hunting via internet?

[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_...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!