I've never been a big hunter or fisherman, but I intend to start when I get to NH. Are any of our members involved in hunting and fishing?
Kevin
I love to fish. look forward to finding out the fishing tricks of NH.
I have not hunted in years, but would lke to start again.
In order to to any hunting one must have access to land. Here in WI, land for hunting is pretty much all wrapped up. If you own some then you are sitting pretty (as long as the land is good hunting land at least) but if you don't then it is nigh impossible to find landowners who either will let ANYONE hunt there (hunting is bad 'm-kay! -and guns are even worse!) and if they are not anti-gun/hunting then they are already hunting it themselves or have family/friends who have already snapped up the rights to it.
Going and asking for hunting privileges door to door is a fruitless and frustrating endeavor. Some people have the nack for it and can spot the pro-gun pro-hunting childless retired and too-old to hunt/enjoy their land and are willing to let strangers use their land type. I'm not.
I hope to be able to someday purchase some decent hunting land in NH.
Deer hunting is a religion amongst the rural folk in WI more so than any other game sport besides perhaps fishing which is more spread out. But with the wave of city-folk buying up rural lots and sub-dividing lots and just plain not liking rural joys of firearms and hunting those of us who still enjoy it are hard-pressed to find a place to do it anymore.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 16, 2005, 06:31 PM NHFT
I've never been a big hunter or fisherman, but I intend to start when I get to NH. Are any of our members involved in hunting and fishing?
Kevin
If I can get a permit to hunt bear in NH, I'll do it. Otherwise, I'll likely just take up fishing. I am a little behind you, though. I wasn't born till 81 :)
You can hunt on state park land in NH.
As I understand it, it's considered downright rude and un-neighborly in NH to post your land against hunting. That means you can hunt practically everywhere, even on other people's property, because very few properties are posted.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 16, 2005, 11:11 PM NHFT
As I understand it, it's considered downright rude and un-neighborly in NH to post your land against hunting. That means you can hunt practically everywhere, even on other people's property, because very few properties are posted.
Are you talking about what happened in Dalton? Even if there was no government hunting land, just become friends with hunters...
Quote from: TN-FSP on November 16, 2005, 11:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 16, 2005, 11:11 PM NHFT
As I understand it, it's considered downright rude and un-neighborly in NH to post your land against hunting. That means you can hunt practically everywhere, even on other people's property, because very few properties are posted.
Are you talking about what happened in Dalton? Even if there was no government hunting land, just become friends with hunters...
I don't know what happened in Dalton.
This is just something I picked up last year while I was researching NH. It could have been from the FSP info pages, or it could have been from somewhere else. It struck me how different it is from here, where the only way to hunt is to belong to a hunting club that leases exclusive hunting rights from landowners with very large holdings (frequently timber farms of 400+ acres). The problem is finding a vacancy and buying into it (if you pass muster with the club). It's a fine free market solution, but I'm not interested in spending hundreds of dollars every year, plus a "work day" every month maintaining the lease, in exchange for a few days of hunting every fall. I like venison, but I can buy it cheaper than that!
The only alternative is to hunt the very few public lands, such as Corps of Engineers land. There's a lot more public land in Arkansas, where there are about 2 million acres of National Forest, but out of state licenses are expensive, and people can get persnickety about hunting "their" part of the forest. Not to mention the very real danger of stumbling into boobytraps set up to protect marijuana plots or meth labs.
I have threatened from time to time to clean out the tree rats in our back yard, but they're so small I don't think I could kill enough for a decent batch of squirrel dumplings. I'm not kidding -- our pet rat was bigger than most of these critters.
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on November 16, 2005, 11:11 PM NHFT
As I understand it, it's considered downright rude and un-neighborly in NH to post your land against hunting. That means you can hunt practically everywhere, even on other people's property, because very few properties are posted.
That would be a problem for me. Little Ms. Territorial and all. Plus I don't want strangers with guns on my property. In fact, I'd probably consider them a threat and shoot at them.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-2nd. I just don't trust others' competencies. Just because a person has a right to have a gun doesn't mean I should trust everyone to be capable of using it without accidentally shooting up my house (or my dog, or my truck, or...)
Driving along I-393 in Concord the weekend bow hunting opened there were 10 cars parked along the side of the road. Hunters park there and walk down into the woods. Many of them have tree stands stashed for annual use.
Yes, I did say "?n Concord." The city is 64 sq miles with 45,000 people so there is lots of open space.
It's worth pointing out that "towns" (and cities) in NH amount to "small counties". Everything is divided up, from a time where 10 miles was a long day's walk.
There is, theoretically, unincorporated land in NH. But the reality is that the entire state is incorporated, just waiting on you to register,
Kevin
In NH if it's not posted, you can hunt.
So people don't respect private property in NH??????
OMG -where I come from you don't go on private land without permission -PERIOD.
AFAIC you can shoot someone who is trespassing -it's a serious violation of the ZAP.
There are tax abatements available for leaving your land open for recreational use, which serve as a disincentive against posting "no trespassing" signs.
Quote from: polyanarch on November 17, 2005, 08:47 AM NHFT
So people don't respect private property in NH??????
Sure they do. Post your land against hunting and trespassing, and they'll respect that.
You'll lose your "current use" tax status, and any chance of being friendly with your neighbors, though.
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on November 17, 2005, 11:00 AM NHFT
You'll lose your "current use" tax status, and any chance of being friendly with your neighbors, though.
I doubt the latter would be true. Although if you built a Great Wall around your property, I suppose the neighbors might think you're a little odd...
If you're a reasonable person, most folks will be reasonable in their dealings with you -- I hope and expect this is even more true in the Free State than in more statist states. BTW, shooting anybody who stumbles onto your property does not strike me as reasonable (unless of course you DO build a Great Wall and somebody is stupid enough to breach it). If somebody breaks into your house in the middle of the night, by all means shoot first and ask questions later, but discretion had better be pretty darned important when you're talking about taking a person's life.
Quote from: AlanM on November 17, 2005, 08:13 AM NHFT
In NH if it's not posted, you can hunt.
You should always ask permission from the landowner whether it's posted or not. As for the rude/unneighborly thing, that's giving way to safety and practicality in a lot of areas. Within the last year, my neighbors across the street have had two bullets enter their house through an exterior wall. A nearby property was unposted and people were target practicing in a sand pit. My neighbors have a young child and spoke to the landowner, an elderly gentleman, who immediately posted the land. In nearby Berwick, ME, a family dog was shot by a hunter while on its leash in its back yard. A relative of mine used to complain all the time about hunters entering his land on four wheelers with no permission and leaving trash lying around. Neighborly or not, I've met too many idiots to trust random people with guns on my land.
There are still a ton of public and private hunting areas in the state. An early-morning drive through most of our towns will show you where people go -- you'll see the trucks on the sides of the road.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 17, 2005, 11:00 AM NHFT
Quote from: polyanarch on November 17, 2005, 08:47 AM NHFT
So people don't respect private property in NH??????
Sure they do. Post your land against hunting and trespassing, and they'll respect that.
You'll lose your "current use" tax status, and any chance of being friendly with your neighbors, though.
Kevin
That's not entirely true. You get more of a reduction in your assessment for allowing hunting, but there's absolutely nothing requiring you to allow hunting on land that is in current use.
It's also worth noting that you can hunt on posted land with permission of the landowner. Establish trust with your neighbors, ask permission, respect their wishes, and you're all set.
They need more hunters!
Deer and People Clash in Minnesota
By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 18, 5:05 AM ET
ST. PAUL, Minn. - So many deer inhabit the area around Pig's Eye Lake just east of St. Paul that one frustrated local official has compared them to unwanted vermin.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a recent aerial survey of the 11-square-mile, mostly residential area, county biologists expecting to find about 100 deer instead counted more than 500. Some of the hooved creatures have been wandering into town, showing up at places like the emergency entrance of Regions Hospital and in front of the pro hockey arena.
Most notably, a big buck broke several windows at the state Capitol before bounding just a few feet away from Gov. Tim Pawlenty and his startled security detail.
"They're just everywhere. You see them every day," said Kathy Lantry, a city councilwoman who represents the area Pig's Eye Lake area. "They've become like rats."
The problem of deer encroaching on cities and suburbs is not new, with some communities considering everything from hiring sharpshooters to deer contraception to cut down the populations.
Earlier this month, a man in Bentonville, Ark., struggled with a deer for nearly 40 minutes after it crashed into his daughter's bedroom, ultimately killing it with his bare hands. A few days earlier, authorities in Helena, Mont., killed four deer that had harassed a newspaper carrier.
Deer flourish in forest areas where there is development but no sport hunting or natural predators and food is plentiful in the form of weeds and residential landscaping.
John Moriarty, natural resource manager for St. Paul's Ramsey County, said residents of deer-heavy areas usually start out liking their hooved neighbors because it seems a little exotic.
"For a long period of time, people were willing to tolerate a little bit of damage, but then you hit people's breaking point," he said. "Then they become the bad, nasty deer that everyone wants to get rid of."
Deer wander on to highways and get hit by cars, 15,000 a year in Minnesota alone. They also damage gardens, lawns and crops, spread Lyme disease and disrupt habitat for species ranging from nesting songbirds to forest vegetation.
"You can't plant anything. They eat it all," said Ann Mueller, who until recently lived near Pig's Eye Lake. At certain times of the year she said she saw deer daily.
Later this month, a sharpshooter hired by Ramsey County will take to the woods to thin the herds around Pig's Eye Lake, a Mississippi River backwater. The goal is to kill about 200 does to both bring down current numbers and reduce future reproduction.
There will be little sport to what Tony DeNicola, president of Connecticut-based White Buffalo Inc., will do when he carries out the project.
For several weeks, he will drop bait at the same time each day to train deer to come to areas where can safely shoot them. He said he typically shoots from a tree or vehicle.
If 200 deer are killed, that means about 10,000 pounds of venison for local food shelves, Moriarty said.
But some oppose this means of thinning the deer population.
In Columbia Heights, a Minneapolis suburb, residents a few years ago formed the "Coalition to Save Our Deer" after the state Department of Natural Resources proposed letting bow hunters into a fenced-off reservoir where a herd of deer had been trapped by post-Sept. 11 security measures.
Hoping to avoid controversy, states like New York and Ohio have had some success shooting does with darts charged with contraceptives. Animal rights groups have advocated wider use ? but that in turn has prompted criticism.
"It just takes forever and it's expensive," said DeNicola. "You contracept a deer and it's still out running around in the field, it can still get hit by a car."
However, John Hadidian, director of urban wildlife programs for the Humane Society of the United States, said he believes the strongest opposition to deer birth control has come from hunters who are afraid populations will decline too much.
"That gets enabled by state fish and game agencies that depend on hunting license revenue for their operations," Hadidian said.
I'm a hunter, but I've got friends who own a lot of land.
By the way TN-FSP, you can get a bear tag added to you NH hunting license for 5.00$, you can bait and dog hunt bears in most parts of the state. Moose permits are issued by lottery only(odds are about 1 in 20.
I'm worried about how much of the state is going shotgun/handgun only. I realize that there are some areas in the East of the state, where it would be dangerous to discharge a rifle, but there is already the 100 yard regulation for that. When a whole town goes shotgun only, it bring the situation in Massachusettes to mind. There are parts of every town where you should not be shooting, and parts of almost every town where it is reasonable to do so.
The NRA started an offshoot organization to defend hunting rights. I think that it's called Free Hunters.
Anyone should always ask permission before stepping across someone's property line. If you live by the system that supports a division of owned land--which is a ludicrous concept in and of itself anyway--then you would be a hypocrite in not observing the ettiquete of asking permission to pass.
If you're a "sportsman," and you come onto my property, I probably won't shoot you, but you'll end up either severely injured or hanging upside down in a tree. I figure, if you're going to call killing animals a sport, even though they don't have guns and don't know the rules, then I'll level the playing ground a bit.
However, if you're an actual hunter who makes his own bow, spear, or whatnot, and hunts with skill rather than technology, as well as utilizes every part of the animal for food, clothing, and tools, and you can show me that you can interpret tracks and identify a particular animal at any given time by its footprints, then you may have a slight chance at passing through. I just don't see it happening. I only know one guy around here who can do that anyway.
-M
Always nice to have folks stop by and threaten us.
Quote from: Pat K on September 18, 2006, 06:44 PM NHFT
Always nice to have folks stop by and threaten us.
And it's always nice to see a "sportsman" dislocate his ankle when he goes tromping through the woods, trespassing with rifles and scopes and compound bows to kill trophy animals from long, disconnected distances with a ridiculous crutch of technology for only the meat--and a typically poorly placed shot at that--while the rest of the animal is desecrated and disregarded when he could have just gone to the supermarket instead of messing around with population dynamics and social structure of something the federal government doesn't really understand.
If the proverbial shoe fits . . .
-M
Only if he can hunt beer on your property
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on September 18, 2006, 07:26 PM NHFT
Only if he can hunt beer on your property
Nah; the "sportsmen" usually pack that in, then they often leave the carcasses lying around afterward.
I'll admit, there are some guys that have respect and reverence for what Nature provides--but it's rare.
I see three types:
"Sportsmen" -- Have no use for appreciating wildlife or Nature beyond what they can conquer or take without true skill or reverence.
"Hunters" -- Really appreciate what they're given, and give thanks to the amazing gift of life that they are given, but don't understand the depths of spirit involved in the exchange because they were never taught. Our society doesn't tend to pass on that part of the skill.
"Caretakers" -- Invest their hearts into making the right spear, the right bow, their own arrows, by understanding and appreciating the materials Nature provides, and how important it is to be part of the whole event beyond the shallow act of killing. Caretakers take in a way that makes the herd healthier so there is provision for the future generations of both deer and humans. Caretakers wouldn't disrespect another creature by using only part of its gift and tossing the rest aside. It would be the same as treating a family member in such fashion. It's not a sport with a season like football. It's a way of life.
The government, however, doesn't see it that way. Sport hunting supports the government. Yes, some money goes toward preservation of lands, but only in a way that preserves the economic viablity of hunting revenue. The deeper affect of altering the land and all creatures indirectly involved is ignored. It's far too complicated for a people who do not live closely with the land to be the ones to trust to take care of the land. In fact, it's downright ludicrous. But we do it while we live in this modern system.
-M
Quote from: Mark on November 17, 2005, 03:01 PM NHFT
Neighborly or not, I've met too many idiots to trust random people with guns on my land.
My point exactly.
Quote from: Malsem on September 18, 2006, 07:10 PM NHFT
Quote from: Pat K on September 18, 2006, 06:44 PM NHFT
Always nice to have folks stop by and threaten us.
And it's always nice to see a "sportsman" dislocate his ankle when he goes tromping through the woods, trespassing with rifles and scopes and compound bows to kill trophy animals from long, disconnected distances with a ridiculous crutch of technology for only the meat--and a typically poorly placed shot at that--while the rest of the animal is desecrated and disregarded when he could have just gone to the supermarket instead of messing around with population dynamics and social structure of something the federal government doesn't really understand.
If the proverbial shoe fits . . .
-M
Well have a nice life.
Quote from: Malsem on September 18, 2006, 07:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on September 18, 2006, 07:26 PM NHFT
Only if he can hunt beer on your property
Nah; the "sportsmen" usually pack that in, then they often leave the carcasses lying around afterward.
I'll admit, there are some guys that have respect and reverence for what Nature provides--but it's rare.
I see three types:
"Sportsmen" -- Have no use for appreciating wildlife or Nature beyond what they can conquer or take without true skill or reverence.
"Hunters" -- Really appreciate what they're given, and give thanks to the amazing gift of life that they are given, but don't understand the depths of spirit involved in the exchange because they were never taught. Our society doesn't tend to pass on that part of the skill.
"Caretakers" -- Invest their hearts into making the right spear, the right bow, their own arrows, by understanding and appreciating the materials Nature provides, and how important it is to be part of the whole event beyond the shallow act of killing. Caretakers take in a way that makes the herd healthier so there is provision for the future generations of both deer and humans. Caretakers wouldn't disrespect another creature by using only part of its gift and tossing the rest aside. It would be the same as treating a family member in such fashion. It's not a sport with a season like football. It's a way of life.
The government, however, doesn't see it that way. Sport hunting supports the government. Yes, some money goes toward preservation of lands, but only in a way that preserves the economic viablity of hunting revenue. The deeper affect of altering the land and all creatures indirectly involved is ignored. It's far too complicated for a people who do not live closely with the land to be the ones to trust to take care of the land. In fact, it's downright ludicrous. But we do it while we live in this modern system.
-M
I've never been a hunter, for some of these reasons. There are some valid points raised here.
Our family was not a family of hunters nor were any of my friends. I think it's a skill that everyone should have, though particularly in the "caretaker" point of reference.
Quote from: Insurgent on September 18, 2006, 09:15 PM NHFT
I've never been a hunter, for some of these reasons. There are some valid points raised here.
Our family was not a family of hunters nor were any of my friends. I think it's a skill that everyone should have, though particularly in the "caretaker" point of reference.
Imagine if children learned this way of life, this respect, through community. The reality of living with what we are given--what is real--and not for want or greed or
more.
What if they were taught this sense of being not only part of a community that is based upon family, but is part of something so much bigger than video games, money, or status? What if they learned that although life must be taken for life to continue, that all life is sacred? Not in the simple way that we all hear and say in the compulsory, "all life is valuable; you shouldn't kill things" when a kid squashes an insect or shoots a bird, but in a way that they feel a sense of place in the community, a community that has a place in the real world, not based upon material things and instant gratifications.
In the reality of Nature, there is no delineation of ranks of life. It just is. There is no difference between the death of a plant, a fish, a deer, a human. Only our perception of value and fear of mortality challenges this. However there is no separation. Not only would the skills enable the children to survive if they needed, but they would enable the children to become closer to what is real, and find their true place.
I have found no greater freedom in this. And society strives to strip it away. The children deserve the option, at the very least.
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 18, 2006, 09:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on September 18, 2006, 09:15 PM NHFT
I've never been a hunter, for some of these reasons. There are some valid points raised here.
Our family was not a family of hunters nor were any of my friends. I think it's a skill that everyone should have, though particularly in the "caretaker" point of reference.
Imagine if children learned this way of life, this respect, through community. The reality of living with what we are given--what is real--and not for want or greed or more.
What if they were taught this sense of being not only part of a community that is based upon family, but is part of something so much bigger than video games, money, or status? What if they learned that although life must be taken for life to continue, that all life is sacred? Not in the simple way that we all hear and say in the compulsory, "all life is valuable; you shouldn't kill things" when a kid squashes an insect or shoots a bird, but in a way that they feel a sense of place in the community, a community that has a place in the real world, not based upon material things and instant gratifications.
In the reality of Nature, there is no delineation of ranks of life. It just is. There is no difference between the death of a plant, a fish, a deer, a human. Only our perception of value and fear of mortality challenges this. However there is no separation. Not only would the skills enable the children to survive if they needed, but they would enable the children to become closer to what is real, and find their true place.
I have found no greater freedom in this. And society strives to strip it away. The children deserve the option, at the very least.
-M
Excellent thoughts. Thank you.
Speaking of deer hunting, bow season opened 9-15 and closes 12-15. You can buy one license anytime as long as you already have had a previous bow license. If you've never had one, you'll have to wait until next year to take a bow hunter safety class.
Muzzle loader season will open 10/28 and close 11/7.
Regular rifle opens 11/8 - 11/26.
Moose hunting is by permit and lottery which has already been drawn for the year.
Small game hunting starts 10/1 for grouse, pheasant, rabbit.
Addition: Unlike some states, NH allows hunting on Sunday!
(Info thanks to Bill, the hunter)
I have no quibble with bow hunting. But, I'm pretty sure I've never before seen anyone advocate bowhunting or spears, as opposed to guns, out of concern for the animals' welfare.
Even a well-placed bow shot results in a relatively slow death, taking several minutes of panicked flight for blood loss to take its toll. That's far better than the death that results from disease, starvation, or predation.
A poor shot is a poor shot, whether by bow or by gun. A poor bow shot results in a far worse result for the animal.
I understand the sportsman/hunter/caretaker descriptions, but I disagree that "sportsmen" are mostly slobs. In my part of the country, there is no "hunting", only "harvesting". Hunters join private hunting clubs. They set in elevated stands, waiting for deer to approach feeders set at 30-100 yards. A missed shot is rare. Most hunting clubs are on leased timberlands of a thousand acres or more. Those enrolled in the game management program (most of them) can take up to a dozen deer, in a very extended season. Such harvest rates are required in the true caretaker role, to keep herds at healthy population levels.
That's not my style. I'd rather still-hunt, without bait, by learning the land and the game trails. But, I don't begrudge those who play a very important part in game management by culling does and spikes. They're meat hunters, not trophy hunters.
Kevin
That's all well and good until the zoning boards manned by people like Malsem, dripping contempt for hunters and huting, decide to put the hunting clubs out of business by attacking them with noise ordinances, zoning restrictions, and encroaching development.
Wow. You guys are so enveloped by the point that you're missing it.
There is no harvesting. There is no culling. There is no land control, population control, zoning, overpopulation, encroaching development in Nature. These are all concepts developed by modern humans to try to control something that cannot be controlled.
It's all tied in and very much a part of the system, run by a government that is not directly vested in the welfare of Nature beyond financial venue. All of these things stem from society. It is due to human intervention--and plain stupidity--that the populations were nearly eliminated only within the past 200 years are now outweighing carrying capacity of the environment that we keep mucking with. Kind of like our own population.
Like I said, if you're a hunter/sportsman, you support the government. You support the destruction of land and wildlife (masked by patches of "preservation-" and "conservation-"labeled cash-cows), and you support a cultural ignorance that treats life as a commodity. You're claiming in words that the government sucks, but then you're quite willingly supporting it in your actions and philosophy.
KBCraig, if you're thinking that the type of weapon is the determining factor of understanding the deeper levels of taking another's life, then you are not at all understanding the point. It's kind of like getting something for your mother for her birthday. You could either have your secretary purchase something and have it delivered; you could go buy a pre-made card and scarf; or you could carve her a beautiful something (or whatever your art may be).
The first is going to the grocery store: disconnected from the act altogether, yet reaping the benefit. The second is hunting with technology and lack of need for skill or spiritual investment. The third is investing your spirit, your heart, into the endeavor because you care.
-M
:laughing4: ::)
There aren't any computers in nature either maslem, but I see that you don't have a problem using one, consuming electricity produced primarily through the burning of fossil fuels. FYI humans are part of nature, we are an organism that is native to this ecosystem, how can the actions of a naturally occuring organism using naturally occuring material be "unnatural"? It's just a bunch of semantics.
I personally don't like when people try to justify the pursuit of hunting with things like using every part of the animal. There is no need for a human being to eat meat, just like there is no need to use toilet paper. One hunts because they want to. I personally think it's a mark of self deception when hunters say they don't like to kill animals, and do it out of necessity or a duty to that species. I know I like to shoot little fury animals, if I truley didn't, then I don't think that I would pursue it in my free time. I have no disdain for any animal species, if they are a nuisance to human beings, well they're just being themselves, and if I'm a predator of their's well I'm just being me. I certainly don't hold all life as sacred, humanity is what concerns me, actually I think it is quite "unnatural" for a human being to be deeply concerned about members of another species. Species exist to continue themselves and proliferate, bilogically it is your job to make more people, not save bambi.
People complain about technology making the pursuit too easy. It doesn't matter if you're using a Rifle, Bow, Muzzle Loader, or Spear. There's nothing fair about a tool user pursuing
Honestly I think hunting is a more humane way to obtain meat than the way the stuff in the grocerry store is obtained. Wild game doesn't spend it's life cooped up in a tiny stall or packed in with a few hundred other animals on an asphalt feed lot, a couple inches deep in their own waste. Wild game gets to do its think, reach a mature age frolicking or doing whatever it feels like doing, and then, Thwack, hit by a 180 grain bullet, and a couple days later it's on the table.
There was actually a really good episode of Bullshit that tore apart the animal rights folks.
I might go out for some duck/goose hunting this weekend. I'll remeber this thread when I'm squeezing off rounds from a highly advanced repeating shotgun that gives the fowl very little chance.
And maybe we're missin the point. Maslem is entitled to his/her own views on the relationship of animals to man. He/She is entitled to set rules on his/ her own property, and enforce them. Just remeber that there are some properties where crunchy PETA activists find themselves hanging from trees, for breaking the rules. Happened in Texas I think.
Quote from: citizen_142002 on September 20, 2006, 07:55 PM NHFT
There aren't any computers in nature either maslem, but I see that you don't have a problem using one, consuming electricity produced primarily through the burning of fossil fuels. FYI humans are part of nature, we are an organism that is native to this ecosystem, how can the actions of a naturally occuring organism using naturally occuring material be "unnatural"? It's just a bunch of semantics.
Yeah, you're the first one ever to say that. ::) It's the eremark of someone who hasn't thought things through.
Humans are native to Earth. Ecosystems are relative. Anything that does not contribute to or compromises the predetermined cycles of nature is not natural. Don't bother going into that rhetorical blather about using computers and fossil fuels--it's simplistic, naiive, and you're not ready for the feedback that comes with the topic.
QuoteI personally don't like when people try to justify the pursuit of hunting with things like using every part of the animal.
Then you certainly don't belong in the woods. Or anywhere with a weapon.
QuoteThere is no need for a human being to eat meat, just like there is no need to use toilet paper. One hunts because they want to.
Have you never taken a science class? Garbage.
QuoteI personally think it's a mark of self deception when hunters say they don't like to kill animals, and do it out of necessity or a duty to that species.
I don't know if I agree or disagree. This is confusing.
QuoteI know I like to shoot little fury animals, if I truley didn't, then I don't think that I would pursue it in my free time. I have no disdain for any animal species, if they are a nuisance to human beings, well they're just being themselves, and if I'm a predator of their's well I'm just being me.
Are you actually saying this? Dude, have you checked for radon?
QuoteI certainly don't hold all life as sacred, humanity is what concerns me, actually I think it is quite "unnatural" for a human being to be deeply concerned about members of another species. Species exist to continue themselves and proliferate, bilogically it is your job to make more people, not save bambi.
And this proves my point beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever. Humans should never fuck with nature. Thank you.
QuotePeople complain about technology making the pursuit too easy. It doesn't matter if you're using a Rifle, Bow, Muzzle Loader, or Spear. There's nothing fair about a tool user pursuing
Wow. We agree on something . . . kinda'.
QuoteHonestly I think hunting is a more humane way to obtain meat than the way the stuff in the grocerry store is obtained. Wild game doesn't spend it's life cooped up in a tiny stall or packed in with a few hundred other animals on an asphalt feed lot, a couple inches deep in their own waste. Wild game gets to do its think, reach a mature age frolicking or doing whatever it feels like doing, and then, Thwack, hit by a 180 grain bullet, and a couple days later it's on the table.
Again, I kind of agree with some of it, but all that's really missing from this post is the
<<pt-ding!>> of a spitoon in the background.
QuoteThere was actually a really good episode of Bullshit that tore apart the animal rights folks.
I might go out for some duck/goose hunting this weekend. I'll remeber this thread when I'm squeezing off rounds from a highly advanced repeating shotgun that gives the fowl very little chance.
Can't wait. ;)
QuoteAnd maybe we're missin the point. Maslem is entitled to his/her own views on the relationship of animals to man. He/She is entitled to set rules on his/ her own property, and enforce them. Just remeber that there are some properties where crunchy PETA activists find themselves hanging from trees, for breaking the rules. Happened in Texas I think.
Nah, you ain't missin' no damn dare point, Otis! Is jus you caint see dat damminall point 'cause ya dun sat on yer goose-gun agin. Get on up offa dat thing, Ote! It's all ajammin' up yer mind an' scramblin' yer brain, likin' that time yer sisterbruthacousinuncle was diddlin' with y'all in the clossit at the duck roastin'!
<<pt-ding!>> :o
QuoteAgain, I kind of agree with some of it, but all that's really missing from this post is the <<pt-ding!>> of a spitoon in the background.
Bigot.
Malsem, I find your statements very odd and disturbing. I definitely don't agree with this:
QuoteThere is no difference between the death of a plant, a fish, a deer, a human.
Also, IIRC, recurve bows and spears are not legal hunting implements. I don't think of hunting as a sport, rather as a way to get meat and leather/fur. I have hunted in the past because I like the taste of some types of game and it is usually leaner than what you can buy at the store. I don't hunt ducks because I don't like the way they taste. I haven't hunted in a few years because I haven't had enough time and money to do any. I don't drink alcoholic beverages before or during a hunt, and I don't take a shot unless I am certain that I will hit my intended target. (I have passed on far more shots than I have taken because I was not confident in the shot.) I disagree with many of the government's hunting regulations, but I follow them because I don't want to go to jail or lose my firearm. I would prefer to use a suppressed rifle when hunting in order to protect my hearing, but RSA 207:4 prohibits the use of suppressors for hunting. I will be more inclined to go hunting again if RSA 207:4 is repealed or if I scrape up enough money to buy a decent crossbow. I think that a person should use the best tools available to them when hunting in order to get the best shot possible safely. If you don't want hunters on your land, then post it. When I eventually get some land, plan to put signs on the perimeter that say something like "Please contact the owner of this property at ###-#### or id@server.com before entering." and "Caution, entering without permission could be hazardous to your health." because I like my privacy and would like to know when someone else is on my property. I would not shoot someone for entering my land unless I felt like my family was threatened by them. I fish in saltwater because I don't have to buy a license to do it legally.
Not how I fish: http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1147174117/Fishing_With_Rocket_Launchers (http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1147174117/Fishing_With_Rocket_Launchers)
Quote from: Defender of Liberty on September 20, 2006, 10:15 PM NHFT
Not how I fish: http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1147174117/Fishing_With_Rocket_Launchers (http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1147174117/Fishing_With_Rocket_Launchers)
Hey, that's PatK's theme song for me! ;D
I'm surprised that the minimum arming distance for an RPG is so short. My Mk.I eyeball says that was less than 20 meters. I sure wouldn't want to shoot a hard target at that range, while standing in the open!
Kevin
1 rocket for 1 fish seems this was high level ossifer planning.
Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. It's true. Prove it wrong or stop jabbering. You find my thoughts disturbing? Hey there, pot.
All life is sacred. But it makes sense that a species who barely made a slight transition into tolerance of skin colors still doesn't see the value of all living things because they "live" in a different way than we do. If they don't look like us, breathe like us, reproduce like us . . . they must not be as valuable as we are, right? Who's the bigot?
Your views on treating other living things that provide our very sustenance as commodities and things to be used instead of appreciated and respected; to be controlled instead of nurtured, is wholly sickening and twisted.
Stay out of my woods. You're nothing more than a carbon copy of the government you claim to disdain. Hypocrites.
-M
Here are some tidbits of information to chew on:
Humans no longer exist in an intimate relationship with the natural world. We no longer find a necessity in investing ourselves as stewards in the processes of the natural environment in order to survive. There is no ?giving and taking;? only taking. We have eliminated a need to depend upon our senses and grasp of natural relationships by developing technologies that distance us from any spiritual connection with the real world. Instead of depending upon the skills of understanding the environment and the creatures that live there, we have created agriculture and mass plant and animal augmentation so that our food is overproduced, over-tampered, and neatly packaged. This eliminates any need to invest ourselves in the transaction of one life for another, and it allows us to have more than we need while we remove ourselves from the roots of existence. This means we lose our fundamental level of our relative purpose on a personal and cultural perspective. America is statistically the ?fattest? of the countries, but gluttony and greed are pandemic.
Our senses are now torpid as we have designed our lifestyles to revolve around flattened sidewalks and pavements (pavements, which, by the way, leach about 10 billion gallons of oil into the oceans approximately every eight months), bombarded by advertising, televisions, radios, telephones, and too much synthetic or manufactured stimuli that do not act as a catalyst between ourselves and the natural world that sustains our lives. Our eyes?our dominant sense--are tunnel-visioned; our ears are stagnant of diffusion because we focus them into mechanical targets and lack the need and ability to utilize them beyond significant stimulation; our noses are all but deadened as we stuff them with perfumes, petroleum wastes, and myriad elements that have no bearing upon the synergy of senses for survival. In other words, we don?t live in a world in which our senses mean survival. We have created crutches, in fact, for our sensory deprived, and our physically handicapped. Coupled with our fear of mortality and our unnatural life extensions, we now have a planet overpopulated with a species that fosters its genetic shortcomings to the point that we are able to breed our weaknesses into our bloodlines and thrive. This means that we have breached the carrying capacity of a planet we poison, and we are essentially de-evolving, if not mutating. A study was done that showed how the thumbs of today?s children exhibit a marked increase in dexterity when compared to the dexterity of past generations. It is suggested that video games have much to do with this mutation.
Because of our gross lack of respect and reverence for the function and provision of the natural world, we have eliminated species from existence and caused damages in the waters, air, and earth that will persist for generations. This means we have sacrificed our children for our infantile instant gratifications. We have done more damage to the planet in the past 150 years than has been done over the past 10,000. We have made our water too toxic to drink freely. In fact, we are the only non-water-dwelling animal that defecates in its water on purpose.
In our desire to treat nature as a commodity, we have wiped out nearly all original forest from this (and now other) countries. Through succession and our continued raping of the land, as well as to generate revenue for the government through fishing and gaming, and in our introduction of foreign species via international travels, we have created our own cultural overpopulation of deer, mice, ticks, and mosquitoes, among other bacteria and viruses. And through lack of truly understanding the ramifications of hunting without being more closely tied to the creatures and the environment, we have tried to replace natural predators?that we have extirpated?without a true understanding of their roles and impacts. In other words, we know just enough about the environment to be dangerous. And we have proven it.
Now the unfortunate thing about this is that we teach our children the same mentality. So it doesn?t matter what kind of government we support or disdain; it doesn?t matter whether we form our own micro-nation under our very own government rule. As long as we support this spiritual deadening and technological progression, then we are not really solving a crucial issue.
The funny thing is, the more you argue with me, the more you show how tied and invested you are to this government and its propaganda than you would like to admit. Like I said, you support the government in action and philosophy, while you despise it in words.
By the way, can you think of another organism that spreads rapidly on its host, builds enormous, long term ?growths? on its host, multiplies exponentially, and causes mass, irreparable damage the way that we do?
Cancer.
Alright. Go ahead. I?ve cut my Ph.D. teeth on lawyers and military personnel over the past couple of decades with this, and everyone ends up discovering that they can?t argue with nature. Let?s see how far you want to take it instead of emptying your muddy cup and listening.
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 21, 2006, 07:10 AM NHFT
Stay out of my woods. You're nothing more than a carbon copy of the government you claim to disdain. Hypocrites.
Quote from: Malsem on September 21, 2006, 08:11 AM NHFT
Humans no longer exist in an intimate relationship with the natural world.
Unless you're living naked in the woods with no tools other than your own two hands, you're the hypocrite.
And since you disdain land ownership, how are they
your woods? You've publicly declared that Bad Things will happen to hunters who enter "your" land. Hypocrite!
Quote from: KBCraig on September 21, 2006, 10:44 AM NHFT
Unless you're living naked in the woods with no tools other than your own two hands, you're the hypocrite.
And since you disdain land ownership, how are they your woods? You've publicly declared that Bad Things will happen to hunters who enter "your" land. Hypocrite!
Wow. You're some kind of genius, eh?
Why don't you tell me how it's possible to accomplish that idea? You show me how someone could go off into the woods and live with a family without having to deal with trespassing issues, pollution that you support, idiots with guns chasing down animals, government intervention, i.e.--taking your children away for "not providing them with sufficient means of living," land destruction and development, or paying taxes and still integrating into the system by some fashion? Go ahead. You tell me where there's a place that's vast enough, will never be touched or infiltrated by reckless, careless humans or industry of some sort, where the hunting is free, the living conditions are viable, and there is no worry about interference of global pollutants, local impacts, introduced species and pathogens, and the like.
You let me know, genius.
The wilderness is like family to me, as it should be to you, too. I'm not claiming to own it. That's what modern society does. I'm claiming to protect it from destructive ignorance that runs rampant in our species. Your arguing with that indicates that you really don't give a damn about the welfare of life in the future, including your own progeny. That's messed up.
And if I did go, I would be doing nothing more than satisfying my own selfish gratification, just like this society does already. You're asking me to act in a manner that I abhor. You're asking me to abandon the welfare of not only my own grandchildren, but yours, as well, by disappearing and eliminating a resource available to them so that they can choose, eventually, to shift away from all these political agendas and segregations. In fact, what I'm getting back here is that your way is the best way, and anyone who doesn't like it can leave.
Sounds an awful lot like some governments I know.
Hypocrite.
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 21, 2006, 11:08 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on September 21, 2006, 10:44 AM NHFT
Unless you're living naked in the woods with no tools other than your own two hands, you're the hypocrite.
And since you disdain land ownership, how are they your woods? You've publicly declared that Bad Things will happen to hunters who enter "your" land. Hypocrite!
Wow. You're some kind of genius, eh?
Why don't you tell me how it's possible to accomplish that idea?
The burden is on you to show how it's possible, because
you're the one advocating it, you moron!
Nope. That's not how it works. I've explained the concept and delivered information. You challenged it (in an oh-so-logical manner); so now it's up to you to prove it wrong or prove it right.
I get this a lot from late-twenties, precocious, kids--usually college-types--who think they have the world all figured out. Maybe do some research before you dive too deeply into this arena.
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 21, 2006, 01:02 PM NHFT
I get this a lot from late-twenties, precocious, kids--usually college-types--who think they have the world all figured out.
I guess that gets Kevin off the hook. :P
Quote from: Dreepa on September 21, 2006, 07:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Malsem on September 21, 2006, 01:02 PM NHFT
I get this a lot from late-twenties, precocious, kids--usually college-types--who think they have the world all figured out.
I guess that gets Kevin off the hook. :P
Yeah, I only thought I had the world figured out 20 years ago. Unlike Malsem, I learned better.
No. No, you didn't.
And we're obviously not going to get anywhere here. You seem more interested in stirring up bullshit than approaching this logically. You are foundering with an inability to prove me wrong or counter my points, and it's obvious that you're skirting the topics now. Heck, even the lawyers, at least, put up a logical debate--convoluted, of course--but hardly juvenile.
I guess we'll just have to wait 'til you move up here, Kev. Maybe we'll bump into each other out there somewhere.
-M
You're a real piece of work Malsem.
You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you lack an education or the ability to think rationally. I think that you New Left snobs are really insecure about how much grey matter you're pack, so you always go on the offensive when anyone dare challenge you're awe inspiring intellect.
You're making the assertion that human society has moved away from nature and rationality, but then you go and reenforce that colloquialism garbage when you try to flame me. Are you embracing society, rejecting, or are you just flipping retarded?
I'll be honest dude, if I met you, I probably wouldn't like you. You already attacked me personally, and shit, I've never even had any other discourse with you.
Never try to tell me how to live my life, or how to think. I don't want your leftist indoctrination. You think that reason and society are on your side because while most people couldn't disagree more with that crap you spew from your empty head, they don't feel like putting up with your ranting. Your like a spoiled child who hasn't ever heard the word 'no'. Go ahead and throw your little temper tantrum, and show just how warm and caring animal lovers are.
Personally I think that militant animal rights activists are an intellectual abhorration, and I'd rather be around a shotgun toting, chaw chewing, mountainman, than another one of you volatile liberal elitists.
That's quite a mouthful from someone who's not only missing the point, once again, but who's outright claimed to enjoy murder.
It's not about being an animal rights activist. It's about seeing the big picture and trying to find a way to steer ourselves away from self-destruction.
In the points of information I've supplied, you may very well not like what's provided, but you still haven't proven the information incorrect. In fact, just taking a good look at our impact on the environment, the wildlife, and each other overall is overwhelming proof that there is a severe problem that doesn't need to extend into the lives of our grandchildren.
So that's the crux of my concern. It's about the grandchildren and how we treat the earth, the animals, and each other. If you're thinking I'm selfish or incorrect, you're simply not paying attention.
So I may be an asshole--that's nothing new--but the information is sound, and to fight with me--in spite of how enjoyable it may be--is not doing our progeny or anyone else's any good.
-M
Quote from: mvpel on September 20, 2006, 09:57 PM NHFT
QuoteAgain, I kind of agree with some of it, but all that's really missing from this post is the <<pt-ding!>> of a spitoon in the background.
Bigot.
He's a liberal...and probably a greenie.. let's face it.
Quote from: Malsem on September 18, 2006, 04:52 PM NHFT
Anyone should always ask permission before stepping across someone's property line. If you live by the system that supports a division of owned land--which is a ludicrous concept in and of itself anyway--then you would be a hypocrite in not observing the ettiquete of asking permission to pass.
Division of owned land ludicrous?
Quote
If you're a "sportsman," and you come onto my property, I probably won't shoot you, but you'll end up either severely injured or hanging upside down in a tree. I figure, if you're going to call killing animals a sport, even though they don't have guns and don't know the rules, then I'll level the playing ground a bit.
Sounds like you're the one who needs the pt-ding in the background! Perhaps a few banjos too.
Quote
However, if you're an actual hunter who makes his own bow, spear, or whatnot, and hunts with skill rather than technology, as well as utilizes every part of the animal for food, clothing, and tools, and you can show me that you can interpret tracks and identify a particular animal at any given time by its footprints, then you may have a slight chance at passing through. I just don't see it happening. I only know one guy around here who can do that anyway.
-M
Elitism. Definitely a lefty.
Hey KB, get your butt up here and I'll take you fishing...
Quote from: CNHT on September 24, 2006, 09:13 PM NHFT
Hey KB, get your butt up here and I'll take you fishing...
Can we use poles and hooks, or do we have to "respectfully" grab them out of the water with our teeth, like bears?
;)
I'm sorry to see the direction of this thread devolve into pointless name-calling and insults.
Life is life is life. It doesn?t matter whether it?s in the form of a beetle, a plant, a fish, a dog, or a human. Life is a gift to all things, given by Nature. It is the thing that each creature has in whatever form that is sacred and allows us all to interact. Each individual life is made to contribute to the whole life of the Earth.
There is no creature of the status in existence that they can determine the worth of any life. It is not our place to judge or rule, and to do so is to spit in the face of the Creator. In fact it would be silly to consider any life to be of any less worth than our own, as it is all these "lesser" forms that keep our lives and our world functioning. Nature would still function without the presence of humans. In our dream-world, we consider ourselves superior, but in the real world, we are potentially insignificant.
Our species used to exist in a relative harmony with Nature, taking what was needed and then contributing to the perpetuation of the predetermined cycles. This wasn?t a philosophy or belief system in a superficial way; it was simply insurance for survival of future generations of all things.
Unfortunately, our species began to lose sight of that process as we developed a sense of want, above and beyond need. Instead of gratefully accepting what we were given for survival from Nature, we began expecting more in order to pit ourselves against the environment; we sought to conquer, and we took more because we taught ourselves that more was better, and it made you a better person to have more.
We have taught ourselves that our purpose is to go to grade-school, then high-school and get a part-time job, then to college, then have a career, then get married, have a house, have children and cars, then have things?lot?s of things, and then retire and die. This is our fundamental paradigm. This is our own rut. It is a schedule of life. And now we need vacations, distractions, things to keep our minds occupied. We are no longer free, and we should be outraged. When we lived closely with Nature, our minds were occupied by the overwhelming life of Nature and our senses were stimulated by the reality of our place in that world. Now, our senses have numbed as we create a closed-off world that shields us from the reality of the environment. Now we are bombarded by unnatural sights, sounds, smells, and thought processes that are not found in the real world. And so our minds have become burdened with stresses, worries, greed, and loneliness to the point that we must provide those distractions, like television, video games, drugs, alcohol, and other perversions. We don?t do these things because we?re bad; we do them because we?re lost.
Our attitude toward Nature and each other has become disjointed, at best. We have stereotypes and segregation, political regimes, and religious factions. All these things are created and based upon evolutionarily watered-down interpretations, and they remove us from the very real connection that all things share no matter what your geography, biology, skin color, or doctrine?the reality of Nature, the reality of life, and fundamental spirit.
That is our true beast. It is the real tether, that we are no longer living in a predetermined world in which we function for the betterment of all things, as an integral part of the cycle. Now we are more self-serving and we fear being outcast, ridiculed, and hurt. We fear one of the most amazing events in our entire lives?another common reality--death. We fear death to the point that we fight it and curb it and thus we threaten our own species? survival because we have created a world in which we perpetuate our deficiencies and cater to our weaknesses and constantly stress and deplete our gift of resources.
And we?ve insinuated ourselves into places we cannot fit, any more than a fish can suddenly emerge from a lake and live on land. We have eliminated species and have transferred species without truly understanding their roles. And we have tried to ?take the places? of some, like the wolves for the deer, but we are not made to fill that role, and we are creating more damage.
As we?ve moved away from our closeness with Nature, we?ve begun treating other life as a commodity; we have made a devastating impact, and we continue to do so. This is not something unknown as much as it is ignored.
And it all stems from fear because we are lost. But our children do not need to be lost, too. They can find that reverence and sense of place again if they are taught. They do not have to be of sick spirit and contribute to the destruction of things, because they are born wild by right, and they should have the option to revere their birthright of Nature, as we were not provided. So, it is not our fault as children. But it becomes our fault when we have the option to learn but ignore it for our own selfish desires.
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 25, 2006, 08:15 AM NHFT
It is not our place to judge or rule, and to do so is to spit in the face of the Creator.
That's pretty funny! (i.e. "By my judgement, any judging is wrong!")
Quote from: Malsem on September 18, 2006, 07:10 PM NHFT
And it's always nice to see a "sportsman" dislocate his ankle when he goes tromping through the woods...
Dislocate his ankle? Do you think animals come before people?
Quote from: Malsem on September 24, 2006, 06:07 PM NHFT
That's quite a mouthful from someone who's not only missing the point, once again, but who's outright claimed to enjoy murder.
It's not about being an animal rights activist. It's about seeing the big picture and trying to find a way to steer ourselves away from self-destruction.
In the points of information I've supplied, you may very well not like what's provided, but you still haven't proven the information incorrect. In fact, just taking a good look at our impact on the environment, the wildlife, and each other overall is overwhelming proof that there is a severe problem that doesn't need to extend into the lives of our grandchildren.
So that's the crux of my concern. It's about the grandchildren and how we treat the earth, the animals, and each other. If you're thinking I'm selfish or incorrect, you're simply not paying attention.
So I may be an asshole--that's nothing new--but the information is sound, and to fight with me--in spite of how enjoyable it may be--is not doing our progeny or anyone else's any good.
-M
Murder? Wow, strong words. And whom, may I ask is being murdered? What is the severe problem of which you speak?
Quote from: Malsem on September 25, 2006, 08:15 AM NHFT
Life is life is life. It doesn?t matter whether it?s in the form of a beetle, a plant, a fish, a dog, or a human.
And so a beetle is more imporant than you are?
Seriously? This is what you guys come up with?
I'm speaking of a universal truth that rings in everyone's spirit--no matter how much you spit at it. This is just the common sense of shedding our personal interpretations and giving kids the benefit of learning to respect all things, no matter what our own warped sense of ideas we hold that undermine the real appreciation for what we've been given.
What I'm talking about is that should you choose to believe that a deer is of less value or worth than a human, keep it to yourself, and show the kids a more respectful and respectable presentation. Teach them by demonstration. Don't kill wontonly. When you hunt, show the children the amazing gift that the animal has given to you. Show them that you cared for it as you would care for the family dog if it was hit by a car. Or as you would care for another human. Don't start them out with a bias toward other things, because it is not ours to judge, and they should have the option to learn that all life is sacred.
And as we teach them, we learn more, as well. And they feel that comeraderie and understand that bias and interpretation and segregations are not healthy in any respect of survival and taking care of what the Creator (whatever name for it you have) provides. And as we talk to our friends and families about our experiences and respect, then they see something golden in us, and we begin to feel amazing because of it.
So do you guys really want to show everyone here that you are really that cold-hearted, disrespectful, and contemptuous? 'Cause that's how you're coming off.
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 25, 2006, 05:18 PM NHFT
I'm speaking of a universal truth that rings in everyone's spirit
Quite apparently, it doesn't.
Then, indeed, we are in trouble, aren't we.
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 25, 2006, 05:18 PM NHFT
So do you guys really want to show everyone here that you are really that cold-hearted, disrespectful, and contemptuous? 'Cause that's how you're coming off.
-M
Let me get this clear, you're saying that people who like to hunt are cold-hearted, disrespectful, and contemptuous and are precluded from seeing life as to be respected? This is poppycock, pure poppycock and anti-hunter rhetoric indeed. Where's Ted Nugent when I need him. LOL
Do you know the person who posts here as 'Frank Chodorov'? ;)
Prove it.
-M
What are you talking about???
-M
Eating some nice steak now that I paid some mercenarys to kill and cut and package for me. ;D
Oh and I contracted out for the onions too.Though I did cut them up myself. I wore ear plugs so as not to hear their screaming death cries.
Quote from: Pat K on September 25, 2006, 09:25 PM NHFT
Eating some nice steak now that I paid some mercenarys to kill and cut and package for me. ;D
Oh and I contracted out for the onions too.Though I did cut them up myself. I wore ear plugs so as not to hear their screaming death cries.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reminds me of a computer game I used to play called Otto Mattic. These huge onions would attack him in a field and you'd have to zap them all to get through. I loved that game! Maybe I should download the new version and play it again.
http://www.pangeasoft.net/otto/index.html
And this is precisely why it has to happen.
At least you folks have been more than efficient at proving my point for me.
-M
See, that's the part I don't get. It's the government that's all about killing things and reaping profit and material gain through treating everything like a commodity--even us, as we're given numbers and expected to conform like proper cogs on the wheel. Supporting this mindset and philosophy is supporting the government. Our education has been a media influx of government fostered propaganda. THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM.
We trust our safety and welfare in the hands of the very entity that has the least concern and knowledge. I doesn't matter what government or religion you choose to follow, if it doesn't work for everyone--everything real--then it doesn't work at all. That's why I propose that we get back to the foundation of all things and eliminate the interpretations and doctrines and greeds so that the future generations have a healthy respect via a common thread of reality for all things and each other. Then they might stand a fighting chance of finding again what we have been forced to lose.
-M
Quote from: JigglyPuff on September 26, 2006, 08:32 AM NHFT
M-
I really think you are "barking up the wrong tree" on this forum..
Most Libertarians, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and "righty" types think animals are PROPERTY..
They will continue to "miss" your point, because they don't agree that animals are anywhere near the level that humans are..
I've stayed away from this thread because I already know what is going to happen: name calling, specifically "you are lefty, you must be, you must love the government if you don't want to kill animals.."
Yes, I'm vegan, so I don't belong in a "hunters among us?" thread! lol..
It's OK if you don't like hunting, but at least you aren't trying to make the rest of us stop it.
Good logic there.
That's like saying, "it's okay if you don't like dealing drugs; at least you're not trying to make the rest of the drug dealers stop."
When you can prove that all other life is inferior in worth to the real world compared to human life, then by all means, hunt away. But really, if you're into the "sport" of it all, try paintball instead.
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 26, 2006, 06:24 AM NHFT
At least you folks have been more than efficient at proving my point for me.
Only to yourself.
Everyone else is left scratching their heads, wondering just what your point is.
Quote from: Malsem on September 26, 2006, 10:04 AM NHFT
Good logic there.
That's like saying, "it's okay if you don't like dealing drugs; at least you're not trying to make the rest of the drug dealers stop."
-M
Well I think you'll find that on this forum that would also be true.
Quote from: JigglyPuff on September 26, 2006, 12:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on September 26, 2006, 11:28 AM NHFT
Quote from: Malsem on September 26, 2006, 10:04 AM NHFT
Good logic there.
That's like saying, "it's okay if you don't like dealing drugs; at least you're not trying to make the rest of the drug dealers stop."
-M
Well I think you'll find that on this forum that would also be true.
lol..I was thinking the same thing..
Does this mean Malsem would lock drug dealers up in prisons??
Yes Maslem seems to think it's his job to 'make' people stop doing things just because he/she finds them offensive.
Again, no one is making Maslem hunt or do drugs...
And there is nothing wrong with farming if we are for example, keeping the fish supply from becoming too low and someone is using commercial means to feed people at a reasonable price. This is what the free market is all about. (And how my hair stays so shiny and long!)
Quote from: KBCraig on September 26, 2006, 11:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: Malsem on September 26, 2006, 06:24 AM NHFT
At least you folks have been more than efficient at proving my point for me.
Only to yourself.
Everyone else is left scratching their heads, wondering just what your point is.
I'm not scratching my head, I think I get pretty clearly what Malsem is saying, and I can't say that I disagree with very much. I'm curious as to who he/she is--since there's not much on the profile (an annoyance of mine!) Who are you?
Quote from: Insurgent on September 26, 2006, 07:56 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on September 26, 2006, 11:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: Malsem on September 26, 2006, 06:24 AM NHFT
At least you folks have been more than efficient at proving my point for me.
Only to yourself.
Everyone else is left scratching their heads, wondering just what your point is.
I'm not scratching my head, I think I get pretty clearly what Malsem is saying, and I can't say that I disagree with very much. I'm curious as to who he/she is--since there's not much on the profile (an annoyance of mine!) Who are you?
You agree that beetles are as important as humans???
What makes you believe that they aren't?
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 26, 2006, 09:25 PM NHFT
What makes you believe that they aren't?
-M
Just as I am going to refuse to further discuss whether it was OK for Benson to have a hummer in another thread, I am not going to discuss whether beetles are as important as humans and will put you on ignore.
Buh bye!
Quote from: Insurgent on September 26, 2006, 07:56 PM NHFT
I'm not scratching my head, I think I get pretty clearly what Malsem is saying, and I can't say that I disagree with very much. I'm curious as to who he/she is--since there's not much on the profile (an annoyance of mine!) Who are you?
Sorry about that.
I'm nobody. Just a parrot passing down messages from the past. A person who's scared to death for our kids, for all things who can't speak for themselves, at least in a way that we can understand anymore. A downright pissed-off individual who feels that their birthright has been stripped, wondering if anyone else feels the same way. Wondering why everyone isn't outraged that we can't spend our days living outside, swimming, fishing, making bows and mocs and canoes, and just being children of the earth again with no government and groups telling us how to live.
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 26, 2006, 09:49 PM NHFT
Wondering why everyone isn't outraged that we can't spend our days living outside, swimming, fishing, making bows and mocs and canoes, and just being children of the earth again with no government and groups telling us how to live.
-M
Yeh, I'm wondering the same thing. Laws, rules, regulations, someone always telling us what we can and can't do with our lives. Enough of the consumerism. Shut off the TV. Throw away the cell phone. Live simply. Enjoy a sunny day, and the flowers, and the fruits.
When I get outside and into the woods, it's like being welcomed by family. I used to go out with all kinds of gear and camp-out when I was a kid, but I always had this grudge against technology, as it is the vehicle with which the government treads, and I wanted to be able to go out there with nothing and just see how free from society I could be.
I started leaving things behind until I didn't need anything at all, and I could go back out to my family and be like a wild animal again. Now that, to me, is the ultimate freedom.
There's little more embracing to me than a body of water or a good fire--especially one made with what Nature provides. Who needs a t.v.?
-M
Quote from: Malsem on September 21, 2006, 11:08 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on September 21, 2006, 10:44 AM NHFT
Unless you're living naked in the woods with no tools other than your own two hands, you're the hypocrite.
And since you disdain land ownership, how are they your woods? You've publicly declared that Bad Things will happen to hunters who enter "your" land. Hypocrite!
Wow. You're some kind of genius, eh?
Why don't you tell me how it's possible to accomplish that idea? You show me how someone could go off into the woods and live with a family without having to deal with trespassing issues, pollution that you support, idiots with guns chasing down animals, government intervention, i.e.--taking your children away for "not providing them with sufficient means of living," land destruction and development, or paying taxes and still integrating into the system by some fashion? Go ahead. You tell me where there's a place that's vast enough, will never be touched or infiltrated by reckless, careless humans or industry of some sort, where the hunting is free, the living conditions are viable, and there is no worry about interference of global pollutants, local impacts, introduced species and pathogens, and the like.
You let me know, genius.
The wilderness is like family to me, as it should be to you, too. I'm not claiming to own it. That's what modern society does. I'm claiming to protect it from destructive ignorance that runs rampant in our species. Your arguing with that indicates that you really don't give a damn about the welfare of life in the future, including your own progeny. That's messed up.
And if I did go, I would be doing nothing more than satisfying my own selfish gratification, just like this society does already. You're asking me to act in a manner that I abhor. You're asking me to abandon the welfare of not only my own grandchildren, but yours, as well, by disappearing and eliminating a resource available to them so that they can choose, eventually, to shift away from all these political agendas and segregations. In fact, what I'm getting back here is that your way is the best way, and anyone who doesn't like it can leave.
Sounds an awful lot like some governments I know.
Hypocrite.
-M
I think you should move to Australia they only have about 2.6 people per sq kilo
NH definitely is the place for sportsmen...and women.
http://www.nhlibertycalendar.org/shooting.php
http://www.nhlibertycalendar.org/gunshows.php
So it doesn't look like there are many hunters here. I was hoping to find a bear-hunting partner or two...
Other than bambi, I've never shot any other animal but would love to go hunting in NH...
I'm taking a hunter safety course this month. I'll be doing my first hunting this year.
Quote from: Quantrill on March 12, 2007, 11:47 AM NHFT
So it doesn't look like there are many hunters here. I was hoping to find a bear-hunting partner or two...
Other than bambi, I've never shot any other animal but would love to go hunting in NH...
I gather Penny Dean is into bear hunting, or wants to be - she had to cancel a bear hunt when the Blake Douglass case came up.
I bought a bear tag the other year, but I honestly never devoted the time to it. They are only $5. Or at least they were, I think they may have gone up to $15.
I'd be willing to go with someone this year. I hear bear is OK, a lot like pork. I only tried it once, and I have to say the meat is pretty average, but there is something about bagging a bear that appeals to me. I might only do it one time, but I'd still like to say I got one.
I grabbed a Moose Lottery application. It's $10 to enter plus $100 if you're sucessful. I think I'll do it this year. The application must be postmarked by May 25. A Free Stater pictured over a Bull Moose would be anice photo. Plus think of all the meat you could bring to Porcfest '08.
The Moose hunt is 9 days Oct 20-28. There is a bonus point system for repeat unsucessfuls, if you miss your chance this year, next year you will be entered twice, then thrice etc.
Just so you know Nick I've started a program called "The Right to Arm Bears"...
So be careful you never know if Yogi and Boo Boo will return fire... ;D
They killed Nick!
BASTARDS!
i hunt in south berwick, maine. i'm hoping to start hunting in nh next year, it's just that i've been hunting in maine near my father's house for years (it's where i grew up) and i know all the in's and out's of the area. i'll be honest, i don't even know a decent place to GO in nh right now (at least not anywhere near the seacoast).
Quote from: Malsem on September 19, 2006, 06:51 AM NHFT
Wow. You guys are so enveloped by the point that you're missing it.
There is no harvesting. There is no culling. There is no land control, population control, zoning, overpopulation, encroaching development in Nature. These are all concepts developed by modern humans to try to control something that cannot be controlled.
It's all tied in and very much a part of the system, run by a government that is not directly vested in the welfare of Nature beyond financial venue. All of these things stem from society. It is due to human intervention--and plain stupidity--that the populations were nearly eliminated only within the past 200 years are now outweighing carrying capacity of the environment that we keep mucking with. Kind of like our own population.
Like I said, if you're a hunter/sportsman, you support the government. You support the destruction of land and wildlife (masked by patches of "preservation-" and "conservation-"labeled cash-cows), and you support a cultural ignorance that treats life as a commodity. You're claiming in words that the government sucks, but then you're quite willingly supporting it in your actions and philosophy.
KBCraig, if you're thinking that the type of weapon is the determining factor of understanding the deeper levels of taking another's life, then you are not at all understanding the point. It's kind of like getting something for your mother for her birthday. You could either have your secretary purchase something and have it delivered; you could go buy a pre-made card and scarf; or you could carve her a beautiful something (or whatever your art may be).
The first is going to the grocery store: disconnected from the act altogether, yet reaping the benefit. The second is hunting with technology and lack of need for skill or spiritual investment. The third is investing your spirit, your heart, into the endeavor because you care.
-M
Welcome to my ignore filter. Bye, bye!
Ummm... Did you see the date on the post? The last time Malsem was active was Sept '06.
Maybe he got poached! 8-)
(http://www.dragcityvideos.com/images/trailcamera/trailcamera_6.jpg)