That's badass, however it is only useful if you are hunting for food, something which I believe rarely happens now a days with the ease of the supper market. I wonder how many hunters actually eat their prey.
I don't know about other parts of the country but in Upstate NY a large percentage of the hunters actually eat their prey, because well... that's the point of hunting it was originally a way to procure food for the family. That is what it taught in the class you have to take to get a hunters license and that is also how many people are raised. Hunters actually get a really bad rap only because a select few seem to fuck up the whole system and just discard after they have finished killing, to my knowledge the vast majority of hunters (and fisherman) eat what they have hunted for. Deer for instance (Venison) is probably my favorite meat to eat, because it is simply delicious, also turkey that I have hunted for taste amazingly better than store bought turkey. The reasons hunters eat the meat is because it tastes better than processed, store meat. ^_^
You can mount a head on the wall AND eat the meat...
My dad likes to use the feet of the deer as rifle racks! Talk about insulting! Even in death the deers feet (right above the ankle, twisted in an L shape) are used to prop up the weapon used to kill it!
So you're saying that predators don't take the biggest and the healthiest of their prey?
You are totally confusing me. Maybe you misunderstood what I said. My point was that in nature, predators prefer the sick, weak and young. This leaves the strongest and healthiest to reproduce. Hunters, on the other hand, prefer to kill the strongest and healthiest. That is what makes a nice trophy or provides the most meat. In the same breath, hunters also say that they are helping the herd by thinning it. This is true in that there will be more resources for the surviving herd. However, it is not helpful in the sense that the weak and sick are left to reproduce - thus weakening the herd over time.
On somewhat of a tangent, a few years ago I read a very interesting article regarding domesticated animals. PETA jumps up and down, claiming that these animals should not be farmed. The article suggested that domestication was evolution in its purest form. The animals gladly developed to become domesticated. Why? Because there is no better protection than domestication. Sure, some of the animals are taken for slaughter. But... the herd overall prospers and is protected. It makes perfect sense to me. I guess PETA thinks that they know better than Darwin.
Actually, You figure, if you get hunted you are not the best ^_^, maybe selection pressure will make deer turn out smaller and less meaty so they are more likely to get passed over by hunters. REGARDLESS of this, there are far too many deer in the East of the United states. If fact we are overrun by Deer. With almost no natural predators left deer are over running the East and causing a lot of problems on Roads, with disease and just general over population. I'm a big fan of deer and personally don't hunt. But we don't need to worry about the Common species of Deer in the East. They are doing JUST fine.
With almost no natural predators left deer are over running the East and causing a lot of problems on Roads, with disease and just general over population.
That's absolutely true. Where I live, moose are also a serious problem. Hitting a moose is like hitting a brick wall.
This is one reason that I am in favor of reintroducing wolves to the northeast. It looks like they are slowly migrating south from Canada, although this is a slow process. Wolves will never do well in suburban settings, but they would help in rural areas. I don't hear many complaints from Michigan and Minnesota, so I suspect they wouldn't be a major problem in rural areas of the northeast.
Speaking of environmental stewardship, one of my pet peeves are the myths that surround Native American culture. Usually these myths are forwarded by people that stand to gain financially, if not emotionally. The simple truth is that Native Americans did not live at all in "harmony" with their environment. This is a good book about that. (Or see this article, or this book.) Here is another good book about the noble savage myth.
The simple truth is that Native Americans could often be incredibly savage and harmful to the environment. So could Europeans. So could any other culture. The idea that one culture had it all figured out, and lived in perfect harmony with their world and each other is absurd. That idea denies our humanity.
And yes, I am part Native American. So don't flame based on that.
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".
Comments
ROFL!!
The assholes who kill something to put a nice trophy up in their den are nothing more than poachers. They should all die in a fire.
Also, I think this has to be a joke. I question the ability of any seasoning, no matter how tightly packed, to adequately serve as a shotgun load.
Mitsukai: Where in upstate NY are you, anyhow?
My dad likes to use the feet of the deer as rifle racks! Talk about insulting! Even in death the deers feet (right above the ankle, twisted in an L shape) are used to prop up the weapon used to kill it!
My point was that in nature, predators prefer the sick, weak and young. This leaves the strongest and healthiest to reproduce.
Hunters, on the other hand, prefer to kill the strongest and healthiest. That is what makes a nice trophy or provides the most meat. In the same breath, hunters also say that they are helping the herd by thinning it. This is true in that there will be more resources for the surviving herd. However, it is not helpful in the sense that the weak and sick are left to reproduce - thus weakening the herd over time.
On somewhat of a tangent, a few years ago I read a very interesting article regarding domesticated animals. PETA jumps up and down, claiming that these animals should not be farmed. The article suggested that domestication was evolution in its purest form. The animals gladly developed to become domesticated. Why? Because there is no better protection than domestication. Sure, some of the animals are taken for slaughter. But... the herd overall prospers and is protected. It makes perfect sense to me. I guess PETA thinks that they know better than Darwin.
This is one reason that I am in favor of reintroducing wolves to the northeast. It looks like they are slowly migrating south from Canada, although this is a slow process. Wolves will never do well in suburban settings, but they would help in rural areas. I don't hear many complaints from Michigan and Minnesota, so I suspect they wouldn't be a major problem in rural areas of the northeast.
Speaking of environmental stewardship, one of my pet peeves are the myths that surround Native American culture. Usually these myths are forwarded by people that stand to gain financially, if not emotionally.
The simple truth is that Native Americans did not live at all in "harmony" with their environment. This is a good book about that. (Or see this article, or this book.) Here is another good book about the noble savage myth.
The simple truth is that Native Americans could often be incredibly savage and harmful to the environment. So could Europeans. So could any other culture. The idea that one culture had it all figured out, and lived in perfect harmony with their world and each other is absurd. That idea denies our humanity.
And yes, I am part Native American. So don't flame based on that.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given
her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and
star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo
Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst
Nordfink".