I'd like to see one of these Ted Nugent types go naked into the woods and kill a wild boar or a deer with improvised weapons picked up from the forest floor.
Monday, November 21, 2011
New Jersey League of Humane Voters
I'm not too sure about that 99% claim, but I like what this guy says. Hunting is a sick macho activity. It's about killing and violence. And typical of the ones who practice it, it involves cheating and unfair advantages.
I'd like to see one of these Ted Nugent types go naked into the woods and kill a wild boar or a deer with improvised weapons picked up from the forest floor.
I'd like to see one of these Ted Nugent types go naked into the woods and kill a wild boar or a deer with improvised weapons picked up from the forest floor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Forget the improvised weapon from the forest--let's see these people go out with boar spears and dogs.
ReplyDeleteof course, the dogs are the ones putting themselves in far more danger than the humans.
"Forget the improvised weapon from the forest--let's see these people go out with boar spears and dogs."
ReplyDeleteThat would be cool. I think one of the hunting shows should cover that--there might some interest.
The novel I am currently reading takes place in 897AD in Wessex. The lead character was cleaning the blood from a boar speer while talking to the shire reeve about a weirgild he owed--I thought of the pic you posted a few weeks back.
I wonder if that kid in the video realizes that the only reason there is even a bear population large enough to hunt in NJ is because of hunters?
As for Ted Nugent running naked in the woods with sharp sticks, that is not such a big leap of the possible.
Mikeb302000 and I do not agree that all hunting is wrong. We certainly agree that a lot of people with gunz, including hunters are a danger to much more than Bambi and Smokie.
ReplyDeleteFatWhiteMan's notion that hunters are the only ones responsible for viable populations of any wild animals is a ludicrous, but highly effective piece of propaganda pushed by the NRA and various other organizations who benefit from the meme's continued acceptance by an uncritical public. If we simply set aside some tracts of suitable habitat and didn't allow hunters to hunt on them (or right outside their borders) the wild animals would do just fine--but what's the fun in that?
You are wrong Demmi. Hunters fund over half of all wildlife management in the U.S. In Africa, the percentage provided by hunters is even higher. Trophy fees and permits pay for almost all of the animal conservation efforts in sub Saharan Africa.
ReplyDeleteThat is from USA Today a few years ago, not the NRA. I'll look for the cite when I have more time.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteWe'd have to bring back the major predators. The deer population is routinely in danger of growing too large, since we eliminated the wolves a long time ago. Hunting now is necessary. The only question will be who has to do it.
But, of course, this video comes from New Jersey. I'm surprised that anyone there can legally own a gun anyway. It's a gun grabber's paradise, where even a Marlin 60 .22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine gets called an assault rifle if it holds too many rounds. Criminals, naturally, aren't too concerned about the laws.
GC wrote:
ReplyDelete"The deer population is routinely in danger of growing too large, since we eliminated the wolves a long time ago."
The hell we have eliminated the wolf population. We have active populations here in MN and in other states of gray wolves. IN MN we also have timer wolves.
Not to mention bear, cougar, and other predators as well. You'd be surprised how many states have DNRs with urban coyote projects, for example. I'm sure you are familiar with the news items of urban bears? Here in MN we also have the occasional roaming mountain lions, and we're not the only ones by any stretch. There are a lot of predators, if we allow them. In western MN, there has been a recent renewal of bounties on coyotes.
As for how astonishingly quickly a wolf population can effectively repopulate an area,if there is no human interference, I would refer you to the populations of wolves and other species that not only reappeared but seem to be thriving despite the most disadvantageous surroundings due to contamination in the abandoned area around Chernobyl. This is an episode from the PBS Nature series about it:
http://video.pbs.org/video/2157025070/
(Damn republicans, attacking our PBS.)
A generation for people is usually calculated at 25 years. A generation for canines, whether dogs or wolves, is 2 years.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWe have been trying to bring the wolves back, but how that will work out is yet to be seen. In North Carolina, where I grew up, we heard stories about mountain lions, but they were rarely if ever seen there. The same is true here in Arkansas. Coyotes, on the other hand, are plentiful, since they're highly adaptable and can live as scavengers.
I'd love to see a return of more natural predators, but that's not what the lunatic in the video was saying. He opposes hunting. Hunting, though, can be done as a part of a rational wildlife management plan.
I'm not opposed to hunting either. I happen to enjoy venison, and other game, including fish and fowl sources.
ReplyDeleteI don't wish to ban hunting weapons. I don't wish to ban sport shooting. I don't want to ban all firearms, but I would wish to be a more civil society - not an armed one.
Moving away from individual violence is part of becoming more civilized, not less, and that is what is wrong with what you describe as 'your heritage'. The people and time you select to glamorize as your 'norse heritage' was one of the most violent, vicious periods in european history, and the violence of it was not particularly noble. You don't find the direct descendants of those vikings in the Scandinavian countries glorifying that aspect of the Vikings. Rather they have created some of the least violent, least criminal societies in the world without the number of firearms we have here.
FatWhiteMan:
ReplyDeleteI grant that a lot of money from hunting licenses and other "user" fees gets hoovered up by the DNR's in a lot of states. How that money is treated once it arrives in the gummint's hands, however, is a subject of some discussion.
If you do come across that cite, put it up. I'll be happy to read it. FWIW, I don't disagree that many hunters care about maintaining populations of wild game; wild animals like porkypines, skunks, beaver, coyotes, (most) wolves, (most) panthers and other animals that either "cause damage" to habitat or "harm" the good animals--deer, antelope, mountain goat, bighorn sheep and other trophy species--? not so much.
Greg admits, "I'm surprised that anyone there can legally own a gun anyway. It's a gun grabber's paradise,..."
ReplyDeleteYou see, the problem is the pro-gun crowd begin to believe their own bullshit. That's why Greg is "surprised" when confronted with simple facts.
Apparently in New Jersey there's a big hunting population, in spite of the spin job done in the video calling it 1%. And, believe it or not, there are gun owners too. But you know what's missing? Those hordes of unfit and mentally ill gun owners they have in some other states.