New Commit

[lostleader]

I probably went too far with the "drooling retard" stuff, sorry about that M&B09. I just get annoyed with him throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks style of debate. He throws out hypotheticals and then backs away from them when it is clear they would not work out. "Just an example" and all that. I'll try to tone down the insults though, no need for that.

Again, apologies to M&B09 for the retard comment.

For the recored, I rarely stalk. I am more of stand hunter, due to the lack of land access.

I was drawn into this discussion. I stated in the beginning I felt bad for the deer and then hunting was brought up to which I saw no need to actually kill things yourself. And since then - no one has been able to give me a good reason why people feel the need to stalk around in the woods and shoot something.

I already have the equipment because I enjoy the sport of archery. So adding that all together and the cheap meat walking around I hunt. Plus its a challenge like none other. As I stated before the kill is just the unfortunate end to a hunt. However not all successful hunts end with a kill.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I didn't say it would be an overnight solution. And the only reason populations are so low is because we hunted them to the brink of extinction. Reintroducing a healthy population to the whole state would be a start and eventually could solve the problem, for those who actually think it's a problem, all together.

I think you're ignoring the role that the spread of human inhabitation and the necessary accouterments has in this. Yes, if we could go back to a pristine wilderness and had the habitat to support all of these animals then it would be reasonable to suggest the reintroduction of animals on the scale you are talking about. As it stands, the vast spread of suburbs, farmland, roads, etc. makes providing suitable ranges for these animals impossible. Throw in that farmlands have given deer bountiful food sources beyond what they might have in a typical woods while simultaneously removing the cover needed by the predators who keep the deer population in check, and you have a recipe for rampant overpopulation. There's no way to turn the clock back and let nature handle things. We need to take some measures into our own hands to correct the problems we've created.

But this affects the deer population as well. You don't see too many walking around downtown ann arbor. Where humans aren't - deer live. The same could be with the wolf population. It might not be a 100% solution, but it would certainly help if there is a problem. This is a "problem" hunters say they are fixing when they kill things. And the justification they give. A good example is the UP - the UP is vastly untouched and would be a suitable place for this to happen. Your theory doesn't explain why it wouldn't work in a situation like that except that hunters want to kill the deer, they don't want something else doing it.

 

[lostleader]

How doesn't it take skill. If you get a pro fisherman/hunter vs me. I gurantee he does a lot better than me.


I mean I'm sure I could catch a fish. But saying it doesn't take skill is like saying it doesn't take skill to play football. Since my girlfriend can catch a football.

Can she block down field?

 

[jever4321]

Hunters are sportsman. It's not as simple as you put it where it's the thrill of the kill, It's the whole experience. You don't agree with hunting, then don't hunt, but i think you don't understand it.

 

[newton83]

I was drawn into this discussion. I stated in the beginning I felt bad for the deer and then hunting was brought up to which I saw no need to actually kill things yourself. And since then - no one has been able to give me a good reason why people feel the need to stalk around in the woods and shoot something.

I guess it depends on what perspective you have on the issue. If you look at things from a high-level, hunters are killing enough deer to prevent overpopulation-related issues: starving deer dying slow painful deaths over months, devastated crops from those deer lucky enough to feed, the spread of animal-borne disease like TB. I'd say that allowing hunters to go after deer is the more humane and reasonable position given the options.

If you want to zoom in on the individual and try to understand what drives them to hunt for sport, you may as well wonder why people like to do anything. Many hunters (I'm guessing, I am not amongst their ranks) like the thrill of tracking down an animal over a distance, appreciate the skill involved in stealthily approaching the animal, and then find it anticlimactic and perhaps even a bit sad when the actual kill happens. I think you can appreciate that there is a bit of an art to it when done properly. I don't have much respect for those hunters who prop themselves up in a blind with a 24-pack and couple of friends while monitoring a salt-like they've set out and groomed deer to approach. There is no "sport" involved there, I'll agree. Think Ted Nugent, not Joe Sixpack. The fact that the state gains revenue from this activity while also serving the DNR's purposes in animal management is the icing on the cake. Who are we to change a system that clearly works.

 

[biggunsbob]

Yeah M. I agree.. My dad is a big time hunter but it is something I grew up with but just never liked to do. My freaking 83 year old dad made sure his leg surgery was done a month ago so he could go hunting next week... It really is bull-crap that he is pushing himself like this after his like 10th surgery and the last one was a 4 hour job to graphed a by-pass on his right leg... That damn zipper has just barley healed but it is over 15-20 inches long... I just don't get the fun of it... I went a few times but a buck never came my way.. One time the fog was so thick I was just going to sleep in but all of the guys were jung-ho to get out there.. I told them why go if you can't see and they all laughed... I just bundled up and went to my stand and feel asleep.. To each his own I guess...

 

[lostleader]

I think you're ignoring the role that the spread of human inhabitation and the necessary accouterments has in this. Yes, if we could go back to a pristine wilderness and had the habitat to support all of these animals then it would be reasonable to suggest the reintroduction of animals on the scale you are talking about. As it stands, the vast spread of suburbs, farmland, roads, etc. makes providing suitable ranges for these animals impossible. Throw in that farmlands have given deer bountiful food sources beyond what they might have in a typical woods while simultaneously removing the cover needed by the predators who keep the deer population in check, and you have a recipe for rampant overpopulation. There's no way to turn the clock back and let nature handle things. We need to take some measures into our own hands to correct the problems we've created.

But this affects the deer population as well. You don't see too many walking around downtown ann arbor. Where humans aren't - deer live. The same could be with the wolf population. It might not be a 100% solution, but it would certainly help if there is a problem. This is a "problem" hunters say they are fixing when they kill things. And the justification they give. A good example is the UP - the UP is vastly untouched and would be a suitable place for this to happen. Your theory doesn't explain why it wouldn't work in a situation like that except that hunters want to kill the deer, they don't want something else doing it.

Deer to live where humans live. I run the out of my garden all summer. I lived in Minnesota, they are all over the twin cities. Bears are the same way. Over time they have adapted to human life. They don't cause much of a problem. Wolves will do the same, however it is becoming apparent that they will cause problems.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

How doesn't it take skill. If you get a pro fisherman/hunter vs me. I gurantee he does a lot better than me.


I mean I'm sure I could catch a fish. But saying it doesn't take skill is like saying it doesn't take skill to play football. Since my girlfriend can catch a football.

Depends on a lot of things. If you go hunting in the wilderness of Alaska - a pro guide will probably do a lot better. If you're going in the woods is SE Michigan, a guide probably isn't going to have much, if any, of an advantage. I've never been hunting in my life, but I know that if you put out food and sit in a tree deer will likely be around you down here. The skill required is shooting the gun which you don't need to be a hunter to do. In Alaska where you actually need to know where to go and track an animal, a guide will do a lot for you. But part of hunting, and fishing, is ultimately luck.

With fishing - anyone can grab a stick with some line, put a hook and worm on it and throw it in the water. And if you give two people the same amount of equipment and say throw them in the huron river - again the "pro" fisherman probably won't do all that much better. Again, if you go to an extreme like deep sea fishing, then more knowledge goes a long way. But when I went deep sea fishing in Mexico earlier this year, at one point we ended up just dropping hooks with bait at the end of them and we had the most success. The only thing the guide knew is where to go.

The difference between football and hunting/fishing is football takes athletic ability which cannot be learned. And sure there's some of that in hunting because of the shooting aspect but again, that's a shooting skill - not a hunting skill.

 

[lostleader]

I was drawn into this discussion. I stated in the beginning I felt bad for the deer and then hunting was brought up to which I saw no need to actually kill things yourself. And since then - no one has been able to give me a good reason why people feel the need to stalk around in the woods and shoot something.

I guess it depends on what perspective you have on the issue. If you look at things from a high-level, hunters are killing enough deer to prevent overpopulation-related issues: starving deer dying slow painful deaths over months, devastated crops from those deer lucky enough to feed, the spread of animal-borne disease like TB. I'd say that allowing hunters to go after deer is the more humane and reasonable position given the options.

If you want to zoom in on the individual and try to understand what drives them to hunt for sport, you may as well wonder why people like to do anything. Many hunters (I'm guessing, I am not amongst their ranks) like the thrill of tracking down an animal over a distance, appreciate the skill involved in stealthily approaching the animal, and then find it anticlimactic and perhaps even a bit sad when the actual kill happens. I think you can appreciate that there is a bit of an art to it when done properly. I don't have much respect for those hunters who prop themselves up in a blind with a 24-pack and couple of friends while monitoring a salt-like they've set out and groomed deer to approach. There is no "sport" involved there, I'll agree. Think Ted Nugent, not Joe Sixpack. The fact that the state gains revenue from this activity while also serving the DNR's purposes in animal management is the icing on the cake. Who are we to change a system that clearly works.

The joy is getting close. I was close enough to touch a young deer Sunday, and let him walk. Could of harvest this animal anytime i wished, but didn't. I have had deer at less than 5 yards multiple times, its a rush and no kill was involved.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Hunters are sportsman. It's not as simple as you put it where it's the thrill of the kill, It's the whole experience. You don't agree with hunting, then don't hunt, but i think you don't understand it.

I don't understand the fun in killing, you are correct. Butchers do it for their occupation, not for sport.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I guess it depends on what perspective you have on the issue. If you look at things from a high-level, hunters are killing enough deer to prevent overpopulation-related issues: starving deer dying slow painful deaths over months, devastated crops from those deer lucky enough to feed, the spread of animal-borne disease like TB. I'd say that allowing hunters to go after deer is the more humane and reasonable position given the options.

If you want to zoom in on the individual and try to understand what drives them to hunt for sport, you may as well wonder why people like to do anything. Many hunters (I'm guessing, I am not amongst their ranks) like the thrill of tracking down an animal over a distance, appreciate the skill involved in stealthily approaching the animal, and then find it anticlimactic and perhaps even a bit sad when the actual kill happens. I think you can appreciate that there is a bit of an art to it when done properly. I don't have much respect for those hunters who prop themselves up in a blind with a 24-pack and couple of friends while monitoring a salt-like they've set out and groomed deer to approach. There is no "sport" involved there, I'll agree. Think Ted Nugent, not Joe Sixpack. The fact that the state gains revenue from this activity while also serving the DNR's purposes in animal management is the icing on the cake. Who are we to change a system that clearly works.

The joy is getting close. I was close enough to touch a young deer Sunday, and let him walk. Could of harvest this animal anytime i wished, but didn't. I have had deer at less than 5 yards multiple times, its a rush and no kill was involved.

I could literally sit at my window and do the same thing. I don't see the sport in it.

 

[lostleader]

How doesn't it take skill. If you get a pro fisherman/hunter vs me. I gurantee he does a lot better than me.


I mean I'm sure I could catch a fish. But saying it doesn't take skill is like saying it doesn't take skill to play football. Since my girlfriend can catch a football.

Depends on a lot of things. If you go hunting in the wilderness of Alaska - a pro guide will probably do a lot better. If you're going in the woods is SE Michigan, a guide probably isn't going to have much, if any, of an advantage. I've never been hunting in my life, but I know that if you put out food and sit in a tree deer will likely be around you down here. The skill required is shooting the gun which you don't need to be a hunter to do. In Alaska where you actually need to know where to go and track an animal, a guide will do a lot for you. But part of hunting, and fishing, is ultimately luck.

With fishing - anyone can grab a stick with some line, put a hook and worm on it and throw it in the water. And if you give two people the same amount of equipment and say throw them in the huron river - again the "pro" fisherman probably won't do all that much better. Again, if you go to an extreme like deep sea fishing, then more knowledge goes a long way. But when I went deep sea fishing in Mexico earlier this year, at one point we ended up just dropping hooks with bait at the end of them and we had the most success. The only thing the guide knew is where to go.

The difference between football and hunting/fishing is football takes athletic ability which cannot be learned. And sure there's some of that in hunting because of the shooting aspect but again, that's a shooting skill - not a hunting skill.

sitting over bait will guarantee you jack shit! Does it help, yeah sometimes. Kinda of like throwing a hail mary pass at the end of a game. It works, but rarely.

Also given the same equipment, i would out fish you any day. More skill than luck in both sports.

Most people can't pull back a bow, steady themselves, and put the arrow where in needs to go with all the other factors that will come into play. A blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. But its not a everyday occurrence.

 

[lostleader]

The joy is getting close. I was close enough to touch a young deer Sunday, and let him walk. Could of harvest this animal anytime i wished, but didn't. I have had deer at less than 5 yards multiple times, its a rush and no kill was involved.

I could literally sit at my window and do the same thing. I don't see the sport in it.

But deer don't live where people live. How can you do that?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I could literally sit at my window and do the same thing. I don't see the sport in it.

But deer don't live where people live. How can you do that?

I don't live in the city. I should have said - deer don't live in the inner city.

 

[lostleader]

[flash=350,287:ei2hjfyv]http://www.youtube.com/v/KxMk9gHsXjg&hl=en&fs=1[/flash:ei2hjfyv]
</td><td valign="top">
<html><head><title>Banner</title><style>html, body {margin:0;padding:0;}</style></head>
<body>
<script type="text/javascript">
var ads = new Array("300x250-1.png","300x250-2.png","300x250-3.png");
var num = Math.floor(Math.random()*ads.length);
if(Math.floor(Math.random()*2) == 0)
{
if(Math.floor(Math.random()*2) == 0)
document.write('+']');
else
document.write('+']');
}
else
{
document.write('');
}
</script>
<noscript>

</noscript>

</body>
</html>

</td></tr></table>

On baiting, however this guy is nuts

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

sitting over bait will guarantee you jack shit! Does it help, yeah sometimes. Kinda of like throwing a hail mary pass at the end of a game. It works, but rarely.

Also given the same equipment, i would out fish you any day. More skill than luck in both sports.

Most people can't pull back a bow, steady themselves, and put the arrow where in needs to go with all the other factors that will come into play. A blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. But its not a everyday occurrence.

I don't think you would out-fish me. Given equal equipment, we'd probably do about the same.

And like I said - the skill is in the archery or the shooting, not the hunting. If you're an archer for fun - you can hunt just as good as anyone. If you're a target shooter - you can hunt just as good as anyone. If you find a game path, put out some food and sit in a tree blind - you have just as good of luck to get a deer as anyone.

 

[lostleader]

sitting over bait will guarantee you jack shit! Does it help, yeah sometimes. Kinda of like throwing a hail mary pass at the end of a game. It works, but rarely.

Also given the same equipment, i would out fish you any day. More skill than luck in both sports.

Most people can't pull back a bow, steady themselves, and put the arrow where in needs to go with all the other factors that will come into play. A blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. But its not a everyday occurrence.

I don't think you would out-fish me. Given equal equipment, we'd probably do about the same.

And like I said - the skill is in the archery or the shooting, not the hunting. If you're an archer for fun - you can hunt just as good as anyone. If you're a target shooter - you can hunt just as good as anyone. If you find a game path, put out some food and sit in a tree blind - you have just as good of luck to get a deer as anyone.

You Sir, are misinformed.

You don't agree with hunting, I understand that. I can't make you do it, and would never try. However since you have never done it, you shouldn't be so critical. Thank God we live in America.

I would out fish you, wouldn't even be close!

 

[newton83]

But this affects the deer population as well. You don't see too many walking around downtown ann arbor. Where humans aren't - deer live. The same could be with the wolf population. It might not be a 100% solution, but it would certainly help if there is a problem. This is a "problem" hunters say they are fixing when they kill things. And the justification they give. A good example is the UP - the UP is vastly untouched and would be a suitable place for this to happen. Your theory doesn't explain why it wouldn't work in a situation like that except that hunters want to kill the deer, they don't want something else doing it.

The thing is, it doesn't affect the deer population as much as the predators. Have you been to North Campus and seen deer walking around the landscaping next to the buildings? Have you seen deer crossing Huron River Parkway well within the city limits? How about deer that wander around farmland and fields in the areas surrounding the cities? Wolves and bobcats need contiguous forest to shelter their young and provide cover for the hunt. Wide-open fields are the perfect spot for deer to camp out and grub down while having advanced warning of any predators.

About the UP, did you miss the part where wolves were reintroduced? Their population has soared so much that the DNR wants them to no longer be protected. My theory explains why reintroducing them has helped the UP. I never said that it should not be attempted at all; rather, it needs to be done smartly in places where they can thrive. Since the UP has already been "restocked", I took the broad assumption that you meant to extend the effort into the lower counties. It could work in some places, but not SE Michigan, where there are copious numbers of deer. Finally, the point you're missing is that "thinning the herd" is not the sole reason to allow hunters, but rather a side-benefit. If the population numbers drop then quotas will go down and limits put in place, but people will still be allowed to hunt in reasonable numbers.

 

[wolverine304]

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong.

I don't like nascar but people call driving in a left circle a sport.

Its been programmed into man's brain to hunt since forever. Competition has been around for forever. Its about one man saying I did better than you.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I don't think you would out-fish me. Given equal equipment, we'd probably do about the same.

And like I said - the skill is in the archery or the shooting, not the hunting. If you're an archer for fun - you can hunt just as good as anyone. If you're a target shooter - you can hunt just as good as anyone. If you find a game path, put out some food and sit in a tree blind - you have just as good of luck to get a deer as anyone.

You Sir, are misinformed.

You don't agree with hunting, I understand that. I can't make you do it, and would never try. However since you have never done it, you shouldn't be so critical. Thank God we live in America.

I would out fish you, wouldn't even be close!

I don't think you would out fish me. Like I said - it would be pure luck - as fishing is. No matter all the tricks you want to pull out, it comes down to; did the fish take the bait.