[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Miller, Jeremy JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Thu Jun 20 18:20:00 UTC 2002


> Don't you think the weapons that use chemical and mechanical 
> advantage and
> the scientifically engineered camouflage (as well as the pheromone
> essences) kind of invalidate any assertion that you're doing 
> anything "the
> same way a large portion of the animal kingdom" does?

No, not completely.  But you do have a good point.  It IS different.

I'll clarify what I meant a little more... as you say, it is by no means
exactly the same as a large portion of the animal kingdom does it.  But
there are some similarities.

An animal attempting to harvest food is usually pitting itself and the
toolset that nature has given it against another creature and its own
toolset.  (At times, one or both sides will naturally combine in groups in
an attempt to counteract the advantages that others may have.)

That's what our hunter should be trying to do.  The toolset given by nature
is very strong in some places (intelligence), and very weak in others
(physically).  If I go out with my bare hands to try to catch a deer, I'm
going to have a hell of a time doing it.  My butt is kicked, plain and
simple... I gotta resort to tools to make it more fair.

I believe the right thing to do is to try to make it fair.  I bring the
tools I need to succeed... but often fail anyway.  (If you're always
successul, you're probably being a little unfair.  That is why some turn to
archery instead of rifles.  A pox on the unskilled ones that fail with poor
shots and wound the animal to death without catching it!  They need to go
back to rifles.  A pox on the riflemen that do the same, too!  They need to
stay home, or spend some hours on a shooting range.)  You may notice a hint
of distain in my voice... there are way too many hunters that lack respect
for safety, for other hunters, for the land they are walking on, and for the
animals they are pursuing.  I despise them all, for both the obove reasons
and because they make me look like a real jerk to non-hunters who don't know
that there is a code of ethics that many follow, but others ignore.  Anyway,
enough of that rant. :)

I generally don't wear much camoflage.  Maybe a little bit, but not some
high-tech Mr. Invisible suit.  (Good way to get shot by an unsafe jerk.)  I
shoot to kill (preferrably instantly) on the first shot.  If I don't think
the probability of succeeding is very high, I'm not going to fire.  (I don't
want the animal to suffer any longer than neccessary.  Or for me to have to
try to follow a bloodtrail God knows where to find where it ran off to.  Or
for it it to get away with a wound that kills it via starvation or other
problem AFTER I'm gone.)  Never used any scent products.  Coverups I think
are OK, but pheromones kind of bother me.  I don't think that is very fair.
(It's lying to the animal.  Seems dishonest, in a way. :)


I'd also add that many using ALL of the aforementioned tools come away empty
handed, even in the midst of a large healthy population.  It really is
harder than it sounds.  Most of the prey are well aware of the fact that
many the funny critters on two legs can be just as dangerous (often much
more) a predator as any cougar or wolf.  (Which we have to some extent
replaced in the natural balance of their population.)  They've also attained
an uncanny ability to know exaclty when they are "in season" and totally
vanish.

Lastly, canned hunts are an obscenity that should be abolished.


> I'm not opposed to hunting for food, but I think you're being a bit
> dishonest with yourself when you claim to be doing things 
> like any animal
> other than a human.

You use the the term "like", so no I don't think that would be dishonest,
because "like" doesn't mean it is exactly the same.

Although I did say "same".  This means you put it in better words than I
did, and came closer to what I really meant.  Thank you.  :)

Does this sit a little better now, in light of the above clarification?


> > Can't say I disagree much.  Read Fast Food Nation?  It'll 
> make anyone
> > cringe.  And is entertaining at the same time.
> 
> Kinda like Red Meat comics.

Where do I find them?

And you seen the meat hats?  http://www.hatsofmeat.com 

:P


> > > I tend to go for free range, hormone free food.
> > 
> > For the most part it's healthier, tastes better, and more likely to
> > support real people with your business... instead of some giant food
> > corporation. Which is all good in my book, and worth the 
> price if one
> > can afford it.
> 
> All good in my book, too.  Not that anyone asked.
> 
> > I just sometimes go for REALLY free range, hormone free food.
> 
> Not that even wildlife can be said to be "hormone free" 
> anymore.  Phew.

I can't argue with that.  I think everyone knows what I meant, but
unfortunately in some cases this is now true.  Blech.

We do need to take better care of stuff.


> I was reading about a species of fish in England that appears 
> to be going
> extinct because they are sensitive to HUMAN hormones in their 
> food supply
> and inadequate disposal of human waste (particularly urine) 
> is causing the
> fish to become hermaphroditic and sterile.

Eew.

> > I just pay a small fee to some nice people who monitor the 
> population
> > for me (to make sure it is healthy enough to support my taking), and
> > go out and fetch it myself. :)
> 
>That's interesting.  I don't really care to do it, but I'd be 
> interested to know more about the arrangement.

That's a big part of what the Fish and Wildlife Department does.

The money for licences and harvest tags goes in their budget, and that is
the service they provide.

There is also the fact that without natural predators in the abundance that
there used to be, we have to fill that role for their own sake.  (Without it
they'll quickly overpopulate, use up their resources, and begin to die of
starvation/disease, etc.)  It's good that some people choose to, but many
don't.  I don't think populations could withstand everyone doing it, and it
would be much harder for me to fill my freezer if I had to compete with
everyone.

They monitor that whole balance, and attempt to keep it in balance.  A
government service that I do feel is worth my money.

(For the good of the hunters that wish to hunt, the preservationists that
don't want us killing of any species off or mucking up natural balances too
badly, and for anyone who doesn't own substantial amounts of rural property
but wishes to spend time out in nature that isn't a city park or an
overcrowded tourist attraction.  Wait... that's actually the Forest Service,
and another can of worms. :)





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list