CULTURE

Less Firing, More Range

Hunting goes high-tech.

By Steve Tuttle | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 25, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 25, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Brien Comerford @ 03/01/2009 2:24:57 PM

    It's high time for no more abortions, hunting, trapping, fishing, slaughterhoues, vivisection or eating meat. The idyllic Biblical diet was vegan (Genesis 1:29). Vegetarians reduce cruelty, pollution, global warming and many other environmental crises.

    • Posted By: firdaymonday @ 04/17/2009 11:58:57 PM

      Unless people are willing to see the re-introduction of grizzleys, wolves, and mountain lions into the forests of America, people will have to be allowed to hunt. A prey species that is free from population control will outstrip the ecosystems ability to support the population. In some cases animals exert such grazing or browsing pressure on the environment that it can take centuries to do undue the damage. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to hunt. I'd like the wild predators to regulate population. However, I don't believe that is going to happen, and so from an ecological stand point hunting is a necessity, for the good of the prey species and the environment as a whole.

    • Posted By: firdaymonday @ 04/17/2009 11:55:36 PM

      Unless people are willing to see the re-introduction of grizzleys, wolves, and mountain lions into the forests of America, people will have to be allowed to hunt. A prey species that is free from population control will outstrip the ecosystems ability to support the population. In some cases animals exert such grazing or browsing pressure on the environment that it can take centuries to do undue the damage. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to hunt. I'd like the wild predators to regulate population. However, I don't believe that is going to happen, and so from an ecological stand point hunting is a necessity, for the good of the prey species and the environment as a whole.

    • Posted By: firdaymonday @ 04/17/2009 11:50:44 PM

      Unless people are willing to see the re-introduction of grizzleys, wolves, and mountain lions into the forests of America, people will have to be allowed to hunt. A prey species that is free from population control will outstrip the ecosystems ability to support the population. In some cases animals exert such grazing or browsing pressure on the environment that it can take centuries to do undue the damage. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to hunt. I'd like the wild predators to regulate population. However, I don't believe that is going to happen, and so from an ecological stand point hunting is a necessity, for the good of the prey species and the environment as a whole.

  • Posted By: jafig @ 12/04/2008 3:52:45 AM

    To all of the hunters here who say that we who don't hunt are somehow ignorant of this vast environmental knowledge you have, one doesn't have to carry a weapon when in the outdoors to have a genuine connection with nature and with a fundamental commitment to conservation.

    If you want non-hunters to ahve any degree of respect for your hunting practices, you might consider acknowledging some of the legitimate complaints non-hunters have with some of the less scrupulous in your ranks and some of the seriously questionable practices in which many hunters engage (high-fence hunts, road hunting, prairie dog target shooting, etc.) You know the list. I don't need to go on. I've heard so many hunters defend indefensible practices, it just weakens your stance on anything you could deem your heritage or your ethical right.

    I've lived a number of years in hunting country and have seen my share of "hunting" that violates any precept of fairness or humane treatment of the animal. I know some old-time hunters who are similarly disgusted with these practices. I realize two of the strongest talking points the pro-hunting lobbies have are 1) we hunt for food, and 2) hunters support wildlife and wild lands.

    On the first point, I challenge any hunter here to agree with groups who'd want to limit hunting to genuine subsistence only. You won't hear it. In fact, I've read so many counts, blog posts, etc. from hunters who are aghast that anyone would take away their sport and reduce it to subsistence. So although that may work with many who haven't been around hunting, there are a lot of us non-hunters who don't hunt precisely because we've witnessed what this "sport" has wrought.

    And on point two, the system is set up financially to reward those practices that (as some here have said) literally encourage the breeding of animals like deer for hunters. Don't delude yourselves into thinking that wildlife management by hunters is the most humane or selfless act. Food plots, numbers management, predator control are but a few points that refute your viability on these grounds.

    Furthermore it was because of over-hunting at the turn of the century and beyond that most of these protections had to be implemented. And they were implemented to keep healthy populations of game -- for hunters.

    • Posted By: rrcherry @ 12/29/2008 9:14:38 AM

      I don't think putting high fence hunting, poachers, and road hunters into the same group as fair chase hunting. That would b like me putting your views into the same group as Peta and other extreme groups who believe we should serve everyone breast milk instead of cow milk (cruelty to cows), burn families homes down that were built on wooded lots, etc.

      I really do appreciate your thoughts, and you raise some interesting questions. However, despite your beliefs history has proven again and again the need for hunting. You are right the system is set-up financially to reward hunting, but the system is setup this way because hunting is in fact needed. Examples for this have been seen from Africa to New Jersey to Florida swamps. Hunting has again and again proven the only means for population control. It is the best means to keep the herd healthy.

      Now, I really don't understand your first argeument, but if a family is able to feed their family high protein venison from a free-range animal, and at the same time helping the environment, enjoying the outdoors, and more. It is a win win situation for everyone.

      This is the reality. If you wish to deny this, that is fine, but it is not factual.

    • Posted By: rrcherry @ 12/29/2008 9:11:30 AM

      I don't think putting high fence hunting, poachers, and road hunters into the same group as fair chase hunting. That would b like me putting your views into the same group as Peta and other extreme groups who believe we should serve everyone breast milk instead of cow milk (cruelty to cows), burn families homes down that were built on wooded lots, etc.

      I really do appreciate your thoughts, and you raise some interesting questions. However, despite your beliefs history has proven again and again the need for hunting. You are right the system is set-up financially to reward hunting, but the system is setup this way because hunting is in fact needed. Examples for this have been seen from Africa to New Jersey to Florida swamps. Hunting has again and again proven the only means for population control. It is the best means to keep the herd healthy.

      Now, I really don't understand your first argeument, but if a family is able to feed their family high protein venison from a free-range animal, and at the same time helping the environment, enjoying the outdoors, and more. It is a win win situation for everyone.

      This is the reality. If you wish to deny this, that is fine, but it is not factual.

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/25/2008 4:43:56 PM

    I think we can scratch the word "Hunt' for the current crop of so called "Hunters". When I used to hunt, it was illegal to Bait a site and lie in wait. Now they not only do that but the area is under video surveillnce for days before the hunt to establish the path the game will travel. Bass fishermen have also evilved. Now instead of casting a lure, they Flip. Flipping utilizes a heavy duty 7 foot or better Rod called a Flipping Stick and 100 pound test braided line. You attach a soft plastic lure and several ounces of sinkers. Then you flip it into weeds or grass or whatever and allow it to sink. If you catch a fish, you just crank it in fish, grass and weeds. Then you dig through the debris from the destroyed habitat and find the fish. The fish covered with grass is unable to fight.

    If this is the way to hunt and fish, why not just poison the prey. I am not against Hunting, in fact hunting is absolutely essential for preventing starvation from an over abundance. Why don't we stop calling Flipping fishing and luring game into a trap by laying out food, Hunting.

    Thsi, by the way, is not the fault of the hunter. All of the large hunting and fishing product outlets have catalogs with this stuff. How it became legal to hunt using these methods and fish while destroying the habitat i couldn't say. it should stop. Perhaps this article is a good first step.

    • Posted By: hunhate @ 11/26/2008 5:52:06 AM

      Hunting having anything to do with controlling animal numbers is the BIg Lie perpetrated by recreational wildlife killers to keep the public off their backs. Think about it - why are deer, the most hunted of all animals, so plentiful? The mission of state wildlife agencies, which are staffed and funded by hunters, is to supply abundant live targets for their constituents. In the fall, millions of bucks are killed so that pregnant does can survive the winter and give birth to a new crop of targets. Deer are essentially farmed to satisfy the bloodlust of the paying customer.

      Bobcats, coyotes,and wolves, species that self regulate reproduction are also being killed for amusement. Let's see the bloodlust crowd try to justify that!

      • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/26/2008 10:48:11 AM

        Amen!

        • Posted By: amszete @ 12/03/2008 11:09:10 AM

          Wow, you are so blindly ignorant I don't even know where to start. Please do everyone a favor and not interact with the general public....

          • Posted By: TheButcher @ 12/14/2008 10:47:51 AM

            I am a butcher for a living. Come tomorrow I will kill 1 animal in your holy anti hunter name until I hve one for each of you. My weapon of choice..Ball pin hammer

            • Posted By: TheButcher @ 12/15/2008 10:50:35 AM

              ok anti's, I just bleed out the first 5 cows of the day! All in your honor. Go buy some burger and steaks so I can make some money!!

      • Posted By: WiseOne7 @ 12/03/2008 7:04:31 PM

        It's true, they do control their own numbers; they are one species biologically capable of that. I don't agree in calling hunting a sport however, because a sport consists of two parties who agree on the rules. I also have always felt that true men should protect animals, not hurt them.

    • Posted By: RobertDanob @ 12/03/2008 1:02:17 PM

      I have never flipped with several ounces of weight. Several ounces of weighted lure would definately get you snagged in the grass.

      Hunters have preserved more land than you so called environmentalists. It was hunters that started regulating game, and it was hunters that funded all of it at the turn of the last century. It is hunters that put money into the fund to pay for the studies. What the anti hunters do is take everything to court to waste the money that could go to soemthing good, like more research or implementing new rules and regulations.

      Im not scared to kill something for food, and I have never killed anything in a state of bloodlust.

      Gut shots do ruin meat. Yes they do bleed, but mostly internally, especially the paunch shots, and make it hard to track down your quarry after you have shot it. Any hunter knows that the vitals are behind the shoulder, and even a lazy one would rather hit it there where it would die quickly. The anti hunters feel bad for the animals, and I myself respect the animals, the same ones I kill. I know of no psychopathic killer hunters that like to torture animals. Tofu on the other hand, thats another story.

  • Posted By: TheButcher @ 12/14/2008 10:51:23 AM

    Im a butcher for a living. Wanna talk about cruel, we use hammers to knockout livestock then cut their throats and let em bleed out. This week I will honor you anti hunters and kill one aniaml for each of you. I PROMISE!

  • Posted By: patrickmoore81 @ 12/10/2008 1:52:53 PM

    there is no justification for hunting when you stop by mcdonalds and get an egg mcmuffin before u blast a deer with a high powered rifle

  • Posted By: JEANPUBLIC @ 12/09/2008 12:29:56 PM

    WE JUST HAD A HUNTER SHOOT INTO A BEDROOM WALL. IT WENT THROUGH TWO OTHER WALLS. TWO CHILDREN WERE IN TEH HOME AND LUCKILY ESCAPED INJURY AND DEATH. THEY WERE FIRING FROM A FARM IN THE AREA. MUZZLELOADER SHOTS ARE VERY POWERFUL AND TRAVEL VERY FAR. THE UPSTAIRS BEDROOM IN NO WAY WOULD KILL A DEER. THIS FOLLOWS IN NEW YORK STATE A HUNTER SHOOTING INTO A BEDROOM WHERE A MOTHER HELD HER BABY. THE SHOT WENT RIGHT INTO THE BABY, WHICH LINGERED IN THE HOSPITAL A DAY OR TWO AND THEN DIED. DONT GIVE ME ANY EXCUSES FOR THIS ACTIVITY, WHICH IS DONE BY PERVERTS WHO NEED TO KILL. REMEMBER DICK CHENEY OR IS IT ELMER FUDD, HE KNEW HIS PARTNER WAS IN THE HUNTING PARTY AND SHOT ANYWAY. SUCH INJURY AND DEATH CANNOT BE TOLERATED ANYMORE IN THIS COUNTRY. THE GENERAL POPULATION PAYS FOR THE OPEN SPACE, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT PEACEFULLY 7 DAYS OUT OF 7.

  • Posted By: Farmerbob @ 12/07/2008 12:32:50 AM

    Harvesting or hunting is an American way of life. As a proud parent I teach my 5 year old how to track, hunt, skin and butcher deer. Jr. was out with me turkey hunting at age of two. I bet many parents wish their riddlin kids could sit still for 5 minutes much less for two to three hours out in the woods. Most metro sexual are anti hunting and far to removed from the land to be able to make an educated conclusion regarding the pros and cons of hunting. A 180 grain round will create a blood trail no matter where you hit a deer. I prefer a neck or the heart and lung shot both placements insure a quick and humane kill. I???ll be up at 5 am this sunday listening to the owls Hoot, woodpeckers hammer, and the numerous song birds forget about yesterdays sorrows and embrace the new day with joyous songs. If I???m lucky I???ll harvest my 5th deer this year with my trusted Remington 1903 sporter.

  • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/26/2008 10:47:19 AM

    This is a "sport"? Everyone says they do it to be outside and enjoy nature. For the life of me, I just can't figure out why it can't be done without a gun. Isn't the politically correct term now "harvesting"? What isn't barbaric about these canned hunts where prey is stalked and everyone is guaranteed to go home with a trophy for the wall? Horrible to go to somebodys house and see snouts and eyes everywhere. It's not a sport until the hunted have a chance too. It's really about men feeling macho. Not against guns, just killing. for sport. A concept I'll never get. Please, no lectures on how it is to control the population. By the way I live on five wooded acres in the northwest..Somehow we have managed to coexist without killing.

    • Posted By: DuckWax @ 12/03/2008 11:58:10 PM

      Your hysteria about "Canned hunts and EVERYONE??? going home with a TROPHY????? do nothing to advance your beliefs or clear up the truth. If this is the best you can post, your side would benefit from your silence.

  • Posted By: DuckWax @ 12/03/2008 11:25:17 PM

    I'm a licensed Hunter. I hunt, not because I have to, but because, by choosing to do so, I push my self to be the best prepared, most knowledgeable, and most ruthless preditor on the hillside I scan. This also leads me to one inescapable conclusion, that much of what we could do to improve the world is learned thru the interaction with our environment, appreciation of the other species around us ( Including the grilled taste of same) and by realizing, even with our best skills, most advanced equipment, and best plans, that "dumb" animals out there still can and do kick our butts, and some times, even hunt us back...
    You can't get that learning experience any other place, especially thru Walmart , or Oprah. If you dont want to hunt, fine, please come out , enjoy the common resources we all own and are equally responsibble for, and get involed in protecting your right to protect your choice. Its none of the governments businees. You owe it to me to meeet me in the field, and settle it on our common ground, where this right of choice was founded by our ancestors, (The ones who hunted, to continue to exist so that we both might be here today. )
    Any Takers? You might be amazed at what you learn...

  • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/26/2008 11:01:34 AM

    For the most part hunters are gutless cowards.

    A real hunter ONLY hunts to eat. Only takes enough to feed themselves and their family. NEVER harms the environment. Makes use of every part of the animal they hunt (antlers make very good knives.) And always hunt fairly. These "high tech" devices as well as hunters using assualt rifles, and shooting from planes are the trademark of worhtless cowards. I believe in the right to arm bears and train wolves to use SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles). Myabve it is time for humans to take uyp arms ot protect the animals from these cowards (or as a freind of mine who hunts with a bow and only takes enough to feed himself and his family calls them "sprot terrorists".)

    • Posted By: 2ndAmendmentGuy @ 12/03/2008 10:44:40 AM

      "Assault rifles"??? Oh, Please....

      FYI: the so-called and mis-named "assault rifles" available to civilians in the U.S. are semi-automatics, which is to say that the gun fires one round for each pull of the trigger. It's called semi automatic because the gun does reload itself after each shot as long as there is ammo in the magazine, but it still only fires once per trigger pull. This type of action is also common in many "hunting rifles". I put "hunting rifles" in quotes, because the only difference between a semi auto military-style rifle and a semi-auto civilian deer gun is the appearance. Cosmetics.

      For instance, the civilian version (semi-auto) AK-47 comes in a few different calibers, including the .308, which is a caliber fairly widely recommended for deer hunting. There is no difference in the functioning of one of these AK's and your neighbor's Winchester with the pretty wood stock and forend.

      REAL assault rifles have full-auto capability, which means that as long as you hold the trigger to the rear and there is ammo in the magazine, the gun will shoot continuously, like a machine gun. This is a design intended to shoot as many enemy soldiers at close range as possible in the least amount of time. That is the nature of a true assault. Semi-autos, even the military-looking ones, lack the firepower to accomplish this task.

      Now you can point to as many school shootings or mall shootings as you like and say "assault rifle" until you're blue in the face, but I would point out to YOU that the victims in all these cases were unarmed, usually by some kind of anti-gun rule, regulation, law, or just plain politically correct ignorance and fear of guns, and the shooters knew it; and that's why they went there to do their dirty work, because they knew no one would be shooting back. Those kinds of shootings are not "assaults"; they are mere slaughter because the victims have no defense. A few armed citizens in such cases could well have been able to stop the bloodshed, but the poor sheep had to wait long minutes for the police to arrive before the carnage could be stopped; and that was time the murderers had to continue to operate freely.

      Don't get me started on "assault rifles".

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/03/2008 5:32:31 PM

        When I use the term assualt rifles I know what I am talking about. There are cowards that use modified to fully automatic (and totally illegal) weapons to hunt. Those are the people I am talking about. Not the real hunters who use true skill to hunt.

        And the idea that there should be children armed with guns in schools is asinine at best. You see
        2ndAmenedmentguy, I am not anti-gun. But even the Supreme Court has ruled that it is completely constitutional for the state to have regulations about gun ownership and where it appropriate to carry guns and the type of firearm that is appropriate for civilian use. And having talked to security experts thay have pointed out that unless the citizens carrying the guns actually knew how to use them (and many people who own guns are woefully ingnorant on how to do so) and were willing to kill others, your assumption that having armed people in the schools would have stopped the killings is at best wishful thinking.

  • Posted By: martialguy @ 11/27/2008 10:54:18 PM

    Many hunters shoot animals in the gut because the target area is larger and relatively easier than the head or neck or leg. Then they follow the blood trail. This causes the animals to have long, miserable and painful death. What matters is the cruelty involved. It's not much different than Canadian sealers beating seals to death in a barbaric way in the name of animal or wildlife control. It's not much different than capturing a racoon in a cage and let it die of fear, and thirst, bleeding all its nails trying to get out

    How would a person feel if someone come to his land and kills him and his family? Animals are voiceless and defenseless against human predators. There is ever decreasing habitat for animals to survive, even in their meager and miserable way; foraging for food all day and being exposed to the elements. Let not be cruel to voiceless and defenceless animals

    • Posted By: NorCal Cazadora @ 12/03/2008 1:20:02 PM

      Animals defenseless against human hunters? Lord, you don't have a very high opinion of animals, do you? Animals have incredible defenses - excellent camouflage; sharp eyes, ears and/or noses; speed; superb knowledge of their territory. And even when those defenses fail an animal long enough for us to see him, the animal has to be in range and positioned for us to make a good shot. We don't shoot at every animal we see, and we come home empty-handed often.

      This crap about hunters mowing down defenseless animals is a poorly conceived fantasy propagated by the ignorant. If you're going to argue against hunting, I strongly recommend that you arm yourself with facts so you can't be dismissed instantly as naive at best, stupid at worst.

    • Posted By: rrcherry @ 11/28/2008 3:13:55 PM

      WRONG.
      "Many hunters shoot animals in the gut because the target area is larger and relatively easier than the head or neck or leg. " I am sorry, but you are very misinformed. ALL hunters are taught in Hunter's Saftey Course to shoot for the Vital Area, which is a place behind the front shoulder where both the heart and lungs are. NO hunter would purposely aim for the guts, as it is a poor shot, and a very bad way to retreive game. Regarding following a blood trail, you are also wrong. A gut shot produces the least amount of blood, as it is in the guts, no veins, no blood.

      Don't waist the readers time with lies a propoganda. If you want to debate hunting, I am all for it, and ready to go. But I will only do so in an honest way. I am not about to make up lies to further my agenda.

      • Posted By: martialguy @ 11/28/2008 5:35:11 PM

        rrcherry, you quote Hunter Safety Course, so I guess you probably don't know too many rednecks.

        The gut is actually supplied by mesenteric artery. If you are familiar with war injuries, you would know a gut shot causes bleeding

        • Posted By: Branman530 @ 12/03/2008 12:51:58 PM

          If you're honestly trying to justify your side of the argument that "hunters intentionally aim for the gut because it's a larger target than the head,neck or leg" you're completely ignorant. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Do a little research on something other than war-wounds and anatomy before you spread your ignorance.

    • Posted By: AKHunter @ 12/01/2008 3:08:32 PM

      Are you a complete moron? Hunters do not try to shoot animals in the gut. Why you ask? Because a gut shot would expose the meat of the animal to the bacterial and enzymes in the gut ruining the meat. If you are not a hunter don't presume to speak for one.

      Also anyone who eats any type of meat or wears any leather goods or other products derived from animals really should take a hard look in the mirror before judging those of us willing to harvest our own food.

      Also before you judge all hunters just think many of these hunters hunt to feed their families. Obviously not all and maybe even not most, but I know plenty who do and without that annual harvest of meat they would have a harder time putting food on their tables.

      • Posted By: voidrun @ 12/03/2008 12:16:35 PM

        She was definitely NOT vegan if she was cooking with turkey burger. Kudos to you for completely disregarding your supposedly significant other's very difficult life choice. I hope you feel the same worthlessness in the future.

      • Posted By: nicaraguan23 @ 12/03/2008 11:53:18 AM

        That is like saying that leering and rape are equally bad. Degrees of bad do exist.

    • Posted By: amszete @ 12/03/2008 11:20:24 AM

      LoL - are you serious? I have been hunting for 10 years, have about 40 friends that hunt and I have never heard of the "shoot in the gut / from the hip" concept. I am curious...do you hunt? What factual evidence do you have that hunters are out to "shoot from the guy"? I actually married someone who was ignorrant about hunting (such as yourself) and who was even a vegan. When I suck deermeat into a crockpot one night instead of her turkey burger, she was amazed. We now eat deer whenever I am able to "harvest" one. So, please continue reading your corporate/media driven material and get back to what you obviously do best - assume...

  • Posted By: rrcherry @ 11/26/2008 2:59:56 PM

    It is amazing that so many people can come on here and bash hunting and outdoorsmen, thinking they can wrap up the lifestyle and everybody in it in one paragraph or sentence. I am sure you can find a few bad things to say, a few bad practices to point at, and a few bad people to blame. However, the majority of hunters are basic outdoorsmen who enjoy and respect the outdoors so much that they are willing to become a part of nature. Take their own food from the wild, process it, and take it home to their family.

    For Anti-Hunters: Those who enjoy their thanksgiving turkey, remember... that was once a living animal too. Only difference, is your turkey was picked from a cage, butchered by someone else. My turkey ran wild (Free-Range Turkeys) , not in a cage, and I took the time to process the turkey for my own family table.

    Pure vegans, I don't have any issues with you, and respect your lifestyle and choice. Remember though, even lettuce and soy beans were alive at one time. Dont stop a man from killing a deer and eating it, unless you also stop the wolf and coyote. It is nature, it is natural.

    "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

    "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/26/2008 4:16:02 PM

      rrcherry,

      "Dont stop a man from killing a deer and eating it, unless you also stop the wolf and coyote. It is nature, it is natural."

      IF that person (since it not only men who hunt) uses their own skill and abilities and does nto rely on "gadgets" or high-tech cheats then they are hunters. If they rely on those gimmicks they are admitting that they have not skill and are simply cowards and fools.

      I have nothing against true hunters, since they do tend to care about the outdoors and only hunt for a valid reason, and limit their hunts. As for wolves and coyotes, they do nto use anything but thier own wiles so they are higher up the ethical scale than even human hunters. And I oppose the slaughter of wolves and coyotes (especially by cowards in planes). They have a right to live in peace too.

      "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

      Words with no meaning, since I reject the notion of "eternal judgment" or "sin" as I reject the notion of gods or religions as having any value for or pwer over me.

      • Posted By: gabber @ 11/26/2008 6:38:03 PM

        Unfortunately, when you lift up your eyes in that place called hell, your opinion will change drastically.

        • Posted By: voidrun @ 12/03/2008 12:25:02 PM

          I'm with ghost...
          The only thing is. With no afterlife and no judgement, I prefer to act in a way that I can feel good about myself everyday. This whole idea that one's good and evil will somehow be balanced in the end and it will all come out in the wash is not only silly, but a little scary. I'm no veggie, I just don't like to kill.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/26/2008 8:14:39 PM

          gabber,

          Bullsh*t.

          There is no hell, no god (outside fo teh human imgination), and nothing after death (therefore nothing to fear about death. When it comes it comes, nothing else.). You thumpers have this idiotic notion that threatening us with hell garbage will scare us. It does not.

  • Posted By: forrestcurl @ 12/03/2008 10:47:55 AM

    between hunting, fishing and scouting I,m good for about 80 days a year in the field so I don't think I need to listen to a song to know what goes on out there in the woods.
    As far as having to go elsewhere for serious outdoor writing I agree whole heartedly with you, Newsweek is not the place to be. I know a lot about the outdoors so I can tell when Newsweek gets that stuff wrong. It just makes me wonder what else they are getting wrong when they write about subjects I don't know that much about.
    Instead of listening to a song--using media as a barrier between you and real experience--why don't you ask if you can go along with a friend on their next hunt. I'm sure they'd love to have you and you might actually learn something and enjoy yourself. I know I am happiest when I am in the field. I wish that joy on everyone.

  • Posted By: fpopiel @ 12/03/2008 8:59:43 AM

    If you're in need of a serious article about hunting, I't think you'd be perusing 'Sports Afield'. If, however, you're like me and just want to sound a little knowledgeable in the pre-meeting banter about why so-and-so is off work this week, the first week of deer season in Ohio, all the while enjoying the marketing creativity of those rugged, outdoorsy linguists, stick with 'Newsweek'. Thanks for the lift, Newsweek. By the way, listen to the song, 'The Second Week of Deer Camp'. by Evans and Daugherty, to find out what really happens in those woods.

  • Posted By: forrestcurl @ 12/01/2008 9:09:26 PM

    Congratulations , that was one of the worst articles written about hunting I have ever read. Just by the tone of the blurb in the magazine I suspected the article would be garbage and I was right. I really didn't expect anything different from Newsweek but I thought I'd give them a chance.
    What kind of research did you do? Flipping through a Cabela's catalog to find a few funny names to write an article about do not count.
    If you are a hunter write a serious article about modern advances in hunting techniques and how they financially impact the sporting goods market. Talk about the evolution of some of these products...like how duck decoys have been found in Egyptian tombs, how Native Americans used calls and scents to lure in game and how they used animal hides as camoflage while hunting. Try a little scholarship, it worked for most of us in school.
    You sound like John Kerry talking about hunting deer with his "trusty" double barrel. Just how much meat did you put on your family's table with your 410?

  • Posted By: Brien Comerford @ 11/30/2008 3:26:36 PM

    Hunting is violent, cruel, inhumane, malevolent and deadly. It should be banned in the United States. Hunters are full-blown animal abusers rife with irreverence for life.

  • Posted By: Hasdal @ 11/30/2008 6:27:17 AM

    the hunt??ng ??s a brutualety

  • Posted By: vbritt @ 11/26/2008 10:30:59 PM

    how an article went from hunting to religion is beyond me. where i live is in the ozarks where deer season is almost considered a national event if not a holiday. people have been known to keep their kids out of school and it is expected to be an excused absence. i hunt simply for the meat to help suppliment my meger wages. i know people that hunt just so they have meat in the house. now i am totally against those that shoot a deer , or any other animal for that matter, just for bragging rights cut off the antlers or head and antlers and leave the rest. as for the fancy calls, urine bottles, anti scent stuff, decoys,and all that other stuff hunters buy to out smart wild animals, some works some don't,some is needed some is not i guess that depends on the person that is hunting. i will listen to anyone's opinion but i reserve the right to make up my own mind. one thing i will say is some of those dumb animals are smarter than i am . if an animal is harming my live stock i will stop it weather it be a possum , coon , bobcat , cyote, or wild dog ( that some lowlife kicked out of a car and left on it's own) i respect your opinion so you might respect mine

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 11/29/2008 8:03:47 AM

      vbritt,

      "how an article went from hunting to religion is beyond me"

      The answer is simple.

      When rrcherry used two biblical quotes:

      "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
      and
      "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
      as part of his/her argument.

      Regarding the first quote. The idea that human should not be able to make judgement on the actions of other humans is absurd. Human ethics not only allows but even requires that at times, caring and civilized human beings voice their opinions and judgement on the actions of others when they feel those actions are not in the common good or do real harm to others (and others is not just other human biengs, other inhabitants of this planet as well.)

      Regarding the second quote. The notion that unless a person has never engaged in bad activity (or more specifically activity that MIGHT be in some way related) that only then can a person make comment on the actions of others, it complete garbage. There are levels of activity. As I have said, I have no problme with true hunters. My criticism is for the worthless cowards who resort to the type of cheats this article discusses. They are in no way hunters.

      But more specifically, the need to interject religious hyperbole into an argument, based on the idea that using the bible in some way strengthens their argument is foolish. Had rrcherry, simply ended the post with the "pure vegan" paragraph, their point would have been stronger, but still lacking.

  • Posted By: Robbs @ 11/27/2008 12:04:15 PM

    "a head the size of a prize-winning pumpkin" Charlie Brown, I've wondered what you've been doing lately..

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse