Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's called hunting.


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

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?

Ovaries are not as tasty in stew either...

 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.

 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.

SOCIAL JUSTICE MAN TO THE RESCUE!

What ever would this thread have done without your interjection.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.[/quote
Well, one answer could well be "because we won't let them get their own meat".

The other could be "because the town spend $180,000 on sterilizing deer instead of spending it on hungry families".

 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