I realize we have quite a few people here who like guns quite a lot, but what is your opinion on hunting? I have recently seen a few films, as well as photos, and a first hand experiance that has made me refocus my ideas on hunting somewhat.

I have always been a big time animal lover. I mean, not like the type who dedicates his/her life to animals, but I have always had a "connection" I guess. But I grew up in a family that would hunt on our ranch, and I did it with everyone too. However, in the last few years I have somewhat changed my beliefs on hunting/the enviorment. Here are mine, what are yours?
My views on enviormental issues
- Hunting: I'm fine with bird hunting, as well as Elk and Deer hunting as they clear out excessive population. However, I am 100% against the hunting/poaching of pretty much any other animal out there. Namely, bears, whales, seals, foxes, wolves, ect. It is one thing if you are being attacked by one of said animals, but purely for sport I belive is incredibly bad.
- Wilderness: an amazingly, incredibly, awesomely important part of preserving our natural scenery. Allowing OHV's, mountain bikes (though I am a mountain biker), or anything else beyond feet and a pack into these areas would be a grave mistake. The one area we are failing in wildreness areas is fire protection. We spend too much time trying to fight natural fires in wilderness areas. Fires are natural, and thus should be allowed to progress as long as they are not in danger of destroying personal property.
- OHVs: Should be limited as much as possible to existing trails, or in areas where the "damage" has already been done. Snowmobiles should be kicked out of Yellowstone, and ATV/dirtbike usage should be restricted by requiring a usage fee (like a emissions sticker) per year per ATV/dirtbike user.
- Sale of National Forest lands: NO, NO, and NO. Find other ways to make money besides selling off lands that belong to everyone.
- Logging: Logging of dead wood is obviously OK, but it should be limited to select areas and controled rigorously by the USFS. Really though, the system that is happening right now is just fine with me, as I feel the logging companies have become much more enviormentally compotent.
- Endangered Species: Yes, keep doing it because it works.

More later if I remember more. Now I want to hear your ideas!

 

A lot of people don't realize that hunting is a good thing when managed by a good fish and game program. I'm willing to bet hunters do more for the environment based on management, funding, scholarships, research, (etc) than a lot of people. With the exception of poachers, I don't think any legitimate hunter likes the idea of poaching at all. Every hunter i've ever encountered including myself absolutely hates poachers. I will turn you in a second.

My family has always hunted for food. If California would allow doe tags I would get one instead of a buck tag just because the meat is so much better, and because it would help even the gender population (one of Ca's MANY faults in their fish and game programs which could take-up another thread).

I also do not mind when people hunt for trophy animals with intentions of eating them. Even those I know that have hunted bear on occasion have eaten them. The key in making this work is the given state's fish and game dept that will only issue an even ratio of doe, buck, bear tags. Some states have EXCELLENT management systems in place so you end up promoting the populations in the end. I have never run into a trophy hunter in the USA that didn't eat what they shot. I also do not mind varmint hunters that keep populations of animals down in order to prevent infestation and danger to free grazing cattle, farms, etc. Vultures and other scavengers take care of the carcasses instantly anyways...

What I DO mind are safari hunters. *******s that fly their learjet to Africa to shoot a Lion that's trapped in a net-type wall, or other exotic animals merely for sport. There's no need for that ****. Can anyone find that one video of the guy that gets nailed by the charging lion?

Not sure entirely sure about vehicle laws and the environment. I do know that when the fire risk elevates to mid levels it becomes illegal to drive in most parts in the Sierra, even on logging trails. And if the risk is low you need spark suppressors and all the other safety stuff. The old Cleveland burn about 10years ago off hwy 50 was because of a cigarette or spark from a car on hwy 50. It was never traced back to the depths of the mountains or to a careless rider on a logging road.

Logging seems to be fine up in the Sierra Nevada. Georgia Pacific is very good and re-planting trees up there. The trees that were babies 15 years ago are now thriving. It's a continuous cycle that keeps them in business. It's their environment as well. The only downside are the logging roads (they grow back if they aren't trampled over) and temporary disruption of the given forest area. I'm not too sure about other countries. I think that's where the true problem lies.

 

Hunting: don't care.
Wilderness: don't care.
The environment: don't care.

Go ahead. Ask me how I feel about abortion, the death penalty, homosexuality, taxes.....

 

Environment?! I can see not really caring about the rest but damn...

 

Sorry.

 

He lives in Bloomington, you better believe it doesn't matter to him

 

http://www.chaparyan.com/2005/04/geo...et-is-fine.php

 

Well put. I love George Carlin.

But you mean to tell me that you're not the least bit concerned for your child's well being during humans time on earth?

 

I am.

However, I'm no more concerned with that than I am about them getting hit by a drunk driver, or when Sean deploys to OIF in another 16 years, or when he's playing football and tackles while leading with his head and becomes paralyzed.

In other words, no.

 

I guess here is my point:

I have always lived in the Rocky Mountain reigon. I was born in Utah, lived in Idaho for a very brief amount of time, and have lived in Colorado ever since that time. I have always, even when I was a very little kid, lived the "Colorado lifestyle", where I would go to the mountains every weekend to ski, bike, hike, backpack, kyack, anything. This became even more important to me when I started driving at 16, as I started going further from home and seeing more and more of the beautiful scenery that our state has. I also got into photography around that time, and was shocked after seeing the diffrences in the forests, lakes, and glaciers between circa 1850 and today. In 150 years, much of Colorado has changed more than it ever has in 300. Yes, certain aspects are better than before such as the reclaimation of pieces of land that were mined without any concern for the enviorment, and as a whole we have much more respect for the land today than years ago, but if we let greed get in the way, how long will our national tresures last? I believe that it would be a horrible travesty if my children (when I have them) won't get to see the amazing sights that I have, and have the experiances I have had with my friends and family.

Pat, I can understand why you don't really have much concern, but it really is a matter of location. Indiana, though it does have beautiful places, does not have the variety of outdoor activity that we have here in Colorado. Thus, our priorities are diffrent. However, don't you see my point (and Salty's) that it is important to preserve these tresures for our children and their children? In the fattest country in the world, I believe that supporing outdoor activity is something we should value dearly.
Cheers
-Jeff

 

Scary thought isn't it?

 

I grew up hunting. My father is an avid deer hunter with both a bow and a rifle. I shot my first deer with a bow when I was 16. I tend to agree with you Impreza on the hunting topic. I love hunting but only if you are going to use the animal you kill. Eat it, tan the hide, etc. Shooting things for fun is simply not necessary.

I also am an avid snowmobilier and have been for my whole life. I think it would be a mistake to kick snowmobilers out of yellowstone but I understand why people want to do it. The problem is there are always people who don't abide by the rules when riding. Snowmobiling doesn't do anymore damage to the wilderness than anything else if the people riding are responsible and stick to the trails as marked, but there will always be a few that will go riding off-trail and damage the ecosystem. ATV's do so much more damage than a snowmobile does. I do think in those areas, people should be forced to ride four-stroke snowmobiles to lessen the emissions-impact that they would have, but other than that I can't agree to ban riding. I think people that violate the rules should be fined heavily though.

 

Jeff,
I sincerely see your point and my opinion is, I hate to but readily admit...a copout.

And to comment on Silver's post, yes, it is sobering. Honestly, while I was in Afghanistan, during the period when Sean was 6-12mo's old, the predominant thing I did was to lay in my cot when I was off and fret over his future. It makes me bitter that I can't affect it any more than I am able. I could be the greatest parent in the world. He could be the most intelligent, common-sensical little boy/young man ever, but it doesn't change the fact that he could get killed in a hunting accident or he could develop lieukemia or be clinically depressed and take his own life.....

Now, beyond toeing the line and stating emphatically that "I AM CONCERNED WITH THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!", is that enough? Do I need to take some of my off-duty time and go pick up trash on the side of the highway? Do I need to picket factories who aren't complying with EPA reg's or lobby congress to lobby more stringent laws? Do I need to treat environmentalism like a religion and make it a point to convert all non-believers?

Further, I have a small issue with all of the 'expert' studies that are conducted in an effort to have people change their behavior. "STUDY SHOWS THAT A DIET WITH MORE THAN 15mg OF FOLIC ACID LEADS TO BLINDNESS." "SCIENTISTS PROVE THAT TELEVISION CAUSES MANIC DEPRESSION IN 30% OF A SAMPLE OF 1000 FOUR YEAR OLD CHILDREN." Oh my god! I'd better stop whatever it is I was doing.

My point is that I can control my own 360, and control is a word I use loosely. Affect, maybe. If I say I support environmentalism, will I again be ok with y'all, or do I need to supply proof that I am in fact recylcling and that I never litter?

 

However, no. It isn't a scary thought. At least, no scarier than the one I have every time my wife and children are on the road.

 

I know a guy who bagged a bear because it was a part of his father's view of becoming a man. With a powerful rifle and a trap full of food, I dont see how manly that is.

How about we release the aforementioned rich, big-game hunters with a Rambo knife and lather them up with BBQ sauce. Then they can be the big men they need to be.

Good points also made about keeping populations down and forest fires, etc... There is a fine line between safeguarding animals and allowing populations to skyrocket beyond what nature intended.