Question:
Since this is a forum of public opinion, let me state mine… With few exceptions, spammers don’t actually read newsgroups. That means they (follow closely now) *don’t read the followup posts*. My suggestion is that if you see a post that you feel is spam then–by all means–send a *private* informational email. I doubt most of these folks are initially aware that what they’re doing is considered inappropriate, so my recommendation would be to keep that first email polite and profanity free, but that’s just my own personal style. If the person inappropriately posts a second time, then flame away–but again in *private*. If the poster’s email address is bogus then grit and bear it or try to hunt him/her down–but *don’t post your flame here*. Either we agree with you (which means you don’t need to post a response) or we disagree with you (which means we don’t want you to post a response). But posting a newsgroup followup message in response to spam does absolutely no good, IMO. Reprimand in private, ignore in public. –Steve
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since this is a forum of public opinion, let me state mine… With few exceptions, spammers don’t actually read newsgroups. That means they (follow closely now) *don’t read the followup posts*. My suggestion is that if you see a post that you feel is spam then–by all means–send a *private* informational email. I doubt most of these folks are initially aware that what they’re doing is considered inappropriate, so my recommendation would be to keep that first email polite and profanity free, but that’s just my own personal style. If the person inappropriately posts a second time, then flame away–but again in *private*. If the poster’s email address is bogus then grit and bear it or try to hunt him/her down–but *don’t post your flame here*. Either we agree with you (which means you don’t need to post a response) or we disagree with you (which means we don’t want you to post a response). But posting a newsgroup followup message in response to spam does absolutely no good, IMO. Reprimand in private, ignore in public. –Steve
_____ Excellent Steve. This also applies to e-mailing IN PRIVATE your displeasure to those who Spam about Spamming all the time. Your policy is what we have been doing for a long while now. I think most of us (except new individuals) understand UserNet manners and among the gentlemen of the group I rate you pretty high on the pole. What comes to mind is the vast numbers of humanity that are starting to talk to each other. The old saying, ‘Familiarity breeds contempt,’ flies more true then ever before. The real dangers in the world getting to know itself more and more, has awesome possibilities for the nurturing of hatreds. We must all guard against that by watching our demeanor, our writing style, by not getting personal as you say, and always disagreeing in a tactful manner. There is nothing more dangerous in the W.W.W. today then a mental bully or those that will not listen in private to friendly advice. Overall we all respond to those we like to read, yet in retrospect, there are many here who thrive on conflicts or who answer other posts in such a manner as to flame, demean, or to incite a response. There are those here who still like to attack others for the littlest reason. We should not respond to such attacks but I will be the first to admit that I have had the tendency fighting these style brats from time to time myself. Again, good post Steve. We can agree to disagree without malice and ROFF will improve a thousand fold if everyone adheres to that standard. No Name Calling! Praise in public, condemn in private is the mark of leadership. Mr. G. — http://www.gink.com/chat
Response:
Since this is a forum of public opinion, let me state mine…
damn good idea, steve. think i’ll do the same. With few exceptions, spammers don’t actually read newsgroups. That means they (follow closely now) *don’t read the followup posts*.
i don’t know whether the spammers read the posts or not, and i doubt that you can document your assertion that they don’t; however, i sure as hell read them: damn fine literature, some of them. jesus, without fortenberry’s masterful hyperbole, or connor’s absolutely brutal rejoinders, we would be left with endless drivel about strike indicators, or droning repetitions of saccarine wisdom from bill kiene, et. al. jesus, next thing you know, you’ll be whining about wolfgang’s tendencies toward off-topic posts, or the lack of clarity in asadi’s, well…art. shit, man, you’d think this was a flyfishing newsgroup! chill, baby; you need a little more dr. hunter thompson and a little less mr. rogers. wayno
Response:
[The Big Snip] shit, man, you’d think this was a flyfishing newsgroup! chill, baby; you need a little more dr. hunter thompson and a little less mr. rogers.
LMAO! That was priceless, counselor.
Response:
i don’t know whether the spammers read the posts or not, and i doubt that you can document your assertion that they don’t; however, i sure as hell read them: damn fine literature, some of them. jesus, without fortenberry’s masterful hyperbole, or connor’s absolutely brutal rejoinders, we would be left with endless drivel about strike indicators, or droning repetitions of saccarine wisdom from bill kiene, et. al.
Well, then, HEY EVERYBODY, CHECK OUT WWW.CODEMARINE.COM!!! (just tryin’ to make ROFF more enjoyable for ya, counselor). And do say hi to the wagonmaster for me. –Steve Zimmerman
Response:
_____ Excellent Steve. This also applies to e-mailing IN PRIVATE your displeasure to those who Spam about Spamming all the time. Your policy is what we have been doing for a long while now. I think most of us (except new individuals) understand UserNet manners
I’ve been on usenet for over five years. I remember a time when spam was all-but-nonexistent. We didn’t need filters. ISP’s didn’t need abuse addresses. I can find absolutely nothing wrong with honest anti-spam efforts. Opt out == cop-out. What’s so hard to understand?
Response:
[snip] shit, man, you’d think this was a flyfishing newsgroup! chill, baby; you need a little more dr. hunter thompson and a little less mr. rogers. wayno
Wayno, Don’t you think one psycho journalist in this news group is enough?
Response:
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I have NEVER seen a woman hunt. NEVER !!! : In fact, the only ones with guns have been the police. : ( a seperate thread ) <– I mean this. Would it make any difference if you had seen a woman hunter? I know one who bagged two deer last year, She skinned, butchered and is in the process of eating them. She has been hunting for about 25 years. Bill & r Not really, I can show you nazi skinheads who happen to be black. BTW, we saw your buddy Newt on TV last night. I used to have some respect for conservatives. Yeah, they are out to destroy the human race and all, but unlike liberals they stick to their agenda of genocide. Liberals want to educate the poor one day, then " give them the stick on a cat " the next. Newt, like Clinton, started as an envronmentalist. The polluters invited him to lunch, wrote him a check and the rest is history.
Out of curiousity, are you in High School or what? Your immature hostility is really misplaced in rec.backcountry. If you’ve never seen a woman hunt, then where have you been? I’ve hunted for 25 years and there are plenty of women out there every year. All of my hunting buddies are much more courteous and well-behaved towards those with other opinions than you are. You’re the type I hope I don’t have to tolerate in the woods. Please keep your emotional politics to yourself. You appear to have low self-esteem since you seem to need to lash out at others, rather than enjoying a civil issue-based discussion. Before you get a life, get some manners, please! Thank you.
Response:
: I have NEVER seen a woman hunt. NEVER !!! : In fact, the only ones with guns have been the police. : ( a seperate thread ) <– I mean this. Would it make any difference if you had seen a woman hunter? I know one who bagged two deer last year, She skinned, butchered and is in the process of eating them. She has been hunting for about 25 years. Bill
& r Not really, I can show you nazi skinheads who happen to be black. BTW, we saw your buddy Newt on TV last night. I used to have some respect for conservatives. Yeah, they are out to destroy the human race and all, but unlike liberals they stick to their agenda of genocide. Liberals want to educate the poor one day, then " give them the stick on a cat " the next. Newt, like Clinton, started as an envronmentalist. The polluters invited him to lunch, wrote him a check and the rest is history.
Response:
No, "we" aren’t agreed, if you include a number of hunters who have posted to this forum. They seem to think that a hunter shooting someone (not an accidental discharge) is not an illegal act, if it was "an accident", ie a "misidentified" target. About as illegal as accidentally injuring someone with a car? Is your hunters premium insurance paid?
Wow, I thought that I was done with this thread. Ah well, guess not. Scotty, let me clear up a misconception you seem to be having. A car is a utilitarian object. We all use them as a basic transportation device. In today’s society we cannot get along without them. we each agree to a basic social contract each time we get behind the wheel. we each know the risks of driving. Now, a gun is a weapon. It’s sole purpose is destruction. It will be used to destroy a target, a game animal, or a person. Is the difference clear yet? You *need* a car. You do not *need* a gun. The only social contract here is the responsibility of the person behind the trigger. I do not choose to own a gun, therefor I have *NO* responsibilty for gun safety. You choose to hunt? You choos to take on the responsibility. period. Now to elaborate further, I am not opposed to gun ownership. My point in this thread has been to advocate for responsible gun ownership and use. I have been appalled by reading repeated posts by folks to immature or to stupid to realize that guns are not toys. I don’t give a damn if your fucking hunters insurance is paid up or not. An insurance settlement is cold comfort to the family of a VICTIM of a hunting *accident*. IMHO, your post clearly shows that you are one of those folks that seems unable to realize what a huge responsibility you have resting on your shoulders every time you sight down that gun and squeeze that trigger. Once again, I will say that I hope that anyone guilty of killing or injuring another person in a hunting *accident* will never see the outside of a prison cell again. Shaun
Response:
[..] No, "we" aren’t agreed, if you include a number of hunters who have posted to this forum. They seem to think that a hunter shooting someone (not an accidental discharge) is not an illegal act, if it was "an accident", ie a "misidentified" target.
*Ahem* If you can post instances of ‘a number’ of hunters stating, in this thread, that negligently shooting someone is not illegal, we’d *love* to see it. Take your time — we’ll wait. -TD
Response:
My $.02 I am loath to push unnecessary laws on anybody and strongly believe in the concept of traditional rights wich might include hunting, fishing, harvesting and sqatting ( read camping a’la Grapes-o-Wrath ). But several trips to London have convinced me that the one part of the Bill-o-Rights which is wearing thin is the guns part. I have lived in bad-ass neighborhoods all my life. Here you also want to decide where you stand on the milita issue. I have met a good many hunters who are in fact harvesting, are funny when drunk and dont use the gun as a ppenis extension. They hunt because they are poor and taht has been a good way to put food on the table. On the other I hand, I saw a BMW in a hunting camp in the Catskills. This could only be owned by a Wall Street Trader of a crack dealer. Think about it. Neither should be armed under any circumstances. Plus the average $30,000 price for a 4WD throws the traditional argument in the trash. And for most, I can swear by the lack of women hunters, the bored rod is a penis extension. So what to do ?? Simple: a) Buy your meat or even better go veggie. b) Use the fishing throw-back policy. How? Control the breeding with birth control implants shot from shot guns. In this way, build families or herds which can think for themselves and also be tracked for driving, farming, and tick control purposes. c) Get lyme tick disease under control with booster shots. Most hunters ( and snow-mobilers ) do not love the woods. They go out to the great outdoors to control and destroy them. We go into the woods because it is simply the most beautiful thing there is. The "great outdoorsmen" are also storm trooper wanabes. What the hell do you want that type around for. Rehabilitate them, the cold war is over.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (Christian Jac obi) writes: [..] I agree, the woods is one of the safest places. It would be even more safe if there were no hunters. I know this may feel bad by reasonable hunters, but how can a hiker distinguish between reasonable hunters and not so reasonable ones? Well, lets just say that a small number of well-publicised cases of negligence are not grounds for outlawing a pursuit that has been part of human existence since god-knows-when. The human as predator IS a part of nature. To say that we have evolved beyond hunting because our claws and teeth and senses have dulled is like saying we should all stay indoors during cold weather because our fur no longer covers us.
In all fairness, I’ve got to jump back in and add something. I no longer hunt during rifle deer and elk season. I only hunt large game with a muzzle loader or bow. If a hunter only has one shot, then he/she will generally be a little more careful. I also find this more of a challenge.
Response:
Mike, Scotty, let me clear up a misconception you seem to be having. [and later..] IMHO, your post clearly shows that you are one of those folks that seems unable to realize what a huge responsibility you have resting on your shoulders every time you sight down that gun and squeeze that trigger. You should check your attributions more carefully. Scott Linn ("Scotty" to you) is arguing the same side you are. The remarks you’ve attributed to him are from another poster.
Scott Linn is on my side, if you can characterize this debate as having "sides". In this you are correct. However, I was not responding to Scott Linn, I was responding to Scotty um Davis? I believe that was his last name, though I no longer have the post. therefore, please feel free to read all posts next time. A car is a utilitarian object. We all use them as a basic transportation device. In today’s society we cannot get along without them. we each agree to a basic social contract each time we get behind the wheel. we each know the risks of driving. How convenient of you to define the social contract only in terms of what you want and declare that your desires are necessities while others’ are conveniences.. Plenty of people get along just fine without cars; in light of that fact I believe your statement that "we" cannot get along without them would be more accurate if it were to read "I" cannot get along without them.
It’s not convenient at all. It’s merely a reality. The poster, Scotty Davis (?) equated hunting accidents with car accidents. The CLEAR context of the post is that each of us knows the risks inherent in driving a car. If we are involved in an accident while driving, we are involved in the same activity and are each bound by a clear social contract. No such contract exists with regard to hunting. I have no say in how a hunter behaves. I am not engaged in hunting and should therefore be minimally impacted by it. I should not be shot at again. Period. Do you see the difference? I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it. I am not trying to say by this that hunting must be outlawed. I am saying, as I’ve said all along, that hunters have the sole responsibility for their actions. Hunting "accident" victims have no responsibility regardless of the situation. if a hunter discharges a weapon and harms or kills another individual not involved in a similar pursuit, the response should be swift and sure. I’m also curious by your reference to a "basic social contract" that we’ve all agreed to. Ironically the "right" you argue in favor of (automobile ownership) *is not* explicitly protected by any official act of our society while the right you argue against (gun ownership) *is*.
It’s not ironic at all. I’m not challenging gun ownership as far as you know. I’ve *never* expressed and opinion one way or another in this forum. If you wish to construe advocacy for sane hunting practices as opposition to gun ownership, that is of course your priviledge. You would be incorrect, but that would be nothing new here. I don’t know where you find the term *right* with regard to automobile use. I can accept a right of ownership certainly, but use is a priviledge bound by the basic tenets of prudent use of the vehicle. This is the social contract I speak of. Once again, I will say that I hope that anyone guilty of killing or injuring another person in a hunting *accident* will never see the outside of a prison cell again. A pretty sweeping generalization that is far too draconian for my tastes. There are accidents, and there are Accidents. I’m perfectly willing to believe that gun owners should be held to high standards of precaution but arguing that the penalty for any conceivable hunting accident which injures another person should be life imprisonment goes *way* too far.
You’re right. Read as a clear prescription, I have gone to far. I did not actually mean life in prison, however. I was speaking rather loosely. I apologize. OTOH punishments should be extremely stiff and should send a clear message that the sort of bullshit that frequently goes on in part of the hunting community is unacceptable and will *not* be tolerated. Shaun
Response:
Most hunters ( and snow-mobilers ) do not love the woods. They go out to the great outdoors to control and destroy them. We go into the woods because it is simply the most beautiful thing there is. The "great outdoorsmen" are also storm trooper wanabes.
I just stumbled onto this thread, and generally hate getting into hunting discussions, but this is absurd. I’ve hunted all my life, and virtually everyone I’ve hunted with (men and WOMEN) would agree with your third sentence above. Very few would fail to laugh at the others. Hunters, as others have pointed out, are not a monolithic group. There are poor ones and rich ones, slob hunters and game wardens, traditionalists and techno-freaks, just like there are in any other sport. Some hunters follow ethical codes of conduct; others do not. The "problem hunters" that make the woods unsafe at times should be trained by other hunters to be safer, or weeded out by some testing process (i.e. hunters safety course requirements). My wife and I both hunt, as have all the men and women in my family for generations. But I will not venture into the woods in Indiana during deer or turkey season, not because the hunters are necessarily unsafe, but because there are far too many of them for the limited public lands available. In Oregon (where I am from) or Idaho (my wife’s home) the story is different; I would not hesitate to go mushrooming during deer season or XC skiing during elk season because there is simply more space. The only other real source of trouble, IMHO, is when you get "city boys" (and girls) out in the woods with guns and 1)without proper safety training, 2) without proper guidance from an experienced hunter, and 3) without having an ethical tradition to guide them. Hence the BMW in the Catskills camp referred to earlier. If children do not learn hunting ethics from thier parents, they may grow up to be gun nuts and make the woods unsafe. But hunters in general are not the problem. — Derek R. Larson Indiana University Dept. of History "Nothing interesting occurred today…" -Meriwether Lewis at Ft. Clatsop, Oregon, Jan.4th, 1806
Response:
yes, you are very right, in a pragmatic sense. but environmentalists are necessarily idealists at heart, and in order to have a dreamn become reality, we must look ahead to perfection, and not necessarily deal with the problem as it exists.
The ONLY way to improve ANY situation is by dealing with the problem as it exists. Blind idealism is just that…..blind.
Response:
Scotty, let me clear up a misconception you seem to be having. [and later..] IMHO, your post clearly shows that you are one of those folks that seems unable to realize what a huge responsibility you have resting on your shoulders every time you sight down that gun and squeeze that trigger.
You should check your attributions more carefully. Scott Linn ("Scotty" to you) is arguing the same side you are. The remarks you’ve attributed to him are from another poster. A car is a utilitarian object. We all use them as a basic transportation device. In today’s society we cannot get along without them. we each agree to a basic social contract each time we get behind the wheel. we each know the risks of driving.
How convenient of you to define the social contract only in terms of what you want and declare that your desires are necessities while others’ are conveniences.. Plenty of people get along just fine without cars; in light of that fact I believe your statement that "we" cannot get along without them would be more accurate if it were to read "I" cannot get along without them. I’m also curious by your reference to a "basic social contract" that we’ve all agreed to. Ironically the "right" you argue in favor of (automobile ownership) *is not* explicitly protected by any official act of our society while the right you argue against (gun ownership) *is*. Once again, I will say that I hope that anyone guilty of killing or injuring another person in a hunting *accident* will never see the outside of a prison cell again.
A pretty sweeping generalization that is far too draconian for my tastes. There are accidents, and there are Accidents. I’m perfectly willing to believe that gun owners should be held to high standards of precaution but arguing that the penalty for any conceivable hunting accident which injures another person should be life imprisonment goes *way* too far.
Response:
[..] No, "we" aren’t agreed, if you include a number of hunters who have posted to this forum. They seem to think that a hunter shooting someone (not an accidental discharge) is not an illegal act, if it was "an accident", ie a "misidentified" target. *Ahem* If you can post instances of ‘a number’ of hunters stating, in this thread, that negligently shooting someone is not illegal, we’d *love* to see it. Take your time — we’ll wait. -TD
Tom, Try reading all of the posts in the thread if your site archives back that far. Unfortunately mine do not or I would repost several just such responses. You may be interested in one person in particular by the name of David Paul. Frankly the only reason I remember even his name is a rather heated exchange of e-mail that we engaged in. You are correct, at least, in your view that most hunters have come down in favor of sensible hunting practices. I regret that I can’t say all have done so. I will search my cache and see if I have any of the original posts saved. If I do, I will repost them over the next couple of days. Shaun
Response:
I’m just getting into hiking, and one thing I can say is that I feel MUCH safer in the woods than I do driving on a crowded highway. I agree, the woods is one of the safest places. It would be even more safe if there were no hunters. I know this may feel bad by reasonable hunters, but how can a hiker distinguish between reasonable hunters and not so reasonable ones? Chris
The same way you can distinguish between safe drivers and unsafe drivers. You can’t. But we all get on the roads anyway, don’t we?
Response:
My $.02 I am loath to push unnecessary laws on anybody and strongly believe in the concept of traditional rights wich might include hunting, fishing, harvesting and sqatting ( read camping a’la Grapes-o-Wrath ). But several trips to London have convinced me that the one part of the Bill-o-Rights which is wearing thin is the guns part. I have lived in bad-ass neighborhoods all my life. Here you also want to decide where you stand on the milita issue.
Here is where you may get shot, and not because you were mistaken for a deer either. I have met a good many hunters who are in fact harvesting, are funny when drunk and dont use the gun as a ppenis extension. They hunt because they are poor and taht has been a good way to put food on the table. On the other I hand, I saw a BMW in a hunting camp in the Catskills. This could only be owned by a Wall Street Trader of a crack dealer. Think about it. Neither should be armed under any circumstances. Plus the average $30,000 price for a 4WD throws the traditional argument in the trash. And for most, I can swear by the lack of women hunters, the bored rod is a penis extension.
Got mine for under $6,000.00. Of course, it’s an ‘87 model. So what to do ?? Simple: a) Buy your meat or even better go veggie.
Do you think THIS meat volunterers to be slaughtered? b) Use the fishing throw-back policy. How? Control the breeding with birth control implants shot from shot guns. In this way, build families or herds which can think for themselves and also be tracked for driving, farming, and tick control purposes. c) Get lyme tick disease under control with booster shots. Most hunters ( and snow-mobilers ) do not love the woods. They go out to the great outdoors to control and destroy them. We go into the woods because it is simply the most beautiful thing there is. The "great outdoorsmen" are also storm trooper wanabes. What the hell do you want that type around for. Rehabilitate them, the cold war is over.
I hunt AND backpack, and occassionally combine the two. I never drink while doing either, and if hunting is an activity which promotes pride in being of the male gender, then so be it. I don’t bitch at a woman if she wants to knit or crochet. Hunters support the wildlife as much (or more) than anyone, and while there are exceptions, most are responsible people.
Response:
<Big Diatribe Snipped Get with the program. If you don’t know what you’re screaming about then, shut up and listen.
Wow Larry, Don’t I feel small and pathetic now. I just have a couple of comments for you. 1. Feel free to read the posts and gain a clear understanding of the thread and the previous posts before embarrassing yourself again with a similar post. 2. I’ll "shut up" when I’m damn good and ready to, who the hell do you think you are? 3. Take a prozac. Happy New Year Shaun
Response:
Sad. Sad commentary. You classify all hunters with the jackboot skinheads with no business in the woods. How open minded! Yes, there are slob hunters. There are slobs in every form of activity known to man. It’s the good ones that turn in the bad ones. What do you care if the hunter is in a BMW or a WWII Jeep? Does a really expensive bowling shirt make a guy better or worse than the bowler wearing a T-shirt? You are extremely materialistic and by all accounts equally as shallow. You obviously know little of hunting and are happy to let thousands know it. If you let go of that tree you’re hugging long enough to check it out you might actually see some merit in it. Who do you suppose maintains the health of the deer, antelope and elk herds. You? Try again. It’s the hunters and their contributions to state and federal Fish & Game coffers through tag fees. Where do you think all those fish come from in the stocking trucks? You. No, all you can contribute is mouth and criticism. Those fish are provided by the funds genrated by fishing and hunting licenses by those nasty hunters and fishermen. Who do you suppose goes out in the winter to feed the deer that are starving from lack of food? You? No. That alfalfa hay is bought by the fees from hunting and fishing tags. Herds are maintained for a reason. To improve the quality of life for the animal. A common cry from the ignorant is "Well, they were doing Ok before WE got here so, why shoot ‘em?" A legitimate question if you don’t know anything about wildlife. Have you ever tasted elk or, deer or, antelope? No. You satisfied with slaughtering cow and sheep. Oh, and cutting a few tuna and chickens along the way is Ok, too. You are as hypocritical as they come. Those poor little defenseless furbearing creatures! While you and the rest of your clowns are busy throwing ink and paint on expensive fur coats you happen to be wearing your Nike and Reebok tennies with leather belts and wallets. Last year, Idaho lost more acreage than covers the entire state of Rhode Island to lightning fires. Now that all of the under brush and grasses have been obliterated, all of the wintering grazing lost and virtually all of the weather cover burnt to the ground what do you do with thousands of deer, elk, bear and another hundred species with no food or cover? I know. Let’s let them die a slow agonizing death from starvation! Let’s let them migrate into the towns and eat everything from the ground up! Let’s let them migrate into the ‘burbs and get killed by the dozens daily by car and truck. With any luck maybe they can kill a few baby humans along the way in the wreckage! You know, we could issue some permits to go into the affected areas and thin out the herds so the available forage can support what’s left in their natural habitat. We can try to truck and helicopter some food into the backcountry for what herds can’t be reached by hunters or, vehicle. No. Makes too much sense. Let’s let those treehuggers fly over and see hundreds of dead deer huddled up in the nooks and crannies of the mountains. Next year, we’ll have maybe 5 or 10% survive and it’ll take them 7 to 10 years to get back to normal herd size unless we have two bad winters in a row. Then, it’s over. That’s what bad game management buys you. Get with the program. If you don’t know what you’re screaming about then, shut up and listen.
Response:
Hunting accidents are no different than any other accident
You can classify accidents in lots of ways. Accidents can always happen, but it makes a difference whether it just happens, or the person which caused the accident did something dangerous. It also makes a difference whether the person causing the accident endangers himself or other people. One of the bad things of a hunting accident is that the endangered person has no legal way of preventing the hunter shooting at him before the hunter actually does it. (Speeding drivers get fined even without accident) I’m just getting into hiking, and one thing I can say is that I feel MUCH safer in the woods than I do driving on a crowded highway.
I agree, the woods is one of the safest places. It would be even more safe if there were no hunters. I know this may feel bad by reasonable hunters, but how can a hiker distinguish between reasonable hunters and not so reasonable ones? Chris
Response:
It still appears that hunters think pointing a weapon at an unidentified object and shooting it is the same as someone accidentally killing someone with a car.
I am beginning to wonder if you actually believe this, or if you believe that repetition will make others believe it. Hunters, like ic design engineers, are not of a single mind. A gun/rifle is a *weapon*. It’s primary purpose is to kill. A car is not. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Negligent homicide is negligent homicide regardless of the agent of death. Not all fatal car accidents involve negligence, nor do all fatal gun accidents. Why is *that* so hard to grasp? cheers, scott smay /Everything I know is wrong./
Response:
yes, you are very right, in a pragmatic sense. but environmentalists are necessarily idealists at heart, and in order to have a dreamn become reality, we must look ahead to perfection, and not necessarily deal with the problem as it exists. this issue is really too complex to say whether hunting should be allowed or not. one simply can not hunt if it so displeases them. otoh, hunters do need to improve their track records with respect to accidental shootings and such. ‘enjoy our wild america’ (marty stouffer) 
evan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sad. Sad commentary. You classify all hunters with the jackboot skinheads with no business in the woods. How open minded! Yes, there are slob hunters. There are slobs in every form of activity known to man. It’s the good ones that turn in the bad ones. What do you care if the hunter is in a BMW or a WWII Jeep? Does a really expensive bowling shirt make a guy better or worse than the bowler wearing a T-shirt? You are extremely materialistic and by all accounts equally as shallow. You obviously know little of hunting and are happy to let thousands know it. If you let go of that tree you’re hugging long enough to check it out you might actually see some merit in it. Who do you suppose maintains the health of the deer, antelope and elk herds. You? Try again. It’s the hunters and their contributions to state and federal Fish & Game coffers through tag fees. Where do you think all those fish come from in the stocking trucks? You. No, all you can contribute is mouth and criticism. Those fish are provided by the funds genrated by fishing and hunting licenses by those nasty hunters and fishermen. Who do you suppose goes out in the winter to feed the deer that are starving from lack of food? You? No. That alfalfa hay is bought by the fees from hunting and fishing tags. Herds are maintained for a reason. To improve the quality of life for the animal. A common cry from the ignorant is "Well, they were doing Ok before WE got here so, why shoot ‘em?" A legitimate question if you don’t know anything about wildlife. Have you ever tasted elk or, deer or, antelope? No. You satisfied with slaughtering cow and sheep. Oh, and cutting a few tuna and chickens along the way is Ok, too. You are as hypocritical as they come. Those poor little defenseless furbearing creatures! While you and the rest of your clowns are busy throwing ink and paint on expensive fur coats you happen to be wearing your Nike and Reebok tennies with leather belts and wallets. Last year, Idaho lost more acreage than covers the entire state of Rhode Island to lightning fires. Now that all of the under brush and grasses have been obliterated, all of the wintering grazing lost and virtually all of the weather cover burnt to the ground what do you do with thousands of deer, elk, bear and another hundred species with no food or cover? I know. Let’s let them die a slow agonizing death from starvation! Let’s let them migrate into the towns and eat everything from the ground up! Let’s let them migrate into the ‘burbs and get killed by the dozens daily by car and truck. With any luck maybe they can kill a few baby humans along the way in the wreckage! You know, we could issue some permits to go into the affected areas and thin out the herds so the available forage can support what’s left in their natural habitat. We can try to truck and helicopter some food into the backcountry for what herds can’t be reached by hunters or, vehicle. No. Makes too much sense. Let’s let those treehuggers fly over and see hundreds of dead deer huddled up in the nooks and crannies of the mountains. Next year, we’ll have maybe 5 or 10% survive and it’ll take them 7 to 10 years to get back to normal herd size unless we have two bad winters in a row. Then, it’s over. That’s what bad game management buys you. Get with the program. If you don’t know what you’re screaming about then, shut up and listen. . .
Response:
Scotty, let me clear up a misconception you seem to be having. A car is a utilitarian object. We all use them as a basic transportation device. In today’s society we cannot get along without them. we each agree to a basic social contract each time we get behind the wheel. we each know the risks of driving…
As evidence by the number of "accidents"…. Now, a gun is a weapon. It’s sole purpose is destruction. It will be used to destroy a target, a game animal, or a person. Is the difference clear yet? You *need* a car. You do not *need* a gun. The only social contract here is the responsibility of the person behind the trigger. I do not choose to own a gun, therefor I have *NO* responsibilty for gun safety. You choose to hunt? You choos to take on the responsibility. period.
As for whether or not you *need* a gun, how about looking at the location of the person. Is he/she in an urban cesspool or a rural area? I know of many people who live in more remote areas that do NOT have vehicles ( one in particular has never had one! He lives in Northern BC, by a river. A canoe is his trans. His rifle is important to him. It is by it that he eats. Now to elaborate further, I am not opposed to gun ownership. My point in this thread has been to advocate for responsible gun ownership and use. I have been appalled by reading repeated posts by folks to immature or to stupid to realize that guns are not toys.
I have always agreed with this. The same applies to automobiles. Like firearms, they are quite placid when left alone, but when in irresponsible hands, can be quite the opposite. I don’t give a damn if your fucking hunters insurance is paid up or not. An insurance settlement is cold comfort to the family of a VICTIM of a hunting *accident*. IMHO, your post clearly shows that you are one of those folks that seems unable to realize what a huge responsibility you have resting on your shoulders every time you sight down that gun and squeeze that trigger.
All too common, I am afraid. I have been taught that you must take responsibility for your actions. Kinda like the first law of physics (I think): For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Once again, I will say that I hope that anyone guilty of killing or injuring another person in a hunting *accident* will never see the outside of a prison cell again.
I would like to see that extended to auto accidents also!! Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Shaun
Response:
snip A gun/rifle is a *weapon*. It’s primary purpose is to kill. A car is not. Why is that so hard to grasp? snip
Why is the primary purpose of the item important? If a car is used to kill somebody it’s ‘less bad’ than a gun? Dead is dead! I’ll remember to use my car next time I want to kill somebody, maybe I’ll get off easier. Hopefully everybody knows this last part is tongue in cheek. — Kirk Mueller Hughes Aircraft Co., Radar and Communications Sector El Segundo, CA USA — All comments are strictly my own. —
Response:
: : 3. As to taking a poorly planned shot. Define that! Unless you are at the scene and behind the shooter, how can you tell? : You have to be kidding. : I’ll take a stab: When a hunter shoots a person. : Well, that’s a workable definition. But it’s also rather : pointless. I think we are agreed that accidentally : shooting someone should be illegal. No, "we" aren’t agreed, if you include a number of hunters who have posted to this forum. They seem to think that a hunter shooting someone (not an accidental discharge) is not an illegal act, if it was "an accident", ie a "misidentified" target.
About as illegal as accidentally injuring someone with a car? Is your hunters premium insurance paid? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text — Scott Linn CMOS IC Design Engineer Hewlett-Packard Integrated Circuits Business Division – Corvallis, OR
Response:
: : 3. As to taking a poorly planned shot. Define that! Unless you are at the scene and behind the shooter, how can you tell? : You have to be kidding. : I’ll take a stab: When a hunter shoots a person. : Well, that’s a workable definition. But it’s also rather : pointless. I think we are agreed that accidentally : shooting someone should be illegal. No, "we" aren’t agreed, if you include a number of hunters who have posted to this forum. They seem to think that a hunter shooting someone (not an accidental discharge) is not an illegal act, if it was "an accident", ie a "misidentified" target. — Scott Linn CMOS IC Design Engineer Hewlett-Packard Integrated Circuits Business Division – Corvallis, OR
Response:
: 3. As to taking a poorly planned shot. Define that! Unless you are at the scene and behind the shooter, how can you tell? You have to be kidding. I’ll take a stab: When a hunter shoots a person.
Well, that’s a workable definition. But it’s also rather pointless. I think we are agreed that accidentally shooting someone should be illegal. By your definition, all this suggestion would do, is make that two crimes rather than one (and one, making a poorly planned shot, fairly minor compared to the other.) Do you really mean that poorly planned shots should be illegal, but only if someone were accidentally hit? If you do, I think it’s pointless, but I wouldn’t object. If you mean something more by "poorly planned shots", then I’d like to hear what, and how you plan to determine this and prosecute cases. Frank Crary CU Boulder
Response:
1. "Marking" bullets is ludicrous as any decent hunting round deforms drastical I believe this certainly possible in the same manner explosives can be marked, with less risk of performance lost. I will admit it maybe too costly.
Explosives are not marked in the way that you think. It’s possible to identify the manufacturer and, I think, the lot number. The specific buyer can not be identified. But, given the small number of buyers, even that limited information is useful in investigating a crime. You could, in principle, "mark" ammunition in the same way. But it would be pointless. Tens of millions of people buy ammunition. You’d learn that the ammunition used in a given crime was made by, say, Winchester on the first week of March, 1995. Since a huge number of people possess ammunition made by the same company, during that period, you haven’t really narrowed down the list of suspects. More to the point, most states don’t require records of ammunition sales. So all you’d learn is that the criminal purchased the ammunition from any one of hundreds of stores. Somehow this doesn’t strike me as a viable way of investigating a crime. 2. As to making the wounding of an animal a crime, that is absolutely stupid. What if a person lines up perfectly but as he pulls the t rigger, his perfect shot is now just a wounding shot because the animal moved ? predicting when a animal will move is the hunter’s responsiblity.
I’m afraid you are assuming absolutely perfect skill. You might as well say, "never, ever, missing is the hunter’s responsibility." _No_ one _never_ misses. What you suggest would make it a crime to hunt and be less than inhumanly perfect. …Every book I have read on Hunting by ‘expert" hunters seemed to think that wounding an animal was a very bad thing.
Sure. No one is questioning that. That’s why hunters _try_ to avoid simply wounding an animal. But that’s try to the best of their ability. It doesn’t mean hunters are always perfect. I never said this should be a felony, illegal hunting yes, dangerous shots yes, but not wounding. I would suggest a rapidly escalating fine: 1st $80 bucks, 2nd $200, 3rd 10,000 4th go to jail.
Again, you have an enforcement problem. How, exactly, would the police or forest service find out who had wounded the animal? Have one officer per hunter following them around? If not, how do you plan to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" who was at fault? …Though without marked bullets I doubt they will ever catch the idiots who shot all the wounded animals.
See above. They type of "marking" that is possible, isn’t useful for identifying the person who fired the bullet. 4. Hunters do have a very big liability to carry when they hunt. I believe that thorough hunters education classes should be MANDATORY and not grand-fathered as they currently are for people over a certain I agree, a good class would solve many problems esp. if it had a mandatory demostration of shooting proficiency.
The ones here in Colorado do, and are mandatory for most people. (There is a grandfather clause, exempting people who were over 18 at the time the law was passed. I think that means anyone born before 1955 or so.) BTW I have nothing against hunters of over populated species. My only concern would be if the percentage of successful trophy hunters was high enough to affect deer breeding patterns by killing only the largest animals.
It doesn’t quite work that way. Here in Colorado, the effects of hunting have been seen on the "breeding patterns" (evolution, really) of elk. (Or at least, this is what the forest service guy at the hunter’s safety class said.) But the effect hasn’t been to reduce the size of the animals, what you’d expect from "killing only the largest animals." It’s been to reduce the average size of antlers, and increase the frequency of stunted ones (i.e. ones that aren’t just small, but which never developed fully.) I’m afraid I don’t see how that adversely affects the elk. Frank Crary CU Boulder
Response:
1. "Marking" bullets is ludicrous as any decent hunting round deforms drastical
I believe this certainly possible in the same manner explosives can be marked, with less risk of performance lost. I will admit it maybe too costly. 2. As to making the wounding of an animal a crime, that is absolutely stupid. Has the person who suggested this EVER fired a firearm?
Yes, What if a person lines up perfectly but as he pulls the t rigger, his perfect shot is now just a wounding shot because the animal moved ?
predicting when a animal will move is the hunter’s responsiblity. Every book I have read on Hunting by ‘expert" hunters seemed to think that wounding an animal was a very bad thing. I will admit, most of them had done it which is why. Has this person committed a felony? I never said this should be a felony, illegal hunting yes, dangerous shots yes, but not wounding. I would suggest a rapidly escalating fine: 1st $80 bucks, 2nd $200, 3rd 10,000 4th go to jail. Though without marked bullets I doubt they will ever catch the idiots who shot all the wounded animals. 3. As to taking a poorly planned shot. Define that! Unless you are at the sce
Dead Cows, broken windows, bullet ending up near a human, dog ect would all be proof positive if the gulity party could be found. 4. Hunters do have a very big liability to carry when they hunt. I believe that thorough hunters education classes should be MANDATORY and not grand-fathered as they currently are for people over a
certain I agree, a good class would solve many problems esp. if it had a mandatory demostration of shooting proficiency. This is even more important in Bow hunting since in most hunting conditions the required skills are more difficult to obtain. it was the last weekend of hunting season. I did not have any orange on me but one of the gentlemen took me and my partner to his cabin to GIVE us some extra orange clothing to place on our packs to
help That is not a reasonable requirement, not because it is too much to ask, but because anyone who takes a shot a human while hunting deer should be charged with reckless endangerment. BTW I have nothing against hunters of over populated species. My only concern would be if the percentage of successful trophy hunters was high enough to affect deer breeding patterns by killing only the largest animals. I think most hunters would agree that this is very unlikely. Robert Posey – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Scott Olds
Response:
: 3. As to taking a poorly planned shot. Define that! Unless you are at the scene and behind the shooter, how can you tell? You have to be kidding. I’ll take a stab: When a hunter shoots a person. — Scott Linn CMOS IC Design Engineer Hewlett-Packard Integrated Circuits Business Division – Corvallis, OR
Response:
I am getting so tired of seeing this us versus them attitude between the mountain bikers, backpackers, and hunters. I hunt, backpack, and mountain bike. NO ONE GROUP IS PERFECT! I can point out numerous "backpackers" who leave scarred ground from open groundfires. I can point out mountain bikers who are rude. Hunters that are careless (admittedly more dangerous). The key thing is that no one group owns the wilderness areas. Everyone needs to realize this and that the key thing is that people act RESPONSIBLY. Also, keep in mind that unless you are knowledgable about something, do not offer "solutions" to problems. 1. "Marking" bullets is ludicrous as any decent hunting round deforms drastically upon impact. This HELPS to ensure that animals are wounded less and killed more. This is in effect more humane. 2. As to making the wounding of an animal a crime, that is absolutely stupid. Has the person who suggested this EVER fired a firearm? What if a person lines up perfectly but as he pulls the trigger, his perfect shot is now just a wounding shot because the animal moved ? Has this person committed a felony? What a pile of garbage. We have better things for the courts to do. 3. As to taking a poorly planned shot. Define that! Unless you are at the scene and behind the shooter, how can you tell? 4. Hunters do have a very big liability to carry when they hunt. I believe that thorough hunters education classes should be MANDATORY and not grand-fathered as they currently are for people over a certain age. Also, any activity, be it mountain biking or hunting should be severly penalized if the person is under the influence. 5. Yes, I have been on the other side and worried about hunting season. I was going into the Pecos Wilderness in NM and as I arrived at the trailhead I talked with a couple of gentlemen who happened to be hunters who told me that it was the last weekend of hunting season. I did not have any orange on me but one of the gentlemen took me and my partner to his cabin to GIVE us some extra orange clothing to place on our packs to help us. He even offered us room in his cabin to stay the night. The point is that we all have responsibilities to take reasonable efforts to protect ourselves. Anyway, that’s enough for right now. I’m sure that this will stir things up even more. Scott Olds
Response:
