident be referred to as a 'stand-by'???

Anyone truly concerned about conservation in southern Ontario would support measures to reduce our deer numbers, especially in certain areas at present. Yes, hunting is regulated (like most activities) so that the population is kept reasonably high, but in many parts of Ontario there are simply not enough deer harvested that their numbers are at best unreasonable, and in some cases, a tremendous problem.

You might be interested to know, noname, that in parts of Ontario, hunters were allowed to shoot up to 6 does and 1 buck. And, tags for each of these cost $34. In this same area, an acquaintance of mine has hit 2 deer on the road in the last 3 years. I counted almost 60 along a 20 minute stretch of highway in the spring.

Now it could be argued that reducing vehicle collisions is not a valid conservation concern, as we could certainly use fewer vehicles on the roads, and even a few less people might be considered beneficial. However, almost always the vehicles get replaced, and the environmental cost of manufacturing new cars is fairly high. Even the loss of farm production has an enviromental cost in the fertilizer inputs, tractor fuel, use of extra land, etc. to produce extra crops.

However, I was referring mostly to the grazing pressure on many rare plant species, especially in the carolinian zone of SW Ontario. In protected areas such as Point Pelee, Rondeau, etc. where these plants still manage to have a foothold amongst the surrounding sea of agricultural land, the very high deer numbers cause very significant problems. Of course, perhaps a person might only care for the conservation of animals, and not rare plants, but I think that's a pretty short-sighted view.

Why are the deer numbers so high? We converted much of the land from dense forest to agricultural use. Crop lands, and grazing lands, with small patches of forest or wetland in between. Just enough to shelter the large numbers of deer that the increased forage allows for. This land use pattern isn't likely to change any time soon. Also, we wiped out the large predators, as has been mentioned already. This is also not likely to change soon, though perhaps sooner than the land use, if people's attitudes towards large predators could only be changed!

So how to regulate the deer? Options like birth control were seriously considered for small problem spots (Toronto Airport, Point Pelee, etc.) but even for these tiny areas it was judged ineffective. All we are left with is either 'hunting' by members of the public, which generates revenue at the same time, or organized 'culling' which costs money. Both are useful in certain circumstances, but which one do you think is preferable in most cases?

Canada geese are another species where such a case could be made. Squirrels, too, though not in most areas. And, if you're especially concerned about reptiles, you might know that nest predation in southern Ontario (and likely in other areas of dense human habitation) is incredibly high due to the increased numbers of raccoons and skunks that come with a lack of large predators plus humans and their garbage. 'Subsidized predators', we call these, and in some places they wipe out virtually every turtle nest. So save a turtle- shoot a racoon! (Yes, this is obviously an oversimplification).

Certainly, nature is resilient. We could leave nature alone and it will find a new balance. But, with all of the changes that have accompanied our existance, that new balance might just not have any turtles in it, or orchids, or wild hyacinth, etc. Are you prepared to let things work on their own and allow such things to decline to extinction?

I'm not.

Jeff Hathaway
Sciensational Sssnakes!!

[noname]

Wow, for a little girl, I caused quite the stir. Lol.