C
Cancel4
Guest
When the current Justices retire and Heller is overturned, we'll see how effective they are.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
C
Cancel4
Guest
C
Cancel3
Guest
Horseshit. While there is some evidence that twins and triplets goes from rare to occasional in times of abundant food, there is no evidence that deer procreate less when there is less food, until it becomes a famine.
Biologists say that approximately one-third of a given deer herd should be removed in order to maintain a healthy herd. That is not going to happen without hunting.
Please tell me you did not suggest contraception as a way to control the population??? Just how would you propose we do that? condom dispensers on certain trees? There are an estimated 14 to 20 million whitetail deer in the USA. You want to spay and neuter a third of them??? lmao
The National Park Service has started having to "manage" deer in about 50 eastern parks because over-browsing is causing the destabilization of the ecosystems. So I guess those deer hadn't heard that nature is self-regulating. Your ideas are the product of too much Bambi and not enough real biology. Animals will mate and make babies whenever they can. The only population controls on deer are predation, starvation, and disease. Pick one? Hunting is, by far, the most humane.
You are wanting to apply human standards to nonhuman situations. Hunting is not cruel. It is predation. It is part of the natural cycle of life. Without predators the prey over-populate.
There are an estimated 20,600,000 active hunters in the USA. You claim 100 of them die each year participating in the sport.
Hmmm, so 0.00049% of hunters are killed in the field every year? So the survival rate is 99.9995%? Yeah, horribly dangerous sport there.
Your claims that endangered species are prized by members of the hunting fraternity is just sensationalistic bullshit. There may be a very tiny minority of hunters that would should an endangered species. But the overwhelming majority would not.
The majority of hunters are very picky about maintaining habitat, and they are the primary source of funding for most state's wildlife conservation.
You want to paint them as bloodthirsty, but your government is looking for way to encourage MORE hunters, because of the revenues and the population controls.
And if you want a population control nightmare, do a little research on wild hogs. They are decimating many places. That is why there is no season and no bag limits on them.
Your knowledge about hunting reflects a reliance on children's bedtime stories rather than biology for facts.
C
Cancel4
Guest
"Sport Hunting" in the conterminous 48 states is entirely dependent upon habitat manipulation— burning and clear-cutting of forests to increase populations of deer and flooding of land to attract migratory birds for convenient shooting. Such single-species "management" is dangerous to the sensitive interrelationships of animals and habitat and serves to render extinct the "non-game" animals whose food and habitat are eliminated. The funding for such habitat manipulation is supplied by the Pittman-Robertson Act which allocates to states for this purpose (and for training youngsters to hunt) the excise taxes on guns, ammunition, bows and arrows. If hunters truly cared for the environment, they would push for this money to be used entirely for habitat protection and oppose the "management" of habitat that leads to artificial overpopulation.
Scientists agree the ecosystems on the North and South American continents existed for thousands of years before humans ever set foot here. Animals thrived, and a natural order evolved. In North America there has been a concerted effort to destroy that balance and put the hunter in place of natural predators that have been intentionally eliminated. On public land, habitat is altered to promote the over breeding of target species. On private hunting ranches and leases, crops are planted and feed is left out for animals to keep them plump and healthy for the hunt season. When hunters claim that they are only hunting to keep the population under control, they are not giving the entire story. Their efforts would be like covering your yard in birdseed all year long, then complaining about the crap that gets on the car.
http://www.huntsab.org/
Scientists agree the ecosystems on the North and South American continents existed for thousands of years before humans ever set foot here. Animals thrived, and a natural order evolved. In North America there has been a concerted effort to destroy that balance and put the hunter in place of natural predators that have been intentionally eliminated. On public land, habitat is altered to promote the over breeding of target species. On private hunting ranches and leases, crops are planted and feed is left out for animals to keep them plump and healthy for the hunt season. When hunters claim that they are only hunting to keep the population under control, they are not giving the entire story. Their efforts would be like covering your yard in birdseed all year long, then complaining about the crap that gets on the car.
http://www.huntsab.org/
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
C
Cancel3
Guest
Again, complete and utter horseshit.
The public lands are maintained as wild life biologists determine is best. Private lands are often manipulated for game animals, but that is far better than clear cut and plowed for crops.
The idea that there is any way possible to return to the natural order of things is insane.
Yes, the populations of animals maintained balance prior to the arrival of the white man. But that does not mean it will happen now.
Tell me, DNC, which large predator would you like to reintroduce into the woods surrounding our suburbs?? Mountain lions? Grizzly bears?
A herd population requires a predator to maintain the balance. Lacking any predators, they will over-populate until they defoliate the area.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Check with them and see if they remember two of their "saboteurs" who tried to do their little game in south Georgia? It was a privately owned hunting club. They were caught. Now evidence to back up their claims of where it had happened. Both of them were hospitalized for the ass-whipping they got.
lmao
C
Cancel3
Guest
Are you a vegetarian, DNC?
C
Cancel4
Guest
So now assault and inflicting serious injury on those you disagree with is boasted of by a gunlover. Not surprising. Last time I checked, attmpted murder was still a crime, no matter the alleged provocation.
This is the final and ultimate argument of the gunlover: "try and control my urge to kill and you will be killed by me".
Such threats are idle in most cases since the substitution of the gun for sexual prowess is a well known fixation anong gunlovers, who are often marginalized males who feel threatened by the pace of modern life.
Our killing of animals is unnecessary, whereas nonhuman predators kill and consume only what is necessary for their survival. They have no choice: kill or starve.
Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing only the sick and weak. Sadistic animal murderers, however, kill any animal they come across that they think would look good mounted above the fireplace; often their victims are large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong.
In fact, animal murder creates the ideal conditions for accelerated reproduction.
The abrupt drop in population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate. If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would not kill animals but take steps to reduce the animals' fertility.
We would also preserve wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators. In actuality, many predator species are killed in order to produce more and more "game"; defenseless animals for bloodthirsty gun-toting sadists to kill.
Animal-murdering "hunters" actually claim that their practices benefit their victims.
A variation on the theme is their common assertion that their actions keep populations in check so that animals do not die of starvation ("a bullet preferable to starvation").
Following are some facts "wildlife management" that reveal what is really happening.
"Game" animals, such as deer, are physiologically adapted to cope with seasonal food shortages. It is the young that bear the brunt of starvation. Among adults, elderly and sick animals also starve.
But the human killers do not seek out and kill animals at risk of starvation; rather, they seek the strongest and most beautiful animals. The animal killers thus recruit the forces of natural selection against the species that they claim to be defending.
Bloodthirsty "hunters" restrict their activities to only those species that are attractive for their meat or trophy potential. If they were truly concerned with protecting species from starvation, why do they not perform their "service" for skunks, or field mice?
Why is the wholesale slaughter of innocent wild animals not limited to times when starvation occurs, if "hunting" has as a goal the prevention of starvation, as the gunlovers claim?
So-called "game management" is actually designed to eliminate predators of the victim species and to artificially provide additional habitat and resources for the species.
Why are predator species eliminated when they would provide a natural and ecologically sound mechanism for controlling the population of prey species?
Why are such activities as burning, clear-cutting, chemical defoliation, flooding, and bulldozing employed to increase the populations of targeted animals, if "hunting" has as its goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation?
The answer to this and other outrages perpetrated by the insane gun culture of the NRA fanatics is a complete ban on private ownership of firearms and ammunition.
This is the final and ultimate argument of the gunlover: "try and control my urge to kill and you will be killed by me".
Such threats are idle in most cases since the substitution of the gun for sexual prowess is a well known fixation anong gunlovers, who are often marginalized males who feel threatened by the pace of modern life.
Our killing of animals is unnecessary, whereas nonhuman predators kill and consume only what is necessary for their survival. They have no choice: kill or starve.
Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing only the sick and weak. Sadistic animal murderers, however, kill any animal they come across that they think would look good mounted above the fireplace; often their victims are large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong.
In fact, animal murder creates the ideal conditions for accelerated reproduction.
The abrupt drop in population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate. If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would not kill animals but take steps to reduce the animals' fertility.
We would also preserve wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators. In actuality, many predator species are killed in order to produce more and more "game"; defenseless animals for bloodthirsty gun-toting sadists to kill.
Animal-murdering "hunters" actually claim that their practices benefit their victims.
A variation on the theme is their common assertion that their actions keep populations in check so that animals do not die of starvation ("a bullet preferable to starvation").
Following are some facts "wildlife management" that reveal what is really happening.
"Game" animals, such as deer, are physiologically adapted to cope with seasonal food shortages. It is the young that bear the brunt of starvation. Among adults, elderly and sick animals also starve.
But the human killers do not seek out and kill animals at risk of starvation; rather, they seek the strongest and most beautiful animals. The animal killers thus recruit the forces of natural selection against the species that they claim to be defending.
Bloodthirsty "hunters" restrict their activities to only those species that are attractive for their meat or trophy potential. If they were truly concerned with protecting species from starvation, why do they not perform their "service" for skunks, or field mice?
Why is the wholesale slaughter of innocent wild animals not limited to times when starvation occurs, if "hunting" has as a goal the prevention of starvation, as the gunlovers claim?
So-called "game management" is actually designed to eliminate predators of the victim species and to artificially provide additional habitat and resources for the species.
Why are predator species eliminated when they would provide a natural and ecologically sound mechanism for controlling the population of prey species?
Why are such activities as burning, clear-cutting, chemical defoliation, flooding, and bulldozing employed to increase the populations of targeted animals, if "hunting" has as its goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation?
The answer to this and other outrages perpetrated by the insane gun culture of the NRA fanatics is a complete ban on private ownership of firearms and ammunition.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
DNC:
why are you fearful of guns?
why are you fearful of guns?
Lowaicue
英語在香港
and you consider that base, and I might say quite immature, blood lust, normal?
What kind of minds do 63 million Americans have? You have become a dangerous breed yourselves. Perhaps time for a cull? You might not like the idea of a cull .... you are not alone.
There is one thing for sure. Wanting to kill is dumb. 63 million dumb yanks is fewer than I would have guessed.
What kind of minds do 63 million Americans have? You have become a dangerous breed yourselves. Perhaps time for a cull? You might not like the idea of a cull .... you are not alone.
There is one thing for sure. Wanting to kill is dumb. 63 million dumb yanks is fewer than I would have guessed.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I see that we here in America are not alone with painting broad generalizations based on false stereotypes.
C
Cancel4
Guest
Gun control is coming.
If not an outright repeal of the second amendment, then a re-interpretation by a more balanced court with 6 new justices appointed by President Obama.
In the meantime, serialization of ammunition, stringent registration, and vastly increased fees should slow down the wave of killings perpetrated by the gunlovers.
If not an outright repeal of the second amendment, then a re-interpretation by a more balanced court with 6 new justices appointed by President Obama.
In the meantime, serialization of ammunition, stringent registration, and vastly increased fees should slow down the wave of killings perpetrated by the gunlovers.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
C
Cancel4
Guest
Guns are useful in the right hands.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The militia (a government-trained, funded and equipped body) should have guns.
Individuals cannpt guarantee the security of the State. In fact, judging by the threats from gunlovers, private ownership is a danger to the State.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The militia (a government-trained, funded and equipped body) should have guns.
Individuals cannpt guarantee the security of the State. In fact, judging by the threats from gunlovers, private ownership is a danger to the State.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
mine are the right hands.
I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. - George Mason, one of the founding fathers.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
That free state is all about OUR freedom. WE THE PEOPLE are the security of a free state.
Last edited:
C
Cancel3
Guest
Where in the hell do hunters burn, clear-cut, chemically defoliate, or bulldoze in order to get more animals?? Deer live in the WOODS!
Also, most hunters are not trophy hunters. And, while many will have the head of a top quality animal mounted, they do not see these animals but once or twice in a lifetime. And there are trophy deer all over the country. But hunters (skilled hunters) do not get a shot at them.
I am a good hunter. I got a shot at 2 older does in the entire deer season last year.
You are learning about wildlife and about hunters from anti-hunting sites. Take a biology class and talk to a few hunters.