Political Crossfire Forums

[shrub buster]

Queasy you are like a breathe of fresh air here on this discussion. We had all pretty well moved on from that story and we were left with just a few of us who seemed to be pretty much in agreement that killing is not the thing to do when it isn't necessary. But you show up and applaud the death of the old man and think she should be regarded as a hero.

Now all others here, didn't i say that we were making progress on this thread? Albeit it's like pulling teeth.

Thanks for your comments queasy and please stick around. We need your opinions which I have a feeling will tend to be extremist on the pro-gun side. Just call me an extremist on the anti-gun side. It's not really what I am but I don't mind the title at all.

[shrub buster]

And now perd. YOu said: "Well, it is sometimes the only solution. We have imbalances in our ecosystems, yes, caused by mankind. Sometimes the only way to fix manmade problems is by manmade solutions. Is it the best way, probably not."

Good, you understand that it's not the best solution. We're halfway there on that!

You said: "So you're against that, what do you feel about sport and/or subsistence hunting?"

I'll reserve my opinion on sport hunting for now and I trust that lil won't betray our confidence on my feelings.

As for subsistence hunting, I find that there are very few instances where subsistence hunting is really that. I know it is claimed to be subsistence hunting in a lot of cases but I think it rarely is. And I know that I'm going to hear a whole pile of claims from people who go out and get a moose or an elk, or whatever and say that they need it for their winter's meat, blah, blah. I just don't believe it is true and in most cases they would be better off and it would be cheaper to go to the butcher shop and by a half cow. Better meat and cheaper. And yes, I know that there are going to be people who amazingly become aware of how wild meat is better for you and how it tastes better, but I don't believe that either. So have at that too. I find it nothing more than a justification for their sport and their need to kill. (we've talked about that need to kill so take it up with a progunner if you disagree) Perd will fill you in. Nope, I know nobody in my country that has made a legitimate claim that justifies subsistence hunting IMO. There may be some but I just haven't met any. Now perhaps in the U.S. where there are many more people who are going hungry for lack of proper social programs, there could be the odd legitimate subsistence hunter. He would have to be the guy who goes out on foot and plugs some animal with one shot with a gun that didn't cost him hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Nobody here that spends a good part of their days dicking around on a computer would fit the category IMO.

And away we go!

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: And now perd. YOu said: "Well, it is sometimes the only solution. We have imbalances in our ecosystems, yes, caused by mankind. Sometimes the only way to fix manmade problems is by manmade solutions. Is it the best way, probably not."

Good, you understand that it's not the best solution. We're halfway there on that!

You said: "So you're against that, what do you feel about sport and/or subsistence hunting?"

I'll reserve my opinion on sport hunting for now and I trust that lil won't betray our confidence on my feelings.

As for subsistence hunting, I find that there are very few instances where subsistence hunting is really that. I know it is claimed to be subsistence hunting in a lot of cases but I think it rarely is. And I know that I'm going to hear a whole pile of claims from people who go out and get a moose or an elk, or whatever and say that they need it for their winter's meat, blah, blah. I just don't believe it is true and in most cases they would be better off and it would be cheaper to go to the butcher shop and by a half cow. Better meat and cheaper. And yes, I know that there are going to be people who amazingly become aware of how wild meat is better for you and how it tastes better, but I don't believe that either. So have at that too. I find it nothing more than a justification for their sport and their need to kill. (we've talked about that need to kill so take it up with a progunner if you disagree) Perd will fill you in. Nope, I know nobody in my country that has made a legitimate claim that justifies subsistence hunting IMO. There may be some but I just haven't met any. Now perhaps in the U.S. where there are many more people who are going hungry for lack of proper social programs, there could be the odd legitimate subsistence hunter. He would have to be the guy who goes out on foot and plugs some animal with one shot with a gun that didn't cost him hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Nobody here that spends a good part of their days dicking around on a computer would fit the category IMO.

And away we go!

Well, first, stop with the misconceptions about "lack of proper social programs" in the U.S. The only people here who go hungry are those who either don't apply for or mispend their food stamps (or their parents do in the case of kids). The biggest nutritional problem with the poor in the U.S. is not hunger, it's obesity. Also, last year, the U.S. government had to start advertising for food stamps. It seems that not enough people, who were eligible, were requesting food stamps, and not all the food stamp money was being spent.

Second, deer meat is actually superior in many respects to cow meat. For one, it's lower in fat. For another, it is much more environmentally friendly. Also, I bought my first deer rifle for $100 and ammo for $10. One deer (they are small locally) has about 50 lbs of usable meat. At $2 a pound, I've just about paid back my deer rifle. However, I don't claim to be a subsistence hunter, I'm a sport hunter who eats his kill. IMHO, sport hunting has two main benefits: 1) it keeps the deer population down to a level that keeps disease/starvation down (don't tell me about natural predators, because they are long gone in most of the U.S.); and 2) it's not only fun, but it provides food for the family and a good excuse to be in the outdoors at 5 in the morning.

[shrub buster]

How long have you had your first deer rifle if you have just about paid it back with your first deer? Have you made some grammatical errors in that post or did you make up a story to fit the occassion. I want to believe you people but when I hear incredible stories I get a little sceptical. I hope you can appreciate that.

[RooK]

Shrub, I think he did the math for you...

One deer (50lbs) at $2/lb market value (actually beef prices) = $100 worth of meat from one hunting season/kill
His rifle an ammo cost him $100 + $10 = $110

So, he is $10 in the hole after buying a rifle and taking his own meat. However, if we facter in that his prices are for fatty ground beef and not the quality lean meat he's taken off a deer, I think we can surmise that he is pretty even. Now, come next year it's all profit.

[shrub buster]

You don't read carefully and you miss the point again rook. I couldn't care less about the quality of meat. Here's what I said posted again for your convenience:

How long have you had your first deer rifle if you have just about paid it back with your first deer? Have you made some grammatical errors in that post or did you make up a story to fit the occassion. I want to believe you people but when I hear incredible stories I get a little sceptical. I hope you can appreciate that."

I'm wondering if he said what he meant to say or he made grammatical errors. How long ago did he get his first deer rifle if he has just about paid it back and was that his first deer? Maybe he's like you and keeps his meat for a long time in the freezer and bought his first deer rifle ten years ago. I don't know, it just seemed to be a little bit inconsistent with who he clams he is. And if he paid $100 for his first deer rifle then it sounds like he bought it quite a while ago and he has only ever killed one deer. Get it now?

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: How long have you had your first deer rifle if you have just about paid it back with your first deer? Have you made some grammatical errors in that post or did you make up a story to fit the occassion. I want to believe you people but when I hear incredible stories I get a little sceptical. I hope you can appreciate that.

I've owned the rifle for about 15 yrs. I've gone hunting with it twice. Didn't see a deer either time.

[britboy]

perdidochas wrote: shrub buster wrote: How long have you had your first deer rifle if you have just about paid it back with your first deer? Have you made some grammatical errors in that post or did you make up a story to fit the occassion. I want to believe you people but when I hear incredible stories I get a little sceptical. I hope you can appreciate that.

I've owned the rifle for about 15 yrs. I've gone hunting with it twice. Didn't see a deer either time.

Sounds like the rifle was a waste of money :( . You should consider selling it and buying something more useful to you ..

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: perdidochas wrote: shrub buster wrote: How long have you had your first deer rifle if you have just about paid it back with your first deer? Have you made some grammatical errors in that post or did you make up a story to fit the occassion. I want to believe you people but when I hear incredible stories I get a little sceptical. I hope you can appreciate that.

I've owned the rifle for about 15 yrs. I've gone hunting with it twice. Didn't see a deer either time.

Sounds like the rifle was a waste of money :( . You should consider selling it and buying something more useful to you ..

Well, I enjoy owning it. Also, I couldn't replace it for that price. I have books on my shelf that I haven't read in 20 yrs. I want them for the future, and to pass on to my sons, as I plan to do with this gun.