last night while i was having drinks with friends i overheard two men talking about their deer hunt. One had shot 2 deer but couldnt track them in the rain the other shot a racoon because he got bored. I applaud sportsman and their right to a great tradition, However these BOZOS give hunting the bad name some many liberal tree huggers use to their advantage. My Question is why just kill to kill? shouldnt conservation and good practices be on the forefront of every hunters mind?
2007-11-19 23:12:20 · 14 answers · asked by jen 5 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
only one thing you did wrong honey, you should have told those as@holes what you told us here.
how because they are stupid to shoot 2 deer and not try to find them which if they wanted too they could have tracked them in the rain and the as@hole who was bored, that they give us who hunt and take the meat to eat and to feed our families a bad name. all because they aren't real sportsmen just as@holes out to kill whatever they can kill in season or not.
and yes conservation is on the minds of real hunters, we don't hunt just to kill or get a trophy head. i hunt because i love hunting and i love that walk in the woods, wether i get anything or not. i don't have to fire my gun to have an enjoyable time hunting.
2007-11-20 00:57:39 · answer #1 · answered by badgirlsbadboy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just because these guy were in the woods shooting animals, doesn't mean they are hunters. You said you were having drinks with friends, but that doesn't mean you are alcoholics. People can take anything and abuse it. Unfortunately it's the people like these 2 that tell there "hunting" stories to lots of people and make anti-hunters mad and make people that don't have an opinion on hunting, think that everyone in the woods acts this way. A true hunter will try to make the quickest, cleanest kill possible and make every effort to find any animal he's wounded and finish the job. So please don't judge real hunters by these 2 clowns.
2007-11-20 07:12:03 · answer #2 · answered by geobert24 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Those who kill just to kill are not hunters. Most of the time they kill a animal they don't have permits for or kill over the lawful limit. That makes them poachers. In your question one of the hunters shot two deer but could not track them due to the rain. Well then if he is that poor of a tracker he should not have taken either shot.
True hunting also involves a lot of respect for wildlife and nature. To show that respect the hunter needs to know what he/she is doing. Just knowing how to buy a gun and bullets does not make one a hunter. You may be a Marine sharpshooter but that does not make you a hunter. To Truly be a hunter you must know so very much about nature and the habits of the animal you are hunting, whether it be a deer or any other animal.
There are many other ways these so called "hunters" disrespect the woods and the rights of true hunters, with all my years in the woods I have seen to many to list. Just this year my oldest daughter went on her first hunt and took her first deer. Many hours of pratice ensured that she was able to drop her deer with one well placed shot. I make it my goal to teach all my girls from a young age the proper ways of hunting and just good outdoorsmanship. All three of my girls have a great deep respect for nature and truly enjoy their time with nature.
Hunting is about traditions passed down through the years. To be a true hunter you must hunt with respect for nature and yourself.
2007-11-20 00:05:03 · answer #3 · answered by Nolestarian 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bozos Yes,
The deer hunter should out tracking his error in shooting. Making a bad shot happens. I've let an animal go overnight and gone back in the next morning to find it so I would find it. Pushing an wounded animal right after shooting may push the animal miles away and make it virtually untrackable.
That said if he left it, I've harvested other peoples wounded animals before. For me it is sickening.
As far as "raccoons", I've shot raccoons.. My take is a bit different here. I don't brag up pest shooting, but I grew up on the farm. Raccoons are the most common carrier for rabies, and other diseases that can be detrimental with livestock and pets. The coons I've shot have been tearing up property (I shot several crapping in the hay loft of our barn.)
I've shot prairie dogs in the pasture as I've also have to butcher cattle that have broken legs in a prairie den. I've shot coyotes that I've witnessed chasing calves.
There is a reason to "kill" Sometimes I kill a coyote or coon preemptively knowing if I don't there may be a problem down the road. I don't believe the two you mention follow any sort of sportsman ethics.
Someone who can't make that justification needs to examine their motives.
I hunt to eat, I hunt to enjoy the experience. If I want to shoot something just to shoot, I pull out the blue rock thrower or set up a paper target.
2007-11-20 07:50:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree 100%. I do not deer hunt and the animals I do hunt you can not eat. I hunt them to help conservation. As do many varmint hunters. Shooting deer and not recovering it is bad unless this hunter did all he could do and call in buddies to help him look for it. Which I doubt he did either of thoese. If you take a game animal you have an ethical right to search for that animal untill you have exausted all means of finding it.
As far as shooting the coon. Well I do not think he should have done it at that time.
2007-11-19 23:49:01 · answer #5 · answered by cpttango30 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You and all of the posters below are correct. Those wern't hunters you heard. Conservation has to be part of it or we don't have anything to hunt. Likewise nature has evolved to need hunters. As man encroaches on wilderness certain animals thrive and others dissapppear. coyotes Canada geese skunks and such are on population runs and if they aren't hunted they over run other species area of the ecosystem. it is all a balance with man be the worst thing to it in one way or another. The tree hugger as much as the Rambo you were listening to cause the imbalance that nature needs.
2007-11-20 01:06:45 · answer #6 · answered by willywonker 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you one hundred percent. I have always been taught that if you kill it, you eat it. When I was a kid, I showed my father a squirrel that I just killed with my BB gun. That night, I learned to skin and eat a squirrel. My father taught me many things, one of which is you don't kill for fun, you kill for neccesity.
Hunters like that do give radical tree-hugging hippies the ammo that they need to slam our great american past time.
I go by the Hunter's Code of Ethics:
1. Obey all applicable laws and regulations.
2. Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.
3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.
4. Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.
5. Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.
6. Recognize that these rules are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.
2007-11-19 23:24:27 · answer #7 · answered by River 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
well i agree 100%. I do not deer hunt and the animals I do hunt you can not eat. I hunt them to help conservation. As do many varmint hunters. Shooting deer and not recovering it is bad unless this hunter did all he could do and call in buddies to help him look for it. Which I doubt he did either of thoese. If you take a game animal you have an ethical right to search for that animal untill you have exausted all means of finding it.
As far as shooting the coon. Well I do not think he should have done it at that time.
2007-11-20 21:14:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
River's response was right on. A fair chase and code of conduct is first and foremost in the minds or true hunters and conservationist. I might add the the hunters who follow such code are not only mindful of the game, the environment, other people, but also the people who's land they hunt upon and do not trespass without first asking permission and taking back out of the woods, fields or wetlands, what they take in with them.
2007-11-20 02:56:37 · answer #9 · answered by gunguy58 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just remember not everyone is ethical...that applies for non-hunters and hunters alike....
If you are going to participate in a hunt you have an obligation to take a shot that is accurate and will not prolong the animals suffering....
As far as "why just kill to kill", hunting for the overwhelming majority of us is a tradition, that we take seriously and treat is as such......
if you want to use this as fodder to spread to ban hunting, please don't.......
Banning hunting will lead to starvation of animals,(how much money will we need to spend to feed the deer in the Appalachians mntns alone...) and you will have many encounters with deer on the highway(neither method of control is humane ..........do you think handing out birth control in the woods is effective?
2007-11-19 23:30:35 · answer #10 · answered by lymanspond 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋