Tigerpaw by Claude Balles
As usual, an opportunity slips out of our grasp due to the actions of a bunch of goons.
Tigerclaw is an articulate, intelligent fellow. I can see that by the tome of his writing. He is also anti-hunting.
What better way can a person be converted than to have avid hunters discuss the sport in a frank, unemotional way? Outlining the benefits to both humans and animals in a positive way, perhaps TC would reevaluate his position. If not, then we are still where we were to begin with. A difference of opinion. Nothing more.
With all the anti-American, anti-government, anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-Arab, anti-Mexican, and anti-feminist on the board, what's one more anti, give or take?
Tigerclaw is an articulate, intelligent fellow. I can see that by the tome of his writing. He is also anti-hunting.
What better way can a person be converted than to have avid hunters discuss the sport in a frank, unemotional way? Outlining the benefits to both humans and animals in a positive way, perhaps TC would reevaluate his position. If not, then we are still where we were to begin with. A difference of opinion. Nothing more.
With all the anti-American, anti-government, anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-Arab, anti-Mexican, and anti-feminist on the board, what's one more anti, give or take?
0
-
Well, thank you, however, I do not deserve your kind words. My english is still rather sub par, as is my knowledge.
However, I have gotten my bachelor and my post graduate work in USA, and my feelings towards animals were formed by, among others, USA authors: Ernest Setton Thompson, for example.
I understand that deer herds neek control. Do not get me wrong. I just believe that it is wolves and cougars who should be doing this job, not us.
I am trying to say that you, or me, or anyone, for that matter, when taking an aim at a deer or maybe a hare, do not know how healthy/sick, he is. We have more chances of killing a healthy member of the specie (since he is bigger and has better pelt/horns), then we do of killing a sickly one. And the purpose of the predators is to CULL THE SICKLY ONES from the herd, so that the healthy ones, can have plenty of food and can carry their genes on into the next generation.
What really is an anathema to me is killing for sport and trophy.
Really, to me, to kill a deer "for fun" is not too far removed from torturing a stray dog "for fun" or sacrificing a cat in a satanic ritual "for fun".
If you ain't gonna eat it - don't kill it.
Just so we are clear, I am anti fur to, unless the fur comes from the consumable species (hare, rabbit, deer, for example).
I do not take joy in killing, be it killing animals or people.
I do not need such an ego boost, and I have other venues to let my frustrations out.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Tigerclaw_x
If you ain't gonna eat it - don't kill it.
so what your saying here is that as long as you eat it its ok well then
I can agree with you on that and here I thought you were a true anti.
oh and wolfs and cats dont always kill just the weak and sick
[:D][:D]0 -
Frankly, most of the times the predators actually do kill the weaker and sicker animals. You think it is easy for a wolf to chase down a healthy deer, or easy, even for a pack, to take down a healthy moose?
I am against TROPHY hunting and against killing of predatory species or endangered species. I would LOVE to see wolves and Lynx, lets say, return to Illinois. I would love to see Cougars back in Washington State.
If you gonna eat it: heck have fun. I won't kill unless I have to survive. That is my right and my choice. If you want to feed your family a fresh duck, and ducks are not endangered specie, I see no reason for you to go and kill it. Of course, we can't guarantee that you will kill a sicker duck and not healthiest one, but considering how rare the predators became, it is not that crucial.
I, for example, would not kill it. However, as long as you do not damage the endangered species and do not harvest more prey then is healthy for a current environment - I have no problems with that at all.0 -
and how are your feeling on killing zombies. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] 0 -
Since zombies are already dead, it is not killing. Therefore, I condone it. As long as the corpses are used to fertilize the nearby forest preserve.
RESIDENT EVIL RULES!!!0 -
I know of no trappers in my area. Winters have been so mild as to make for grossly inferior pelts. Moreover, animal rights activists have eliminated all but the most avid market in furs. I suspect that your logic is based upon available but irrelevant statistics gleaned from history by the laboratory perfected idiots you studied under in this respect. The one raccoon pelt I took died instantly from a .22 to the head about 30 feet up from me in a tree.
As for your natural predators, they are recurring in this area as in others. Threads have been initiated here and on other forums showing photographic evidence of a cougar outside a glass door eying a young toddler. The predators you advocate for do not make a distinction between human life and that of the animals you deem unfit for human consumption yet fit to die in a savage attack by tooth and claw. If you want to see an animal die a horrible death, watch one being killed by a large cat.
Moreover, I know absolutely no hunter who hunts for the fun of killing. The hunters I know hunt to eat, and exercise their natural instincts. Trophy hunters? I never met one. I have seen deer heads moumnted but know that the meat went to human consumption. Hunting for meat is expensive enough, taxidermist fees are prohibitive.
Sadly you have come to know what little you actually know on the subject from people who exist to justify their own existence in the education system, if you can call it that.
BTW, that raccoon I shot as a kid was served up at the local annual coon supper.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Tigerclaw_x
Frankly, most of the times the predators actually do kill the weaker and sicker animals. You think it is easy for a wolf to chase down a healthy deer, or easy, even for a pack, to take down a healthy moose?
The only problem with that is that given a choice, what is a predator going to do: Chase and kill a weaker, sicker deer (that can still run pretty well) or go for the penned up sheep or calf (that can't run very far at all)?
That is why there has to be some measure of predator control. There are many people who make their living on livestock. To have their livelyhood threatened by not being able to defend their source of income (i.e. kill the predator) is asinine.
As for other predators, such as coyotes and fox, there also needs to be some control on them as well to help defend other species, such as turkeys or quail. Hunters pay a lot of money into systems that help those species to survive and even thrive. Look into the history of wild turkeys in this country to see how hunters have made a difference. I personally do not want to see all that work get thrown out the window because of an unchecked coyote population.
As I have said above, and have seen elsewhere in the other thread, hunters do more for the animals they hunt than any other group in this country (including the predators). Check out the Pittman-Robertson Act.
One last statement. If the predator population goes unchecked, then not only will there be less prey, but eventually there will be less predators. For once the food runs out, they will starve to death. I am an avid hunter and have seen what happens to an animal that lives in overpopulated conditions. Believe me when I say that when I take an animal's life, it is much more humane than what happens when I don't.0 -
HandgunHTR52
I agree with you on the subject of predator and prey control.
However, to control the predators, you must have a population of them to control. I am quite familiar with oscilation of predator and pray populations.
Livestock? Yeah, sure, a cougar will go into a cow pen, where cows cant even move and are locked up in the stables, with machines humming and will attack them. Yeah. Right.
As far as "cougar eying a toddler". I submit to you that more kids die from cars then from cougars. Even back in 19th century cougars and wolves killed VERY few people (if any at all). Besides, where were the toddlers parents? Where were the security measures?
How many cases you saw of lynx or cougar breaking into the house to eat kids? More people get killed by accidentally blowing their brains out then by cougars. Lets ban guns, then, right?
Somehow, for many many years, predator/prey populations managed just fine without our interfernece. Lets keep it that way.
More kids get mauled in school playing footbal then by cougar, wolf lynx put together, even in Canada and Alaska.
So, I am well aware of the ecological impacts of the population fluctuations. Also, I am aware of how many people get killed in USA by: lighting, car crashes, gun accidents, suicides, and how many get mauled by bears, wolves, cougars, lynxes. Statistics are something hard to argue with.
Hey, if you guys ate that coon - bone appetitte:-)0 -
You clearly don't know nearly as much about the process of raising livestock as you think you do. As someone who does raise livestock, I can tell you that the situation you described does exist, but that's not where the problems arise. I would go into some detail for you, but from past experience I am quite certain that it is not worth the expenditure of time and effort and that you know much more about it than we who raise the animals do.
It's a shame that we aren't smart enough to know what is happening to our own animals. It's shocking how we misinterpret what we see with our own eyes in our own fields. If only we could study where you did, then we would know better.0 -
Your stance seems to vacillate between hunting is wrong/hunting for meat/did you eat that coon.
I ate off a few coon carcasses during several coon suppers, none of them tasting any better than the next or the previous. Coon is good eating more like dark turkey meat than chicken.
I'm not a HS football fan although I played at it as a Junior and Senior in HS. Saw some people get hurt although I fail to see the relevance as regards your protestations.
If it was my grandson that cougar was eyeballing it would be dead, and no, I wouldn't be serving cougar that night or any other.
If indeed you do have a Master's degree, I would hope that you were capable of staying better focused as opposed to switching back and forth in a futile attempt at winning some sort of self propheying debate that you initiated and refuse to follow through with.
Perhaps this is what one learns in a liberal environment when studying for a "Master's?" degree. I am more purpose oriented, being a lowly ADN. Then again, I have encountered more than one laboratory perfected idiot in my career.0 -
Kill.
Eat.
Repeat.
====================
Kill.
Mount head and cape.
Repeat.
====================
Kill.
Skin and make hat.
Repeat.
====================
I understand non-hunters. I am a non-hunter. I don't understand anti-hunters any more than I do the anti-gunners. To me, they have to be cut from the same bolt of cloth.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Blckhrn...If indeed you do have a Master's degree, I would hope that you were capable of staying better focused as opposed to ...he doesn't really talk like a russian either. much too americanized. I don't think he's all that. but that's just my opinion. don't want to stir anything up. just making an observation. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Tigerclaw_x
HandgunHTR52
Livestock? Yeah, sure, a cougar will go into a cow pen, where cows cant even move and are locked up in the stables, with machines humming and will attack them. Yeah. Right.
Actually....a couple months ago a COUGAR went into a neigbors stable, where the animals were LOCKED up, with the radio playing, and DESTROYED a 4 month old prized COLT. Same cougar was spotted a few weeks later at day break stalking another neighbors cattle. Sure hope it doesn't decide to come on my place and go after my cattle. But if it does, I'd LOVE to spot it early in the morning like it was spotted last time. There would be no more spotting it afterwards. The truck gun .243 has temporarily been replaced with the 7mag. Though I really don't plan on seeing it and am suprised it was even seen the last time.
As for coyotes.....I've lost count. I think they breed faster than rabbits.[:0]
Ben0 -
quote:Originally posted by Tigerclaw_x
Well, thank you, however, I do not deserve your kind words. My english is still rather sub par, as is my knowledge.
However, I have gotten my bachelor and my post graduate work in USA, and my feelings towards animals were formed by, among others, USA authors: Ernest Setton Thompson, for example.
I would still be willing to bet a few bucks that you know American history better than most posters here.[}:)]
Anyway, I hope you read my post in the nasty thread before it got cut. Most here are not trophy hunters and in fact, they look at them with the same distain. Hunting is not just a rich man's persuit but is practiced by all kinds of Americans. The game in this country is very bountiful and even moreso now than before. Most natural predators have been eliminated hence the need, the actual need, for hunting.
Besides, store-bought beefsteak is full of fat. Deer is mostly lean. Which is better and more healthy to eat?0 -
Hunting is the best management strategy to control wildlife - enough said. 0 -
There's a mighty big difference between being anti-Mexican and anti-illegal invader............ 0 -
My guns and I are often asked by landowners to help control prairie dog populations here in Colorado. While less effective than poisoning, it is helpful. I don't call it hunting, I call it "Prairie Dog Shooting".
I wouldn't eat a prairie dog on a bet and don't even handle the carcasses without gloves, because they often carry bubonic plague.
Some may call it barbaric, and I understand their position. I just don't share it.0 -
on here a month or so was a video of a wolf taking down a deer and eating it. could someone plese post that so tigerclaw can watch it. It is an eye opener. Your leave it to the animals, is not the kindest thing to do for them.
Lets say we leave it to the animals(no more hunting). the population today of deer is more than the turn of the century 1900. with their population growth and the population growth of humans, we are encroching on each others territory. search the internet you can find pictures of deer in backyards more and more. they are running out of room and food. they have to find it somewhere.
now the preditors are growong in numbers also (since we are not disposing of them & there is plenty of food avalible). those deer in the back yard, where your 2 years old is also playing, drew the preditors to your yard. which do you think they are going after. the deer that can run or a toddler that can barrley walk?
or how about the rancher that lost 60-75% of his calves because the preditors came in before they were up and moving good. He just lost a years worth of pay. what are you going to tell him "But it the natural way".
somewhere there has to be control of the populations. hunters provide some of that control.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Tigerclaw_x
Frankly, most of the times the predators actually do kill the weaker and sicker animals. You think it is easy for a wolf to chase down a healthy deer, or easy, even for a pack, to take down a healthy moose?
I am against TROPHY hunting and against killing of predatory species or endangered species. I would LOVE to see wolves and Lynx, lets say, return to Illinois. I would love to see Cougars back in Washington State.
If you gonna eat it: heck have fun. I won't kill unless I have to survive. That is my right and my choice. If you want to feed your family a fresh duck, and ducks are not endangered specie, I see no reason for you to go and kill it. Of course, we can't guarantee that you will kill a sicker duck and not healthiest one, but considering how rare the predators became, it is not that crucial.
I, for example, would not kill it. However, as long as you do not damage the endangered species and do not harvest more prey then is healthy for a current environment - I have no problems with that at all.
You don't have to wait too long. They're taking a strong hold in Northern Wisconsin and moving East, West, and South. Soon we're going to have to start controlling their population because they're becoming dangerous to outdoors enthusiasts.0 -
quote:p3skyking:
quote:
Originally posted by Tigerclaw_x:
I would still be willing to bet a few bucks that you know American history better than most posters here.
... most here think the South won the Great War of Northern Aggression.[}:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by Blckhrn...If indeed you do have a Master's degree, I would hope that you were capable of staying better focused as opposed to ...he doesn't really talk like a russian either. much too americanized. I don't think he's all that. but that's just my opinion. don't want to stir anything up. just making an observation.
Totally agree. This guy isn't anymore Russian than me. Has a moderator thought of cross referencing this guy's IP address with a couple of screen names that was locked out a couple of months ago. While Tiger's positions are different, his writing style and willing to disagree with most reminds me of those two other screen names.
Just an opinion.0 -
I'm not a great writer, and I my forensic skills are much less than my imagination. I know I've made comments about a Tiger = Pilgrim, but actually his writing style reminds me of USAPROUD1776.
They're writing style, knowledge, and willingness to take a contrarian position just seem too similar. I realize one was more of a conservative while the other is more liberal, but I still think there is an uncanny similarity.
Here's a random piece I found written by 1776.
The way to win this war is to put homosexuals BACK into the military. Sound odd and disgusting? Perhaps, but follow the logic.
Right now our best men and women are fighting hard in Iraq while homosexuals are here in our country spreading disease and menacing children. This is ludicrous. The government should round up all homosexuals and give them a small amount of military training. Perhaps three or four weeks worth; such should be sufficent.
The homosexuals would then be sent to Iraq in the special, segregated units. They would patrol in front of the regular units, in a similar fashion as Stalin marched his punishment battalions through minefields to clear them for his regular troops.
If a street is full of IEDs, a homosexual patrol could be sent down it, and once all the bombs were detonated the regular patrol could move down it without taking any casualities. Homosexuals would be given officer insignia and fake radios and sent to stand on street corners; they would draw fire and the regular snipers could pick off the insurgents doing the shooting.
The financial savings would be tremendous. Homosexuals would not be equipped with body armor or helments, which would be a huge saving. The army would not need to assign medics or conduct medical evacuations when homosexuals are wounded. If a homosexual patrol is surrounded and needs fire support or an airstrike, the army would not have to provide it. Again, the financial savings would be fantastic.
Most importantly, though, would be the gradual but amazingly significant social cleansing that would take place. Slowly but surely, the homosexual units would suffer massive casualties and the number of homosexuals would dwindle. As a percentage of the population, they would shrink and shrink. As more were killed, the government could round more up and send them off.
This is possible and makes sense militarily and socially.0 -
...blood shooting out of my eyes...
Instead of falling into the goon category I think I'll stay away from this guy and go plan my turkey hunt.0 -
I find it interesting that much of your argument is emotional, based on how you feel. Frankly that makes for poor science and poor wild life management. There are currently far more deer in the United States than there were when Columbus blundered near here. The predators you would perfer to feed the deer to are reduced in numbers and their ranges are vastly restricted from pre-Columbian days. They simply cannot begin to stablize the deer population at even present levels and only hunting can help keep the population from catastrophic levels. In states where hunters are allowed to take multiple deer (6 or 7 in many states) the populations are still growning and the deer are browsing in suburban and small town yards.
Predators do indeed take healthy animals as well as the weak, old, sick or injured animals, and many sick animals are not taken by predators at all, but rather by scavengers when they die.
Like you, I am not a fan of "varmint" hunting, I do not kill things I do not eat, but I do recognize that as a personal choice. Ranchers who try to exterminate prairie dogs simply do not understand the roll of the prairie dog in maintaining a healthy prairie, and their ranches will ultimately suffer from the extirpation of p-dogs. It is their land however and they can mis-manage it as they please.0 -
I? ??, ??d??, ? ???????. I? ??o??? ? ?????? o????? ? ????o? ? ??d????o, ?????? ??o?? ? ???? ? ?? ?????? a???d??? ? ???????? ?? ? ?????? ? ????????? I? ??o??? ???? ? D??????, ?? ? ?????? ???? ??o??? ?d????? ???a?? (??????, ? ????? ?????? ? y???? ????????_ ??o?. ??????, ?????. E??? ? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??d??? ? ?????????? ??????? ? ?OA ?d???? ?????? ??? ? ? ?OA? ?????? ? ?? d?????? ?????? ??? ? ?? ??a??o?_?? ? ????o??????? ?? ???? A ??????? ?? ???, ????????, ? ?? ?????, ? ? ????? ?? o???. E?? a???d?? ????d???, ?? ??? ??????....
You see, folks, I do not have to agree with most of you. Last time I checked, at least on paper, the Americans are brave, free, proud people, who are not afraid to think for themselves and have their own opinion. I also always thought that Americans are free people and they are not expected to goose step in formation, like a cattle, following the leader and party line and confident enough to deal with people whos ideas are not identical to theirs. I also presumed that Americans are tolerant people, and capable of intellectual discussion. Was I wrong on all accounts? Or am I not in USA?
Is having ones own thoughts and not being part of the sheeple a punishable offence on this board?
I thought that people on this board in particular and in USA in general are for personal freedoms, including a freedom of expression or does this apply only to the freedom to hoard guns and not pay taxes?
Someone please tell me, which country am I in? Because, judging by views expressed by some on this board, this ain't USA, but rather an interesting mix of Soviet Union (do not be different from others) and Nazi Germany (considering racist remarks I saw here few times, including ones addressed to me).0 -
quote:Originally posted by Tigerclaw_x
As far as "cougar eying a toddler". I submit to you that more kids die from cars then from cougars. Even back in 19th century cougars and wolves killed VERY few people (if any at all). Besides, where were the toddlers parents? Where were the security measures?
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=235420
0 -
You're not in the USA. You're posting on an internet forum board that is frequented by a majority of members who are white, conservative gun owners and many of them are hunters or, if they do not hunt, support hunting. The forum also has rules and moderators and the mods will kick you off if they think you are violating the rules. It is your choice to, either conform with the rules or not. You might even consider taking a less confrontational stance, being a newbie, and, in the process, actually learn something. 0 -
To He Dog
I am under impression that you have not red my posts carefully. Either that or my English is woefully insufficient for proper communication of my political ideas.
1) Predators are MORE LIKELY to take down an old, injured or sick animal then they are to take down a healthy one. Of course they take down BOTH, healthy and ill. But they take MORE ILL AND WEAK animals then healthy ones.
2) Hunters DO NOT HAVE TO CHASE AND TAKE AN ANIMAL DOWN WITH THEIR HANDS. They are free to take an aim at anyone in the herd. Thefore, often they take down the BIGGEST AND THE STRONGEST.
3) Deer and other population MUST BE CONTROLLED. Predator species are largely decimated, so we have to take their place. TRUE.
4) Since we kill animals randomly, and in fact, are more likely to target the biggest (and often the healthiest), we stop their genes from propagating in the species. The result is the reduction of the size of Fish in Great Lakes, reduction of the size of horns in elk, moose and deer, and, in extreme case, male elephants born without tusks, as elephants with the biggest tusks were culled mercilessly by hunters and poachers.
5) You are absolutely correct about prarie dogs and their effect on the ecology.
I agree with you on most of your points. The only point of difference is the full effect of hunters on prey population, while they do prevent overpopulation, they do nothing to elliminate sick/weaklings from the herd. Often, just the opposite. A hunter is more likely to aim for a huge, majestic deer, then for a small one, limping after the herd, with matted pelt... While the wolf is more likely to attack that one... That is all that I am trying to say.0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
Like you, I am not a fan of "varmint" hunting, I do not kill things I do not eat, but I do recognize that as a personal choice. Ranchers who try to exterminate prairie dogs simply do not understand the roll of the prairie dog in maintaining a healthy prairie, and their ranches will ultimately suffer from the extirpation of p-dogs. It is their land however and they can mis-manage it as they please.
Couldn't let this go without comment. Given the choice of killing prairie dogs and letting them decimate the land, ranchers choose the former. Especially in the terrible drouth we're in the midst of, the pairie dogs turn grass land into sand-traps. Perhaps before men and cattle moved onto the prairie, the little vermin did the land a favor, but come out to Northeastern Colorado sometime and explain to ranchers who are fighting to keep their livlihood how they're "mismanaging" their lands. I respect your opinion, but it's woefully out of touch with the harsh reality here on the High Plains.0 -
quote:2) Hunters DO NOT HAVE TO CHASE AND TAKE AN ANIMAL DOWN WITH THEIR HANDS. They are free to take an aim at anyone in the herd. Thefore, often they take down the BIGGEST AND THE STRONGEST.
4) Since we kill animals randomly, and in fact, are more likely to target the biggest (and often the healthiest), we stop their genes from propagating in the species. The result is the reduction of the reduction of the size of horns in elk, moose and deer, and, in extreme case, male elephants born without tusks, as elephants with the biggest tusks were culled mercilessly by hunters and poachers.
While a few trophy hunters may seem to take the biggest and the best of the bucks, does also carry the genes for being "biggest and best." and in many states does cannot be taken at all. In fact, the biggest and best older bucks are the most difficult of all deer to take, and many successfully hide throughout the hunting season, while a very large number of spike, fork older but not "biggest and best" bucks are taken. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that the biggest and best bucks today are smaller or poorer than at any point in the past.
Likewise there is no evidence whatever to suggest that the antlers (they do not have horns) of elk and deer today are smaller than at any point in the past. Certainly there are regional nutritional variations and effects of drought, but agin there is no evidence to support what you say. As far as tuskless elephants resulting from shooting the bulls with the largest tusks, I can only say your science is woefully 19th Century. Pulling the wings off flies does not result in wingless offspring.
Honestly, I find no merit in your arguments, but certainly support your freedom to express uninformed opinions.
Colonel, I also respect your opinion, but since less than 3% of all US beef is produced in the west, I value p-dogs more than ranchers.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
41 comments