Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hunting: The ultimate do-it-yourself experience

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-08 07:49 PM
Original message
Hunting: The ultimate do-it-yourself experience
Garden-raised vegetables are probably the tastiest, and eating food raised from seeds you planted yourself always gives a deep sense of satisfaction. But nothing beats hunting for connecting you to the land.

I came to this conclusion recently. Over most of my life, I equated hunting with killing, even though I was raised in Montana where it's normal to see antlers and hooves in truck beds every fall. My family ate game meat every year, mostly courtesy of one of my aunts and her husband. Our freezer often had white-paper-wrapped packages of antelope, deer and elk.

How to describe my awakening? About four years ago, I hiked into one of Montana's western valleys below pine-covered mountains. Flurries of light snow fell from a low and cloudy sky. I followed a set of deer tracks, stepping slowly over brush, the rifle heavy and cold in my hands.

Other than the tracks and the occasional scat pile, I hadn't seen evidence of anything larger than a chipmunk, but with the snap of a twig, an antlered whitetail leapt from his bed 80 yards away and presented himself, broadside. I raised the rifle and had the spot behind his foreleg in my sights. I pulled the trigger. The gun kicked, and the deer crashed to the ground. Then he struggled to his feet and vanished downhill into thick brush. Shaking with the violence, elated and terrified at once, I saw where a spray of blood in the snow marked the place of impact.

http://www.redding.com/news/2008/dec/29/hunting-the-ultimate-do-it-yourself-experience/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-08 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. I find nothing wrong with hunting to feed yourself and your family.
I have huge problem when it is done just to put a mount on your wall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Agree
Hunting and using the meat is one think. Trophy hunting is disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-08 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Judging from the advertisements around Minnesota
for meat grinders, sausage skins, meat-cutting bandsaws, and the like, it appears to me that hunters, for the most part, eat their game. I suppose there is a small minority that hunts for just the antlers of deer, but not very many.

Personally, I like venison. I like it a lot. I don't hunt these days, but have done in the past, and have consumed every edible part of every deer I've killed. In my advanced years, I have to depend on the kindness of friends (mostly younger) to offer me venison. I'm thankful that a few do every year.

The picture a lot of anti-hunting folks carry with them of a hunter is not representative of the vast majority of hunters. The few trophy hunters out there don't have a good reputation with the bulk of hunters, either, who hate wasting game.

I'm a fisherman now, and release all of the fish I catch. I use barbless hooks, and have not killed a fish in years. I've caught a few more than once, so I know they do just fine after being released. I pay a lot of money each year for the license to fish, and that money goes into conservation projects designed to keep our freshwater environment clean and healthy. My boat license fees do the same. I also buy licenses and endorsements that I don't even use. I don't trout fish in Minnesota, but pay for a $10 trout stamp each year, so that trout habitats can be maintained in good healthy condition.

I will, however, listen to a dedicated vegetarian who doesn't use any leather products talk to me about not killing animals. They're living what they believe. Oddly enough, I rarely meet such people who want to bend my ear. Most of those I encounter who are opposed to hunting and fishing eat meat and wear leather shoes. To them, I listen not at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Are you against trophying *in addition* to food?
I've kept and mounted the antlers of some of bucks I've killed, but we also ate the venison and/or gave it to a food pantry. I guess there's something kind of totemish (in a good way) about it; I kind of see it as a way kind of honoring the buck. I also used to date a girl who made jewelry out of the antlers, which is beautiful stuff. The rest of the carcass we put into compost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-08 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. No problem with keeping the antlers of a kill used for meat
Making the kill just for the antlers/tusks/horns and leaving the carcass is trophy hunting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-31-08 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. What I object to is when hunters claim to take the place of higher-order predators
Edited on Wed Dec-31-08 06:41 PM by OKIsItJustMe
"Strengthening the herd!" that's the phrase they love to use, but it's bunk.

Higher order predators, like big cats, wolves, etc. go after the weak and the sick, because they are the easiest to kill. The result is that the fittest individuals survive to reproduce, "strengthening the herd!"

Human hunters typically seek the biggest, the strongest and the healthiest, leaving the sick and the weak to reproduce (evolutionary pressure in reverse.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. So true
On the other hand, it's important to accept that in many places, higher-order predators have been largely (or completely) eliminated- and reintroduction or preservation isn't always an option.

Without hunting, not only do difficulties arise with human activities- driving for example, or crop damage, but if left with abject imbalance, we end up with dies offs, as in the classic case of the Kaibab Deer:

The Lesson of the Kaibab

Introduction: The environment may be altered by forces within the biotic community, as well as by relationships between organisms and the physical environment. The carrying capacity of an ecosystem is the maximum number of organisms that an area can support on a sustained basis. The density of a population may produce such profound changes in the environment that the environment becomes unsuitable for the survival of that species. For instance, overgrazing of land may make the land unable to support the grazing of animals that lived there.

http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/kaibab.html
-----------

On another note, in rural areas of North Carolina (and other areas in the Southeast) small stores and some gas stations sell bags of grain marked "wildlife corn."

Having lived on the West Coast most of my life, I often wondered what it was used for. Eventually, on my last visit I asked.

The proprietor said matter of factly "why it's to attract deer onto your property" (the implication being that people can "hunt" them there).

I replied: "isn't that baiting?" (which to any self respecting Westerner is equivalent to poaching). He seemed puzzled and didn't know, so I let it drop as a cultural difference.

It's pretty interesting, though- to think about all of the possible selection pressures involved with baiting in environments like that....






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. "…in many places, higher-order predators have been largely (or completely) eliminated…"
This too is true. And that is why "herd management" may be in order.

The annual ritual of yahoos with guns does not qualify as "herd management" in my book. I know responsible hunters; and I've personally witnessed more than my share of irresponsible hunters. None of them are really practicing "herd management."

I'm a mutant, who likes walking in the woods, especially in the Autumn. However, the reverberating sounds of gunfire, illegally close to my home, persuade me not to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Deer stands and bait stations are an industry in the southeast
I met a guy in South Carolina who planted a whole soybean field for the deer.

He got a LOT of deer there.

The problem was it was June, and the hunting season was months away.

Predator pee, an electric fence, a scarecrow, and sevindust.... all failures. It worked a little TOO well, in short. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. The biggest predator around here is the CAR.
Cars tend to get the slowest deer.

We all feel better about it now.

Deer, ground up and rendered, make excellent biodiesel for big giant F150 pickup trucks for "environmentalists" who "need" them to transport dead deer to make biodiesel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Actually Ford doesn't sell a F150 diesel as of yet. slated for 2010 though
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Oh. I probably should be more informed about the stupid car CULTure or, maybe not.
Edited on Sat Jan-03-09 03:14 PM by NNadir
I betcha that if I were a dumb anti-nuke, I would think more about cars.

I am going to have some fun with the Ford Motor Company and its quality rival, the Vestas Oil, Gas and Wind Company on another website where I write.

The diary is written, but I'm rolling on the floor laughing too hard to complete the poll that goes with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-02-09 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. Hunting affects the gene pool
In some places in Texas, all the big bucks have been killed off and the little bucks are the only ones left to breed.

In just a few generations the average size of the deer has been reduced to the size of a large dog because only the small deer survive hunting season.

It is un-natural selection at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. That's cool. Evolution at work.
Maybe eventually all the fully grown deer end up looking like Bambi...

A fully grown trophy-sized buck of the 22nd century:



A couple of dachshunds and .177 ammunition makes for an exciting wilderness hunt!

Or a lawn chair, a small pile of rocks, and a case of beer if you're lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-03-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Near Kerrville Texas I saw a 12 pt buck
That was less than 5 feet tall -- antlers included.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
16. I don't like hunting
every year I have to stop going for hikes in the forests behind my house for a full month just because a bunch of drunk guys want to go out and get their jollies shooting innocent animals.

many times they injure the animal and don't kill it, causing extreme suffering

there is no honor or respect shown for the animals. native americans hunted with respect. they gave thanks to the animal they killed and they used every piece of it they could.

a lot of hunters think they're tough guys because they hunt. I say big deal, you can aim and press a button and kill a beautiful animal. It's really hard to press a button. You'd last about 2 seconds with the Cherokee on a real hunt, before the europeans arrived with their button-pressing killing machines.

if hunting is for survival, that's one thing. but around here, it's mostly a "tough guy" thing where a bunch of drunk guys go out into the woods and press buttons to make them feel powerful when in fact the only thing that gives them power is that gun.

please pass the hummous.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Native Americans used everything?
Don't kid yourself.

There are some "jumps" where over a thousand bison died.

And yes, only the haunches were taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I'll give you that...
you are correct, there are true stories as you describe. but in general the native americans were much more respectful of the animals they killed than americans are today. you can't speak for all native american tribes as one. but if you study the history and their teachings, there is an underlying respect and honor for everything, including their kill, that is completely lacking in today's society. whether you look at the cattle farms or wilderness hunting, the animals are seen as objects with no respect or honor.

in the words of chief seattle:

"Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man.

The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man --- all belong to the same family."

you don't see the drunk tough-guy hunters today saying anything like that do you?

anyway the comparison to native american hunting was just to make a point about honor and respect, which is lacking today, and that was only one of my points against hunting. And it still stands that today's hunter would last about 2 seconds with those native americans, even in the bison jumps you describe. He'd probably crap in his pants in about 2 seconds the second his button pressing killing machine was taken away from him. Real tough guy, today's hunter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Chief Seattle didn't say that (or if he did, nobody knows it)
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/seattle.asp

That famous speech was written in the 70's by a screenwriter...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. that's not my understanding
I do know the controversy around the origins of the speech. I have a book that goes into more detail than the snopes page on it. note, the snopes page only disputes two of the sentences. the book I read differs from the snopes account in that it says the Henry Smith writings portray something more similar to what we read today. regardless, you can't deny that the native americans had more respect for their prey.

you can forget Chief Seattle if you want. I have spent time with today's Lakota and I can tell you, there is a long tradition of caring for the earth and its inhabitants. One of the most important prayers to the Lakota, as I understand, is "Mitakuye Oyasin" which means "All my relations". A brief definition of the prayer is:

Mitakuye Oyasin honors the sacredness of each person's individual spiritual path, acknowledges the sacredness of all life (human, animal, plant, etc.) and creates an energy of awareness which strengthens not only the person who prays but the entire planet.

i'm a little surprised that i'm needing to convince people that the native americans had more respect for the earth and the animals than our society today does. Geesh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-04-09 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
20. It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny
Researchers see 'evolution in reverse' as hunters kill off prized animals with the biggest antlers and pelts

Some of the most iconic photographs of Teddy Roosevelt, one of the first conservationists in American politics, show the president posing companionably with the prizes of his trophy hunts. An elephant felled in Africa in 1909 points its tusks skyward; a Cape buffalo, crowned with horns in the shape of a handlebar mustache, slumps in a Kenyan swamp. In North America, he stalked deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep and elk, which he called "lordly game" for their majestic antlers. What's remarkable about these photographs is not that they depict a hunter who was also naturalist John Muir's staunchest political ally. It's that just 100 years after his expeditions, many of the kind of magnificent trophies he routinely captured are becoming rare.

Elk still range across parts of North America, but every hunting season brings a greater challenge to find the sought-after bull with a towering spread of antlers. Africa and Asia still have elephants, but Roosevelt would have regarded most of them as freaks, because they don't have tusks. Researchers describe what's happening as none other than the selection process that Darwin made famous: the fittest of a species survive to reproduce and pass along their traits to succeeding generations, while the traits of the unfit gradually disappear. Selective hunting—picking out individuals with the best horns or antlers, or the largest piece of hide—works in reverse: the evolutionary loser is not the small and defenseless, but the biggest and best-equipped to win mates or fend off attackers.

When hunting is severe enough to outstrip other threats to survival, the unsought, middling individuals make out better than the alpha animals, and the species changes. "Survival of the fittest" is still the rule, but the "fit" begin to look unlike what you might expect. And looks aren't the only things changing: behavior adapts too, from how hunted animals act to how they reproduce. There's nothing wrong with a species getting molded over time by new kinds of risk. But some experts believe problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177709/page/1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-09 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
22. My hunting story
Other than the squirt and the occasional hole in the sand, I hadn't seen evidence of anything larger than a pebble, but with a siphon right at the surface, the quahog tried to scurry away from me. I raised my hands and dove onto the spot above his foot in my sights. I dug and dug and dug as fast as I could and I quickly overtook him. He struggled to close his shell as my hand went under him and pulled him up from the sand. Shaking with the violence, elated and terrified at once, I saw where he landed as I flung him up the beach.

He wasn't hard to follow. He just sat there on the sand like a rock, waiting for a wave, one that would never come to wash him back out to sea. I became inexplicably scared as I gripped his shell and pried it open with my knife, severing his adductor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-09 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. If you're cowed by the quahog
you'd be TERRIFIED of the geoduck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC