djones520 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

A co worker has a brother who is on welfare in Kentucky or Tennessee, I can't remember which, but the state gives him and others like him that know how to hunt about 12 deer tags a year and lets them begin hunting before deer season.

Not like that in Michigan. In the NW part of the LP this past year, they actually put in a pretty hefty restriction on deer hunting. It's good some states allow those with fewer means extra chances to provide for their families though.

He tells me that back in those states, deer are like dogs, they're so thick. Up in Maine the deer population exploded when people moved in because of farms springing up everywhere, giving the deer more to eat.

Because hunting is bad mkay. It's cruel and nasty, unlike tranqing, performing surgery on and returning a wild animal back stinking of human. That's way better than a startled moment, a sharp pain and dead from a bullet in the heart from a well placed shot.

It's about as stupid as when the government was trying to sterilize wolves that were preying on livestock in Idaho several years back.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

Maybe you shouldn't be complaining about "restrictions put on deer hunting" and instead look into why the families are going hungry.

What's better, giving money to people welfare money, or letting them hunt if they want to. No one is talking about making them hunt, but letting them seems a good thing to me. It lets them live better, and dose an important job. My brother used to shoot rabbits for the same reason. Now he dose it because he enjoys getting his own food.

Relapse wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

A co worker has a brother who is on welfare in Kentucky or Tennessee, I can't remember which, but the state gives him and others like him that know how to hunt about 12 deer tags a year and lets them begin hunting before deer season.

Not like that in Michigan. In the NW part of the LP this past year, they actually put in a pretty hefty restriction on deer hunting. It's good some states allow those with fewer means extra chances to provide for their families though.

He tells me that back in those states, deer are like dogs, they're so thick. Up in Maine the deer population exploded when people moved in because of farms springing up everywhere, giving the deer more to eat.

Your implication that different areas may have different different conditions that require different approaches to Ecosystem management and the regulations that govern the use of natural resources is a bit much for me to handle.

Could you please re-frame that in a simpler narrative? Preferably one that aligns with my political preconceptions and involves those opposed to my view foolishly disregrading what I perceive as common sense?

Thanks

 Steve steveson wrote:
Because hunting is bad mkay. It's cruel and nasty, unlike tranqing, performing surgery on and returning a wild animal back stinking of human. That's way better than a startled moment, a sharp pain and dead from a bullet in the heart from a well placed shot.

Maybe they can give the deer a nice nip and tuck while they're at it, getting rid of some of those ugly age wrinkles and reinforcing the animal's self esteem!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

A co worker has a brother who is on welfare in Kentucky or Tennessee, I can't remember which, but the state gives him and others like him that know how to hunt about 12 deer tags a year and lets them begin hunting before deer season.

Not like that in Michigan. In the NW part of the LP this past year, they actually put in a pretty hefty restriction on deer hunting. It's good some states allow those with fewer means extra chances to provide for their families though.

He tells me that back in those states, deer are like dogs, they're so thick. Up in Maine the deer population exploded when people moved in because of farms springing up everywhere, giving the deer more to eat.

Your implication that different areas may have different different conditions that require different approaches to Ecosystem management and the regulations that govern the use of natural resources is a bit much for me to handle.

Could you please re-frame that in a simpler narrative? Preferably one that aligns with my political preconceptions and involves those opposed to my view foolishly disregrading what I perceive as common sense?

Thanks

It is beyond my wit to do so. I leave it all to the politicians who once again prove they are smarter than all of us.

Relapse wrote:
It's called hunting.


http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/15/deer-control-by-scalpel-instead-guns-seen-as-costly-ineffective/

I know a third one, it's called "don't kill off all their natural predators to make it easier for humans to go hunting"

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

Maybe you shouldn't be complaining about "restrictions put on deer hunting" and instead look into why the families are going hungry.

I would say a good part of the problem is politicians who are willing to waste money on gak like this.

And I would say a good part of the problem is politicians who are willing to cut money to welfare programs.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I know a third one, it's called "don't kill off all their natural predators to make it easier for humans to go hunting"

Deer, which have no natural predators in the suburbs, can be more than just a nuisance, experts say.

Just in case you missed this part of the article. So which natural predator of the deer would you like to see reintroduced into the suburbs?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I know a third one, it's called "don't kill off all their natural predators to make it easier for humans to go hunting"

Deer, which have no natural predators in the suburbs, can be more than just a nuisance, experts say.

Just in case you missed this part of the article. So which natural predator of the deer would you like to see reintroduced into the suburbs?

I don't think that was entirely serious. It is a good point arms to why, and is a serious question being discussed in the UK at the moment by some.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's called hunting.


http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/15/deer-control-by-scalpel-instead-guns-seen-as-costly-ineffective/

I know a third one, it's called "don't kill off all their natural predators to make it easier for humans to go hunting"

The way the deer populations explode in some of those states, the expanded number of predators become a danger to people and livestock and need to be controled, also. A friend of mine goes up to Idaho for the wolf hunt and the people there are happy to let him know where they can be found, because the wolves scare the deer and elk into the town creating all manner of problems.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

Maybe you shouldn't be complaining about "restrictions put on deer hunting" and instead look into why the families are going hungry.

What's better, giving money to people welfare money, or letting them hunt if they want to. No one is talking about making them hunt, but letting them seems a good thing to me. It lets them live better, and dose an important job. My brother used to shoot rabbits for the same reason. Now he dose it because he enjoys getting his own food.

Doing one does not necessitate removing the other.

Hunting supplementing welfare is a very viable option, especially if you start up a program allowing for the hunters on welfare to get paid as part of the process of "pest control".

 Yodhrin wrote:
I know a third one, it's called "don't kill off all their natural predators to make it easier for humans to go hunting"

I'm pretty sure we're one of deer's natural predators.

You know what used to be there? Wolves. There's your natural predator right there

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You know what used to be there? Wolves. There's your natural predator right there

Dinosaurs were there once, too.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

Maybe you shouldn't be complaining about "restrictions put on deer hunting" and instead look into why the families are going hungry.

I would say a good part of the problem is politicians who are willing to waste money on gak like this.

And I would say a good part of the problem is politicians who are willing to cut money to welfare programs.

Where does that cut money go? To gak like this, of course. I'm glad we are in agreement.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

Maybe you shouldn't be complaining about "restrictions put on deer hunting" and instead look into why the families are going hungry.

What's better, giving money to people welfare money, or letting them hunt if they want to. No one is talking about making them hunt, but letting them seems a good thing to me. It lets them live better, and dose an important job. My brother used to shoot rabbits for the same reason. Now he dose it because he enjoys getting his own food.

Doing one does not necessitate removing the other.

Hunting supplementing welfare is a very viable option, especially if you start up a program allowing for the hunters on welfare to get paid as part of the process of "pest control".

You could do a public works like program where people who could not find job could get a low wage job hunting deer. That would help on both fronts.
Edit: Wow that's what you just said

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

Maybe you shouldn't be complaining about "restrictions put on deer hunting" and instead look into why the families are going hungry.

What's better, giving money to people welfare money, or letting them hunt if they want to. No one is talking about making them hunt, but letting them seems a good thing to me. It lets them live better, and dose an important job. My brother used to shoot rabbits for the same reason. Now he dose it because he enjoys getting his own food.

Doing one does not necessitate removing the other.

Hunting supplementing welfare is a very viable option, especially if you start up a program allowing for the hunters on welfare to get paid as part of the process of "pest control".

Very true, especially when lives are being saved from car wrecks caused by deer as well as money saved on paying people to cull the population. Red letter day here, we agree on something!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Just in case you missed this part of the article. So which natural predator of the deer would you like to see reintroduced into the suburbs?

Rednecks

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Just in case you missed this part of the article. So which natural predator of the deer would you like to see reintroduced into the suburbs?

Rednecks

Ain't been to Utah, have you?

Relapse wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Just in case you missed this part of the article. So which natural predator of the deer would you like to see reintroduced into the suburbs?

Rednecks

Ain't been to Utah, have you?

Lol, far more mormon crazies than there are rednecks... or at least, not Tennessee/Kentucky rednecks

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Just in case you missed this part of the article. So which natural predator of the deer would you like to see reintroduced into the suburbs?

Rednecks

Ain't been to Utah, have you?

Lol, far more mormon crazies than there are rednecks... or at least, not Tennessee/Kentucky rednecks

A bunch of redknecks I lived by here tried to talk me into joining a local militia, but that's a thread for another day.

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

Maybe you shouldn't be complaining about "restrictions put on deer hunting" and instead look into why the families are going hungry.

What's better, giving money to people welfare money, or letting them hunt if they want to. No one is talking about making them hunt, but letting them seems a good thing to me. It lets them live better, and dose an important job. My brother used to shoot rabbits for the same reason. Now he dose it because he enjoys getting his own food.

Doing one does not necessitate removing the other.

Hunting supplementing welfare is a very viable option, especially if you start up a program allowing for the hunters on welfare to get paid as part of the process of "pest control".

Very true, especially when lives are being saved from car wrecks caused by deer as well as money saved on paying people to cull the population. Red letter day here, we agree on something!

Only thing we might not agree on is how much supervision should be necessary.

I for one am sick and tired of hunters in my area.
Too often I go out and find carcasses with antlers/heads removed but the rest just dumped. And sometimes you'll find those out of season as well.
I've also found carcasses left in a creek behind my land, and that's just not cool.

Relapse wrote:
A co worker has a brother who is on welfare in Kentucky or Tennessee, I can't remember which, but the state gives him and others like him that know how to hunt about 12 deer tags a year and lets them begin hunting before deer season.

This is a really good idea, a win-win for everyone involved.

Do they also waive fees on fishing licences, do you know?

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
A co worker has a brother who is on welfare in Kentucky or Tennessee, I can't remember which, but the state gives him and others like him that know how to hunt about 12 deer tags a year and lets them begin hunting before deer season.

This is a really good idea, a win-win for everyone involved.

Do they also waive fees on fishing licences, do you know?

Doubtful, but a $15 fishing license isn't that big a deal when you consider it could save you hundreds in food costs.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
A co worker has a brother who is on welfare in Kentucky or Tennessee, I can't remember which, but the state gives him and others like him that know how to hunt about 12 deer tags a year and lets them begin hunting before deer season.

This is a really good idea, a win-win for everyone involved.

Do they also waive fees on fishing licences, do you know?

IMO they need to be getting those welfare folks in the area out hunting boar... them things are a fething menace.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
A co worker has a brother who is on welfare in Kentucky or Tennessee, I can't remember which, but the state gives him and others like him that know how to hunt about 12 deer tags a year and lets them begin hunting before deer season.

This is a really good idea, a win-win for everyone involved.

Do they also waive fees on fishing licences, do you know?

IMO they need to be getting those welfare folks in the area out hunting boar... them things are a fething menace.

Most of that meat is just inedible. Unless we're paying them per head, it's not doing them a lot of good.

One problem that can show up with "hunting to supplement food" is the cost of processing the deer. It's something that can be subsidized by the state, but it's something to think about. Maybe give out vouchers for processing together with deer tags.

My grandfather was stubborn and refused to pay someone else to butcher his deer. So he and Dad butchered them on the porch.

Helluva mess. Grandma always freaked out. Then again, he and Dad *would* track blood into the house, and that seems like reasonable "woman of the house freaking out" territory.

 d-usa wrote:
One problem that can show up with "hunting to supplement food" is the cost of processing the deer. It's something that can be subsidized by the state, but it's something to think about. Maybe give out vouchers for processing together with deer tags.

Processing deer isn't really all that hard to do yourself, and it's a safe bet that most who'd "welfare" hunt would process it themselves.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Words fail me...

I know families who are going hungry this winter because of restrictions put on deer hunting, and money is being thrown at crap like this?

Maybe you shouldn't be complaining about "restrictions put on deer hunting" and instead look into why the families are going hungry.

What's better, giving money to people welfare money, or letting them hunt if they want to. No one is talking about making them hunt, but letting them seems a good thing to me. It lets them live better, and dose an important job. My brother used to shoot rabbits for the same reason. Now he dose it because he enjoys getting his own food.

Doing one does not necessitate removing the other.

Hunting supplementing welfare is a very viable option, especially if you start up a program allowing for the hunters on welfare to get paid as part of the process of "pest control".

Very true, especially when lives are being saved from car wrecks caused by deer as well as money saved on paying people to cull the population. Red letter day here, we agree on something!

Only thing we might not agree on is how much supervision should be necessary.

I for one am sick and tired of hunters in my area.
Too often I go out and find carcasses with antlers/heads removed but the rest just dumped. And sometimes you'll find those out of season as well.
I've also found carcasses left in a creek behind my land, and that's just not cool.

Hunters like that should have their rifles auctioned off for resource management and be banned from hunting for a set amount of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
A co worker has a brother who is on welfare in Kentucky or Tennessee, I can't remember which, but the state gives him and others like him that know how to hunt about 12 deer tags a year and lets them begin hunting before deer season.

This is a really good idea, a win-win for everyone involved.

Do they also waive fees on fishing licences, do you know?

I don't know that, but if the fish populations are healthy, I don't see why that wouldn't be a good idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
One problem that can show up with "hunting to supplement food" is the cost of processing the deer. It's something that can be subsidized by the state, but it's something to think about. Maybe give out vouchers for processing together with deer tags.

As far as I know, the state takes care of the processing fees, but only allows the meat to be done up in certain ways. No deer jerky, for instance.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
One problem that can show up with "hunting to supplement food" is the cost of processing the deer. It's something that can be subsidized by the state, but it's something to think about. Maybe give out vouchers for processing together with deer tags.

Processing deer isn't really all that hard to do yourself, and it's a safe bet that most who'd "welfare" hunt would process it themselves.

I know that I've been interested in hunting, but I've never done it so far. So I wouldn't know that much about processing or wouldn't have all the tools needed for it (no way to make ground meat for example). For somebody like me that would be a road block and processing would be helpful.

@Relapse: I can see the "no deer jerky" rule and other rules for "snack" type processing options similar to some WIC restrictions.

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
One problem that can show up with "hunting to supplement food" is the cost of processing the deer. It's something that can be subsidized by the state, but it's something to think about. Maybe give out vouchers for processing together with deer tags.

Processing deer isn't really all that hard to do yourself, and it's a safe bet that most who'd "welfare" hunt would process it themselves.

I know that I've been interested in hunting, but I've never done it so far. So I wouldn't know that much about processing or wouldn't have all the tools needed for it (no way to make ground meat for example). For somebody like me that would be a road block and processing would be helpful.

@Relapse: I can see the "no deer jerky" rule and other rules for "snack" type processing options similar to some WIC restrictions.

Sure, or you could get some friends to help you out.

Let me know, maybe I'll come on over to Okie land one day.

I would be more sympathetic if rogue hunters were not such a massive problem were I live

Look. Can't we all just agree that Bambi is fething tasty and we should kill more deer?

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I would be more sympathetic if rogue hunters were not such a massive problem were I live

Where I live people just don't respect the limit to how close you can hunt to a house.

Thanks Obama!

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
One problem that can show up with "hunting to supplement food" is the cost of processing the deer. It's something that can be subsidized by the state, but it's something to think about. Maybe give out vouchers for processing together with deer tags.

Processing deer isn't really all that hard to do yourself, and it's a safe bet that most who'd "welfare" hunt would process it themselves.

I know that I've been interested in hunting, but I've never done it so far. So I wouldn't know that much about processing or wouldn't have all the tools needed for it (no way to make ground meat for example). For somebody like me that would be a road block and processing would be helpful.

@Relapse: I can see the "no deer jerky" rule and other rules for "snack" type processing options similar to some WIC restrictions.

Now I'm really confused...

Why couldn't you "jerky" them? Isn't that a good way to stretch out the meat?

Curbing deer populations would only work via sterilizing if they sterilize the breeding does - at which point you're removing the healthy breeders from the herd.

This is the same problem that hunting can suffer from since humans hunting don't go for the sick/weak/young/stragglers but instead for the prime deer in the herd. As a result hunting can strip out the best in a herd - as well as key adults that know migratory routes - cut them out and deer or other migratory herd animals can end up lost (big problem in many African countries with elephants).

Hunting can at least be controlled to focus on the weaker elements in the herd and to ignore the prime herd members - sterilizing can't ignore the prime because they are typically going to be the most likely breed successfully.


On that ground, to my mind at least, hunting might be the suitable alternative - at least so long as its not trophy hunting.

That said I've started reading (and not finished) an interesting book on animal populations and their ability to self regulate their own population even without the influence of predatory activity. It might be that there are other ways to curb population expansion without culling or sterilizing the herds.

Heck we can already know how to curb many pest species in urban areas by greater efficiency in waste food removal, storage and in general volumes of waste food.

There also strong argument I've read with regard to vegetation diversity. The argument being that many reserves or plantations in the countryside are maintained along the lines of mono-crops or are arranged as such to limit the number and diversity of present species (to say nothing of the reduction in small woodland and other areas as a result of increased farm sizes and field sizes - as well as unification of fields into larger single fields).
The example was bee populations, showing that an urban bee could potentially have access to a greater variety of flowering plants than those in many rural areas.

As such it might be that increased rural natural diversity would reduce the attractiveness of urban areas and reduce migration of herds into urban areas.

We have had several pet deaths in the area thanks to overzealous and unregulated hunting.

Its really sad and annoying. Freaked my little brother out after our dog almost got shot.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
We have had several pet deaths in the area thanks to overzealous and unregulated hunting.

Its really sad and annoying. Freaked my little brother out after our dog almost got shot.

Yeesh, that's bad.

I couldnt read the link right. So I thought it said "Removing Deer with shrapnel" Im thinking "Holy gak, they are killing deer with land mines? Why is dakka upset? That is awesome


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Look. Can't we all just agree that Bambi is fething tasty and we should kill more deer?

I have had Venison......ehh take it or leave it. Now horse meat on the other hand.

Pony meat is best horse meat.

Edit: That was not an MLP jab...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
We have had several pet deaths in the area thanks to overzealous and unregulated hunting.

Its really sad and annoying. Freaked my little brother out after our dog almost got shot.

Yeesh, that's bad.

I know I will get pounced on for this but It would be nice to at least restrict the use of automatic weapons for hunting, the area around my farm sometimes sounds like fething normandy landings.

Hunters also love to try and get around private property laws by saying they were "threatened" by a wild animal and "had" to flee into your farmland.

I have not had that, but people in cali are hesitant to kill anything the size of a small child

 Alexzandvar wrote:
We have had several pet deaths in the area thanks to overzealous and unregulated hunting.

Its really sad and annoying. Freaked my little brother out after our dog almost got shot.

Dude I can understand that (see the avatar for a hint).

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I know I will get pounced on for this but It would be nice to at least restrict the use of automatic weapons for hunting, the area around my farm sometimes sounds like fething normandy landings.

Hunters also love to try and get around private property laws by saying they were "threatened" by a wild animal and "had" to flee into your farmland.

Forgive my ignorance, but how common is it for an automatic weapon to be used when hunting?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
We have had several pet deaths in the area thanks to overzealous and unregulated hunting.

Its really sad and annoying. Freaked my little brother out after our dog almost got shot.

Dude I can understand that (see the avatar for a hint).

Yeah my family really adores it's pets, so we have tried to clamp down on hunters in the area but the local government despises us for our political alignment


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I know I will get pounced on for this but It would be nice to at least restrict the use of automatic weapons for hunting, the area around my farm sometimes sounds like fething normandy landings.

Hunters also love to try and get around private property laws by saying they were "threatened" by a wild animal and "had" to flee into your farmland.

Forgive my ignorance, but how common is it for an automatic weapon to be used when hunting?

Not common in other areas, as my uncle is a game warden in colorado and I myself have been hunting before.

In my home area though there's a big overlap of gun "collectors" and "hunters" we find a lot of corpses that were obviously sprayed with bullets in a fashion you would only think an Ork on the waaaghh path would be capable of.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
We have had several pet deaths in the area thanks to overzealous and unregulated hunting.

Its really sad and annoying. Freaked my little brother out after our dog almost got shot.

Yeesh, that's bad.

I know I will get pounced on for this but It would be nice to at least restrict the use of automatic weapons for hunting, the area around my farm sometimes sounds like fething normandy landings.

Hunters also love to try and get around private property laws by saying they were "threatened" by a wild animal and "had" to flee into your farmland.

If people are using machine guns in your neighbrohood you need to rethink your life choices and vacate the neighborhood..NOW.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Not common in other areas, as my uncle is a game warden in colorado and I myself have been hunting before.

In my home area though there's a big overlap of gun "collectors" and "hunters" we find a lot of corpses that were obviously sprayed with bullets in a fashion you would only think an Ork on the waaaghh path would be capable of.

So is it an issue that needs regulation if it is such a small number? Are licenses issued that state automatic weapons may not be used?

You know an "automatic weapon" is a machine gun right? I've never heard of hunting with a machine gun.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I know I will get pounced on for this but It would be nice to at least restrict the use of automatic weapons for hunting, the area around my farm sometimes sounds like fething normandy landings.

Hunters also love to try and get around private property laws by saying they were "threatened" by a wild animal and "had" to flee into your farmland.

Forgive my ignorance, but how common is it for an automatic weapon to be used when hunting?

According to the Game Wardens I've meet, it's actually rare.

Although, poachers is ALWAYS an issue.

As to OP: Deers are a fething pest where I live. (it's my fault I've moved there I guess). I can't do any landscaping w/o fearing whether or not the deers would eat the plants.

Interestingly... today is the last day of archery Deer hunting in MO. I can just open up my back door and plink a deer right in my yard....

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Not common in other areas, as my uncle is a game warden in colorado and I myself have been hunting before.

In my home area though there's a big overlap of gun "collectors" and "hunters" we find a lot of corpses that were obviously sprayed with bullets in a fashion you would only think an Ork on the waaaghh path would be capable of.

So is it an issue that needs regulation if it is such a small number? Are licenses issued that state automatic weapons may not be used?

There is no state in this country that allows hunting with automatic weapons. Most (maybe all) states won't allow you to hold anymore then 4 bullets in your gun when hunting.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
One problem that can show up with "hunting to supplement food" is the cost of processing the deer. It's something that can be subsidized by the state, but it's something to think about. Maybe give out vouchers for processing together with deer tags.

Processing deer isn't really all that hard to do yourself, and it's a safe bet that most who'd "welfare" hunt would process it themselves.

I know that I've been interested in hunting, but I've never done it so far. So I wouldn't know that much about processing or wouldn't have all the tools needed for it (no way to make ground meat for example). For somebody like me that would be a road block and processing would be helpful.

@Relapse: I can see the "no deer jerky" rule and other rules for "snack" type processing options similar to some WIC restrictions.

Now I'm really confused...

Why couldn't you "jerky" them? Isn't that a good way to stretch out the meat?

My guess is either:

- a nutritional thing (maybe too much salt and stuff)
- making Jerky goes beyond processing the meat (since now you are actually making food, and some WIC programs don't allow for pre-packaged meals and only let you get ingredients)
- Meat has to be turned into a meal (with sides), and Jerky isn't a 'meat dish' (aka: You're not going to have Jerky or potatoes)

Probably a mix of the above though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Pony meat is best horse meat.

Edit: That was not an MLP jab...

Horse meat is pretty tasty, and makes for great sausage.

I don't get the taboo here...

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I know I will get pounced on for this but It would be nice to at least restrict the use of automatic weapons for hunting, the area around my farm sometimes sounds like fething normandy landings.

Hunters also love to try and get around private property laws by saying they were "threatened" by a wild animal and "had" to flee into your farmland.

Forgive my ignorance, but how common is it for an automatic weapon to be used when hunting?

According to the Game Wardens I've meet, it's actually rare.

Although, poachers is ALWAYS an issue.

As to OP: Deers are a fething pest where I live. (it's my fault I've moved there I guess). I can't do any landscaping w/o fearing whether or not the deers would eat the plants.

Interestingly... today is the last day of archery Deer hunting in MO. I can just open up my back door and plink a deer right in my yard....

There is a number of things you could do. If you have flowers and plants for scenery, you could spray some cayenne pepper on the plants. Deer will not touch them. If you've got a vegetable garden their messing with, post stakes around it, and tie some plastic bags, or police tape to them. The movement and sound will spook them and keep them away.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
We have had several pet deaths in the area thanks to overzealous and unregulated hunting.

Its really sad and annoying. Freaked my little brother out after our dog almost got shot.

Yeesh, that's bad.

I know I will get pounced on for this but It would be nice to at least restrict the use of automatic weapons for hunting, the area around my farm sometimes sounds like fething normandy landings.

Hunters also love to try and get around private property laws by saying they were "threatened" by a wild animal and "had" to flee into your farmland.

Hunting with automatic weapons is illegal anywhere I know of. Aside from that, anything shot with one wouldn't be worth eating. If those really are machine guns you hear, you have some truly whacked out individuals stalking about that should be reported.

People have horses for pets, and enjoy riding them, etc. Not a hard taboo to understand, I think. Just like pet owners think eating dogs and cats is taboo.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I know I will get pounced on for this but It would be nice to at least restrict the use of automatic weapons for hunting, the area around my farm sometimes sounds like fething normandy landings.

Hunters also love to try and get around private property laws by saying they were "threatened" by a wild animal and "had" to flee into your farmland.

Forgive my ignorance, but how common is it for an automatic weapon to be used when hunting?

According to the Game Wardens I've meet, it's actually rare.

Although, poachers is ALWAYS an issue.

As to OP: Deers are a fething pest where I live. (it's my fault I've moved there I guess). I can't do any landscaping w/o fearing whether or not the deers would eat the plants.

Interestingly... today is the last day of archery Deer hunting in MO. I can just open up my back door and plink a deer right in my yard....

There is a number of things you could do. If you have flowers and plants for scenery, you could spray some cayenne pepper on the plants. Deer will not touch them. If you've got a vegetable garden their messing with, post stakes around it, and tie some plastic bags, or police tape to them. The movement and sound will spook them and keep them away.

If you didn't put out so many salt licks...

 kronk wrote:
People have horses for pets, and enjoy riding them, etc. Not a hard taboo to understand, I think. Just like pet owners think eating dogs and cats is taboo.

That's the main drive behind my not wanting to eat horse. In our culture/society, they are a pet. I'd be no more likely to eat horse then I would dogs or domestic cats.

Now I have eaten horse before. Was in a sushi house in Japan and I wasn't paying attention and mistook it for Tuna.

 d-usa wrote:


My guess is either:

- a nutritional thing (maybe too much salt and stuff)
- making Jerky goes beyond processing the meat (since now you are actually making food, and some WIC programs don't allow for pre-packaged meals and only let you get ingredients)
- Meat has to be turned into a meal (with sides), and Jerky isn't a 'meat dish' (aka: You're not going to have Jerky or potatoes)

Probably a mix of the above though...

Hmmm... good point.

I'm in the camp if someone wants to hunt food, especially since they're poor... I wouldn't want anything to stop them.

 Frazzled wrote:
You know an "automatic weapon" is a machine gun right? I've never heard of hunting with a machine gun.

I know what an automatic weapon is. I just doubt very much that they are used in hunting so often that they need to be regulated beyond the current legal position

 djones520 wrote:
There is no state in this country that allows hunting with automatic weapons. Most (maybe all) states won't allow you to hold anymore then 4 bullets in your gun when hunting.

Yeah, that fits in roughly with the little I know about hunting in IN.

Relapse wrote:
Hunting with automatic weapons is illegal anywhere I know of. Aside from that, anything shot with one wouldn't be worth eating. If those really are machine guns you hear, you have some truly whacked out individuals stalking about that should be reported.

And hunting with a firearm on fully automatic strikes me as a great way to waste bullets.


So what I'm hearing is that we need more regulation to make an illegal action, more illegal.

I think he's likely confusing semi-auto with auto actually.

 djones520 wrote:

There is a number of things you could do. If you have flowers and plants for scenery, you could spray some cayenne pepper on the plants. Deer will not touch them. If you've got a vegetable garden their messing with, post stakes around it, and tie some plastic bags, or police tape to them. The movement and sound will spook them and keep them away.

Yeah, my neighbors do that... but, the fething critters/deer always mess them up.

One nieghbor actually built a huge pen just for their garden... ugly assed setup.

I live right next to this place:
http://www.stlouisco.com/ParksandRecreation/ParkPages/SiouxPassage

See this map:
https://maps.google.com/?q=38.860433+-90.273760+(Pelican+Island,+St.+Louis+County,+MO)&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=14&ll=38.860433,-90.273760&source=embed
I live next to that big assed Island... the water is shallow on the MO side... that's where we get the "herd".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Not common in other areas, as my uncle is a game warden in colorado and I myself have been hunting before.

In my home area though there's a big overlap of gun "collectors" and "hunters" we find a lot of corpses that were obviously sprayed with bullets in a fashion you would only think an Ork on the waaaghh path would be capable of.

So is it an issue that needs regulation if it is such a small number? Are licenses issued that state automatic weapons may not be used?

I think it just stems more from the fact noone in my area really cares. Sure some people do, but theres a reason were selling that house......

My thoughts on hunting have been spoiled by my old scout buddies. They where the guys who where the kindd to kill and not eat. I remember one of them complaining about his uncle, how made him eat everything he killed and he considered that crazy. Then came the thing I hated the most. They ran up with a giant fish, cool nice catch. They then bash it with a stick, shove a stick in it. Cool eat it, poor fish though. I head to bed, wake up, fish is still there, not eaten. I dont mind hunting, but i hate hunting for pure sport.

See, that line of thinking makes no sense.

"I know people who did it wrong, so I just don't like it."

I mean me personally hunting. Seeing that just put me off it. I dont care if you hunt for food, even if you dont need it. but killing an animal for pure joy and to prove something is just wrong. Hell I still fish from time to time. I just take a pic real quick and throw them bacl

Relapse wrote:
A co worker has a brother who is on welfare in Kentucky or Tennessee, I can't remember which, but the state gives him and others like him that know how to hunt about 12 deer tags a year and lets them begin hunting before deer season.

Who says government can do nothing good? This is an excellent policy. That means the legislators who crafted it will be doomed to obscurity.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm pretty sure we're one of deer's natural predators.

Exalted.

 d-usa wrote:
One problem that can show up with "hunting to supplement food" is the cost of processing the deer.

A lot of folks still know how to do this and do it. I suppose it could be incorporated into a hunter safety courses, too

 d-usa wrote:
So I wouldn't know that much about processing or wouldn't have all the tools needed for it (no way to make ground meat for example).

We used to do it with a simple hand crank grinder.

All you need to process an animal is a good sharp knife really. Pruning shears are also adequate for any bones that need to be cut through(the big ones for cutting small branches)

 Frazzled wrote:
I think he's likely confusing semi-auto with auto actually.

See, I went immediately to "fib."

 Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think he's likely confusing semi-auto with auto actually.

See, I went immediately to "fib."

I can't say that you were the only one with that reaction

@Manchu: those all seem like pretty good solutions. So possibly a course for welfare recipients interested in supplementing with hunting, making sure that they know how to process the animal (testing them and/or training them) and providing them with the basic tools if needed (and maybe a chest-style freezer).

 kronk wrote:
People have horses for pets, and enjoy riding them, etc. Not a hard taboo to understand, I think. Just like pet owners think eating dogs and cats is taboo.

I've had pet dogs and cats for most of my life, I'd still try the meat if I ever got the chance.

Then... you're weird!

 Soladrin wrote:

 kronk wrote:
People have horses for pets, and enjoy riding them, etc. Not a hard taboo to understand, I think. Just like pet owners think eating dogs and cats is taboo.

I've had pet dogs and cats for most of my life, I'd still try the meat if I ever got the chance.

I think if you offered me dog meat I'd pistol whip you for awhile.

People also keep cows for pets...and pigs...

That's dumb. Cow and pig are tasty!

Yep, I'd love to have a pet pig. Doesn't mean I'll stop eating bacon.

Cows as pets, that's just weird though.

 kronk wrote:
That's dumb. Cow and pig are tasty!

My mother-in-law had one of those tiny pet-pigs that would run around the house.

We would always feed it ham and bacon...

 d-usa wrote:

 kronk wrote:
That's dumb. Cow and pig are tasty!

My mother-in-law had one of those tiny pet-pigs that would run around the house.

We would always feed it ham and bacon...

That's not right...

 d-usa wrote:

 kronk wrote:
That's dumb. Cow and pig are tasty!

My mother-in-law had one of those tiny pet-pigs that would run around the house.

We would always feed it ham and bacon...

I wonder if that would concentrate the flavour?

You can cook bacon-wrapped pork-chops, why not cut out the middleman!

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 kronk wrote:
That's dumb. Cow and pig are tasty!

My mother-in-law had one of those tiny pet-pigs that would run around the house.

We would always feed it ham and bacon...

That's not right...

Pigs are cannibalistic, and so are chickens. So feeding them their own meat isn't unnatural as you think.

Pigs also make great pets. Way smarter than any other pet you could have. They're naturally potty trained(pigs habitually go in the same place so you just need to establish where it is), can see in color, love belly rubs and baths(preferably at the same time), and its something nobody else on your block would have I guarantee.

Pigs are cool, especially the tiny ones


To the eating of dogs and cats, many people, who do not even own them, consider them pets. And like many people consider pets as family. Maybe they think if you are eating a pet animal you could possibly be eating someones family member?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 kronk wrote:
That's dumb. Cow and pig are tasty!

My mother-in-law had one of those tiny pet-pigs that would run around the house.

We would always feed it ham and bacon...

That's not right...

Pigs are cannibalistic, and so are chickens. So feeding them their own meat isn't unnatural as you think.

Pigs also make great pets. Way smarter than any other pet you could have. They're naturally potty trained(pigs habitually go in the same place so you just need to establish where it is), can see in color, love belly rubs and baths(preferably at the same time), and its something nobody else on your block would have I guarantee.

I used to work on a pig farm in Iowa and can say you are correct on all counts. We once had a 150 pound pig that got in with a pen of much larger ones overnight. There was not a lot left of it the next day, just a scrap here and there. On the other side of the coin we had a couple of pigs we raised from when they were piglettes. They were some of the most loving and affectionate animals I have ever seen.

 kronk wrote:
Then... you're weird!

Or Korean

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Pigs are cool, especially the tiny ones


To the eating of dogs and cats, many people, who do not even own them, consider them pets. And like many people consider pets as family. Maybe they think if you are eating a pet animal you could possibly be eating someones family member?

While I like cats, I have no problem with people eating them if they wanted. The same goes for dogs, horses, or any other "pet" animal.

The idea that an animal can't legally be eaten because its a "pet" is rather silly and arbitrary. We've got way too many stray cats and dogs, and horses, without homes in this country. If someone wants to eat one, provided the animal isn't owned by someone else, I don't see why not.

Mankind has eaten dogs for thousands of years.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Mankind has eaten dogs for thousands of years.

Still do, if you go to the right restaurant

 Grey Templar wrote:


Mankind has eaten dogs for thousands of years.

Im justt giving an idea. And many place do serve horse and cat and I think dog around here(Atleast wolf)
You are just required by law to say you serve it on the outside, so people know

 Alexzandvar wrote:
We have had several pet deaths in the area thanks to overzealous and unregulated hunting.

Its really sad and annoying. Freaked my little brother out after our dog almost got shot.

Where do you live that there are imbeciles like that??!?

Where I am, hunters respect the prey and the environment, as well as keeping good neighbors (making friends with the farmers is really important if you want to hunt on their land). Before you are allowed to get a license, you have to take a hunters safety course. I went through it with my daughter when it was her turn to take the class.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
We have had several pet deaths in the area thanks to overzealous and unregulated hunting.

Its really sad and annoying. Freaked my little brother out after our dog almost got shot.

Where do you live that there are imbeciles like that??!?

Where I am, hunters respect the prey and the environment, as well as keeping good neighbors (making friends with the farmers is really important if you want to hunt on their land). Before you are allowed to get a license, you have to take a hunters safety course. I went through it with my daughter when it was her turn to take the class.

You have morons in all pursuits. I had a friend that had a horse shot out from under him by a deer hunter here in Utah. Back in Maine, where I used to live, several years ago there was a man who thought it would be clever to drape himself in deer skins and antlers in order to get close for better shooting. He got shot. Score one for Darwin.

How do you confuse a horse with a guy onetop of him with a deer?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How do you confuse a horse with a guy onetop of him with a deer?

see patch of fur, line up sight, shoot. dead horse.