24 November, Karnes County, Texas.
Good buck, not a great buck.

Dave in Texas

"Dave In Texas" wrote in news:Cyqss.602815$eR7.46041@en-
nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com:

24 November, Karnes County, Texas.
Good buck, not a great buck.


Awesome dead animal picture, Dave! Your skill at using a high-powered
rifle against a creature with a brain a fraction of the size of your own is
most impressive. Glad your family will eat this winter!

Elrond Hubbard wrote:
"Dave In Texas" wrote in
news:Cyqss.602815$eR7.46041@en- nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com:

24 November, Karnes County, Texas.
Good buck, not a great buck.


Awesome dead animal picture, Dave! Your skill at using a high-powered
rifle against a creature with a brain a fraction of the size of your
own is most impressive. Glad your family will eat this winter!


Whine.....

--

-Mike-

"Elrond Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Dave In Texas" wrote in news:Cyqss.602815$eR7.46041@en-
nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com:

24 November, Karnes County, Texas.
Good buck, not a great buck.


Awesome dead animal picture, Dave! Your skill at using a high-powered
rifle against a creature with a brain a fraction of the size of your own is
most impressive. Glad your family will eat this winter!

That we will! Besides the backstraps I can see 75-80 pounds of smoked
venison sausage from this buck alone.
And I working on the high-powered rifle thing. If I can get them in a chute
in a pen then I can shoot a steel rod into the back of their head like they
do at cattle slaughter houses. It will save having to go look for them,
too, since they more often than not run some distance even when fatally
wounded.

Dave in South Texas
Lifetime member PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals)

Elrond Hubbard wrote:

"Dave In Texas" wrote in
news:Cyqss.602815$eR7.46041@en- nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com:

24 November, Karnes County, Texas.
Good buck, not a great buck.


Awesome dead animal picture, Dave! Your skill at using a high-powered
rifle against a creature with a brain a fraction of the size of your
own is most impressive. Glad your family will eat this winter!
-----------------------------------------------------------
That's a funny looking rifle projectile.

Lew

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:42:01 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Whine.....

Gotta come down on the whining side. He has the right to go hunting
when and where he wants, all rights except a moral one.

In this day and age, when food is plentiful and available, killing
such a majestic animal purely for sport is an affront. He didn't kill
the buck for survival and he didn't do it for pest control.

Killing just for the hell of it just because we're the most predatory
animal on the planet is unacceptable.

Yup, I used to hunt, (not very successfully I might add), but my views
have changed over the years.

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:42:01 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Whine.....

Gotta come down on the whining side. He has the right to go hunting
when and where he wants, all rights except a moral one.

In this day and age, when food is plentiful and available, killing
such a majestic animal purely for sport is an affront. He didn't kill
the buck for survival and he didn't do it for pest control.

Killing just for the hell of it just because we're the most predatory
animal on the planet is unacceptable.

Yup, I used to hunt, (not very successfully I might add), but my views
have changed over the years.

And if he hunts because he enjoys the meat as well as the hunt itself?

--

-Mike-

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:42:01 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Whine.....

Gotta come down on the whining side. He has the right to go hunting
when and where he wants, all rights except a moral one.

I think it would be more accurate to say he has all of those rights except
for one that matches up with your personal opinion - there is no moral
standard being violated in what he did.


In this day and age, when food is plentiful and available, killing
such a majestic animal purely for sport is an affront. He didn't kill
the buck for survival and he didn't do it for pest control.

You are assuming he killed it purely for sport. He did not say so, and in
fact he did talk about the anticipated food value of his kill. That's quite
a bit different than pure sport. It's always risky to assign personally
held beliefs to others as if they were the motives of others.

The biggest reason that most people eat meats like beef, foul, etc. is that
they prefer the taste of it and/or the convenience of simply getting it at
the market. For those who genuinely like the taste of venison, hunting
their own and bringing it home is the reason for their hunt. Of course,
there is the challenge between the hunter and the game (more capable at
eluding the hunter than in falling prey to him), and the sense of reward in
a fulfilling hunt, but why should that be a problem?


Killing just for the hell of it just because we're the most predatory
animal on the planet is unacceptable.

Killing just for the hell of it Dave? That's more assignment on your part.
He hasn't said that he just goes afield and indiscriminately blasts every
deer he sees, just to let it lie there as coyote spoils.



Yup, I used to hunt, (not very successfully I might add), but my views
have changed over the years.

A view to which you are entitled, but that is really rather irrelevant. His
views have not changed in like manner and that does not make yours in any
way superior to his.


--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:42:01 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Whine.....

Gotta come down on the whining side. He has the right to go hunting
when and where he wants, all rights except a moral one.

I think it would be more accurate to say he has all of those rights except
for one that matches up with your personal opinion - there is no moral
standard being violated in what he did.


In this day and age, when food is plentiful and available, killing
such a majestic animal purely for sport is an affront. He didn't kill
the buck for survival and he didn't do it for pest control.

You are assuming he killed it purely for sport. He did not say so, and in
fact he did talk about the anticipated food value of his kill. That's quite
a bit different than pure sport. It's always risky to assign personally
held beliefs to others as if they were the motives of others.

The biggest reason that most people eat meats like beef, foul, etc. is that
they prefer the taste of it and/or the convenience of simply getting it at
the market. For those who genuinely like the taste of venison, hunting
their own and bringing it home is the reason for their hunt. Of course,
there is the challenge between the hunter and the game (more capable at
eluding the hunter than in falling prey to him), and the sense of reward in
a fulfilling hunt, but why should that be a problem?


Killing just for the hell of it just because we're the most predatory
animal on the planet is unacceptable.

Killing just for the hell of it Dave? That's more assignment on your part.
He hasn't said that he just goes afield and indiscriminately blasts every
deer he sees, just to let it lie there as coyote spoils.



Yup, I used to hunt, (not very successfully I might add), but my views
have changed over the years.

A view to which you are entitled, but that is really rather irrelevant. His
views have not changed in like manner and that does not make yours in any
way superior to his.


Thank you, Mr. Marlow.
I've been hunting deer just a couple of years short of 50 now. And you
have touched on the point of it anymore. And, that is that we would miss
NOT having the venison sausage and backstrap medallions which we do enjoy
[as much as any beef dish] regularly. If you think rising at 4:30 a.m. to
go sit exposed to near-freezing temperatures (anything below 50) and/or
precipitation is fun sport then I would submit you have never done it.
Anymore, if it were not for the food value I would prefer shooting them
with the Nikon. There is a saying that says, "The instant you pull the
trigger the work starts." Before I shoot my next whitetail I must install
an ATV-sized 12-volt winch. Getting this guy into the back of a 2500 Z71
even with the 2X12 TYP ramps [got wood into the story!] was a monumental
struggle.

Dave in South Texas

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:40:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
The biggest reason that most people eat meats like beef, foul, etc. is that
they prefer the taste of it and/or the convenience of simply getting it at
the market.

Same reason. It's not killing for survival. It's killing solely for
personal pleasure, whether it be taste or blood lust. There isn't
anything you can say to change that.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:29:42 -0600, "Dave In Texas"
trigger the work starts." Before I shoot my next whitetail I must install
an ATV-sized 12-volt winch. Getting this guy into the back of a 2500 Z71
even with the 2X12 TYP ramps [got wood into the story!] was a monumental
struggle.

That's a pile of bull****. You're trying to say that it's morally ok
for you to go out and kill deer because you have to put some effort
into the act?

Whether it's the pleasure of the sport, the taste of venison or just
base bloodlust, it all ends up being the same thing. You hunt and kill
solely for pleasure.

It's NOT for survival and it's NOT a necessity. At least be man enough
to admit that you do it purely for pleasure.

Quite a fine catch.
And after paying for fee's and protection of such wildlife
via the laws I do not see a problem at all with hunting for
wildlife. It is not endangered and the herds are monitored and
policed.

Enjoy,
John

"Dave In Texas" wrote in message
...

24 November, Karnes County, Texas.
Good buck, not a great buck.

Dave in Texas

On 11/26/2012 8:57 AM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:40:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
The biggest reason that most people eat meats like beef, foul, etc. is that
they prefer the taste of it and/or the convenience of simply getting it at
the market.

Same reason. It's not killing for survival. It's killing solely for
personal pleasure, whether it be taste or blood lust. There isn't
anything you can say to change that.

Did you watch too much "Bambi", Dave?

(an act which is known to tickle warm fuzzies and foster ill conceived
exceptions to the _method_, while ignoring the physiological reasons for
the _results_.)

Fact: Man _is_ currently a member of an agricultural society, but with
strong, inherent hunter/gatherer instincts.

Fact: Local governments make well documented attempts to manage the
current deer population to be as much a component of that agricultural
society as any domesticated meat source, said management in large part
relying upon inherent human instincts.

(I say "attempts", because most government actions are inherently
flawed, as are all these particular attempts, although they do result in
a somewhat more stable and sustainable deer population, arguably due to
these human instincts).

IOW, Dave ... if you do not personally and immediately cease swallowing
anything that was once living, you are ignoring some 100,000 years of
human physiological necessity and instinct, as well as exhibiting gross
hypocrisy ... and there isn't anything you can say to change that.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

"jloomis" wrote in message ...

Quite a fine catch.
And after paying for fee's and protection of such wildlife
via the laws I do not see a problem at all with hunting for
wildlife. It is not endangered and the herds are monitored and
policed.

Enjoy,
John

Thanks, Jloo. AAMOF, I've had the ranch in the Texas Parks & Wildlife
Department's 'Managed Lands Deer' (MLD) program for the last five or six
years (at the lowest level). A lot of that is about bringing population
numbers in line with the range's carrying capacity and optimizing as much as
is possible buck-to-doe ratios. We have an assigned wildlife biologist we
work with. There is an annual membership fee to the county wildlife
management association.

See you back in photos-original.

Dave in Texas

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:29:42 -0600, "Dave In Texas"
trigger the work starts." Before I shoot my next whitetail I must install
an ATV-sized 12-volt winch. Getting this guy into the back of a 2500 Z71
even with the 2X12 TYP ramps [got wood into the story!] was a monumental
struggle.

That's a pile of bull****. You're trying to say that it's morally ok
for you to go out and kill deer because you have to put some effort
into the act?

Whether it's the pleasure of the sport, the taste of venison or just
base bloodlust, it all ends up being the same thing. You hunt and kill
solely for pleasure.

It's NOT for survival and it's NOT a necessity. At least be man enough
to admit that you do it purely for pleasure.

So that hormone and chemical laden crap at the supermarket is jut as good as
a wild animal without any of that crap in it? You sound like that
environmental wacko mayor we have droning on and on about if you really
cared about the planet, you would drink tap water. And somebody tested the
tap water and found in addition to all the chemical they put in it, all
kinds of drugs. Those are from the drugs flushed down the toilet and
getting into our water.

We live in a chemical world. Our rates of cancer is growing every year.
Getting some HEALTHY meat is one way of cutting back on the chemical
onslaught. And if you got a problem with that, go find yourself some
chemicals and gorge on them. Harvesting wildlife is far healthier than
politically correct food. We manage the deer population because they don't
have the natural predators around. Have you seen the sick and dying deer
population in areas where hunting is prohibited? Talk about cruelty to
animals.

I grew up on a farm. I used to help my grandfather butcher animals many
times. And he always had a smile on his face when he did it too. I asked
him once, why are you smiling. This is hard work! He laughed and said,
that it was a harvest! People always celebrated a harvest in all kinds of
cultures around the world for many centuries. He was merely carrying on a
well established tradition of celebrating the harvest. I always remember
that.

I don't feel bad about eating or harvesting meat. I always wonder how all
these whiny little vegans get through the day. They are so negative and
don't have anything good to say to anyone. I also wonder about the person
who has to whine about somebody's accomplishments on the web as well. There
are people, in the world, really enjoying themselves. There are people, in
the world, actually accomplishing things. And that just ****es you off,
doesn't it?

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:40:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
The biggest reason that most people eat meats like beef, foul, etc.
is that they prefer the taste of it and/or the convenience of simply
getting it at the market.

Same reason. It's not killing for survival. It's killing solely for
personal pleasure, whether it be taste or blood lust. There isn't
anything you can say to change that.

I guess - if you're focused on the killing aspect of it. But then, you
should feel the same aversion when it comes to beef, turkey, chicken, pork,
etc. They all had to be killed for you and I to enjoy them. In a
considerably less noble manner I might suggest.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:40:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
The biggest reason that most people eat meats like beef,
foul, etc.
is that they prefer the taste of it and/or the
convenience of simply
getting it at the market.

Same reason. It's not killing for survival. It's killing
solely for
personal pleasure, whether it be taste or blood lust.
There isn't
anything you can say to change that.

I guess - if you're focused on the killing aspect of it.
But then,
you should feel the same aversion when it comes to beef,
turkey,
chicken, pork, etc. They all had to be killed for you and
I to enjoy
them. In a considerably less noble manner I might
suggest.

Dave won't see it that way and there is nothing you can say
to change thatg
I truly believe he was never a hunter, a democrat, yeah, but
a hunter, noeg

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:29:42 -0600, "Dave In Texas"
trigger the work starts." Before I shoot my next whitetail I must
install an ATV-sized 12-volt winch. Getting this guy into the back
of a 2500 Z71 even with the 2X12 TYP ramps [got wood into the
story!] was a monumental struggle.

That's a pile of bull****. You're trying to say that it's morally ok
for you to go out and kill deer because you have to put some effort
into the act?


It is every bit as morally ok as that hamburger or that steak that you
enjoy. Is the fact that he shot his own food the thing you find morally
objectionable? I fail to see any moral implications in that at all. If it
is about starvation and all that, then wouldn't it be equally, or even more
morally objectionable for fat people to eat their fill? After all - they
don't need that steak to ward off starvation. And what about plants... they
have feelings to ya know...

--

-Mike-

On 11/25/2012 08:16 PM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:42:01 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Whine.....

Gotta come down on the whining side. He has the right to go hunting
when and where he wants, all rights except a moral one.

Going to have to say non-sense on this one Dave. If you want to discuss
morality as it relates to animals, you don't have to look too hard to
discover that livestock is raised in very inhumane conditions.

Chickens are bread to grow so fast and larger than normal that some of
them can't support their own weight. They are crammed into chicken
"houses" with virtually no room to move, standing in their own excrement
and breathing foul air. Same with cattle in feed lots standing knee
deep in manure. Veal cattle are kept in tiny little pens w/o enough
room to even turn around so that the tenderness of their meat is maximized.

Watch "Food, Inc." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc.) sometime
then come back and tell me how morally superior our industrial food
system is to hunting.

And, of course, there's the health and environmental benefits of eating
meat that isn't full of growth hormones and antibiotics.

In this day and age, when food is plentiful and available, killing
such a majestic animal purely for sport is an affront. He didn't kill
the buck for survival and he didn't do it for pest control.

On the contrary, one has to eat to survive. Whether a cow is killed or
a deer is irrelevant. An animal dies. And that animal would eventually
die regardless of whether it is shot or not. Certainly being shot is a
much quicker death than most animals in the wild have. Starvation, or
being taken down by wolves, coyotes, cougars, etc. doesn't sound like
any kind of fun. But that's the reality of a wild existence.

Game is managed for pest control as well. In many areas deer are a problem.

Killing just for the hell of it just because we're the most predatory
animal on the planet is unacceptable.

I never was one for "trophy killing" but killing for food is just a
natural participation in the food chain. Unless you're vegetarian (or
more to the point, vegan), you're responsible for the death of animals.
Just because your meat comes in a sanitized package doesn't mean it
wasn't a living breathing animal at some point. Given the horrible way
feedstock is raised, I'd say that if there's a moral high ground to be
had it comes down squarely on the side of the hunters.

Of course, at many stores one can find free range, hormone free chicken
and beef but it costs 2-3 times as much. Are you buying only humanely
raised and killed meat Dave (and Mike)?

Pot, kettle, black?

Yup, I used to hunt, (not very successfully I might add), but my views
have changed over the years.

Great - more game for the rest of us...

....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
"In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car."
- Lawrence Summers

On 11/26/2012 12:16 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:42:01 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Whine.....

Gotta come down on the whining side. He has the right to go hunting
when and where he wants, all rights except a moral one.

In this day and age, when food is plentiful and available, killing
such a majestic animal purely for sport is an affront. He didn't kill
the buck for survival and he didn't do it for pest control.

Killing just for the hell of it just because we're the most predatory
animal on the planet is unacceptable.

Yup, I used to hunt, (not very successfully I might add), but my views
have changed over the years.


Well with no predators out there, someone has to prune the herd. And yes
he does eat it, he is not letting it go purely for sport.
So get a life. You have a right to your opinion, just glad you can't
enforce it on everyone.

I do love animals, but I also am a realist.

On 11/26/2012 10:12 AM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:29:42 -0600, "Dave In Texas"
trigger the work starts." Before I shoot my next whitetail I must install
an ATV-sized 12-volt winch. Getting this guy into the back of a 2500 Z71
even with the 2X12 TYP ramps [got wood into the story!] was a monumental
struggle.

That's a pile of bull****. You're trying to say that it's morally ok
for you to go out and kill deer because you have to put some effort
into the act?

Whether it's the pleasure of the sport, the taste of venison or just
base bloodlust, it all ends up being the same thing. You hunt and kill
solely for pleasure.

It's NOT for survival and it's NOT a necessity. At least be man enough
to admit that you do it purely for pleasure.


So Dave, what exactly do you eat? Are you a vegetarian?
Do you eat meat? Where does it come from?
I personally don't like to dress an animal, but that being said, what's
the difference between him hunting and a slaughter house?

The deer population here is out of control. So are most animal
populations. We've eliminated most of the natural predators so would you
rather run into it on the highway?

Kevin Miller wrote:


Of course, at many stores one can find free range, hormone free
chicken and beef but it costs 2-3 times as much. Are you buying only
humanely
raised and killed meat Dave (and Mike)?

Pot, kettle, black?


Are you including me in Dave's position? I think I'm the only Mike that has
participated in this conversation, and I have taken the opposing stand to
Dave's.

--

-Mike-

On 11/26/2012 01:23 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Kevin Miller wrote:


Of course, at many stores one can find free range, hormone free
chicken and beef but it costs 2-3 times as much. Are you buying only
humanely
raised and killed meat Dave (and Mike)?

Pot, kettle, black?


Are you including me in Dave's position? I think I'm the only Mike that has
participated in this conversation, and I have taken the opposing stand to
Dave's.

Opps - sorry Mike. I thought you had posted the statement "Gotta come
down on the whining side." but now see that it was just a quote included
in your reply. Guess I need new reading glasses...

....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
"In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car."
- Lawrence Summers

Kevin Miller wrote:
On 11/26/2012 01:23 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Kevin Miller wrote:


Of course, at many stores one can find free range, hormone free
chicken and beef but it costs 2-3 times as much. Are you buying
only humanely
raised and killed meat Dave (and Mike)?

Pot, kettle, black?


Are you including me in Dave's position? I think I'm the only Mike
that has participated in this conversation, and I have taken the
opposing stand to Dave's.

Opps - sorry Mike. I thought you had posted the statement "Gotta come
down on the whining side." but now see that it was just a quote
included in your reply. Guess I need new reading glasses...



That makes it funny because it was I who introduced the word "whine" into
this thread. Damn those reading glasses...

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:02:48 -0600, Swingman wrote:
IOW, Dave ... if you do not personally and immediately cease swallowing
anything that was once living, you are ignoring some 100,000 years of
human physiological necessity and instinct, as well as exhibiting gross
hypocrisy ... and there isn't anything you can say to change that.

You're absolutely right, there isn't anything I can do or say to
change that. However, that doesn't for one second mean I have to sit
by quietly and not comment where I see fit.

And, however much you disapprove of my comments on hunting, there's
nothing you can say or do to change the fact that for most of us,
hunting is completely unnecessary for survival. It's done for sport
and pleasure ~ something you appear to support and in doing so,
denigrates you far more than you will ever realize.

In my opinion, you're one of the most knowledgeable people on this
newsgroup, but in this subject, it appears you like wallowing in
ignorance.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:02:48 -0600, Swingman wrote:
IOW, Dave ... if you do not personally and immediately cease swallowing
anything that was once living, you are ignoring some 100,000 years of
human physiological necessity and instinct, as well as exhibiting gross
hypocrisy ... and there isn't anything you can say to change that.

You're absolutely right, there isn't anything I can do or say to
change that. However, that doesn't for one second mean I have to sit
by quietly and not comment where I see fit.

And, however much you disapprove of my comments on hunting, there's
nothing you can say or do to change the fact that for most of us,
hunting is completely unnecessary for survival. It's done for sport
and pleasure ~ something you appear to support and in doing so,
denigrates you far more than you will ever realize.

In my opinion, you're one of the most knowledgeable people on this
newsgroup, but in this subject, it appears you like wallowing in
ignorance.

That is the problem that folks who assume high moral positions have. They
can not allow anybody to introduce logic or intelligence into the
conversation. I pointed out how eating wild game was HEALTHIER than regular
meet at the supermarket. You obviously think it is better to get cancer and
die rather than eat an uncontaminated meat source. Are you a PETA member?

Back in the valley, most folk raised their own food. We froze, canned and
smoke our food. And people lived long, healthy lives. When they got old
and moved into town, they almost always died within the year. And it was
from eating that politically correct crap from the store. One of the whiny
bitch arguments for not eating meat is that it is better for everybody. I
am concerned about my own health. And I eat accordingly. I am not
concerned what other people do. I take care of myself and my family.

You like to bitch and moan about survival. You so called survival model
have people getting all kinds of diseases earlier and earlier. Is it beyond
you perception that so called survival may not be all that healthy? Come
on, explain to me how meat stuffed full of chemicals is necessary for
survival.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Kevin Miller wrote:


Of course, at many stores one can find free range, hormone free
chicken and beef but it costs 2-3 times as much. Are you buying only
humanely
raised and killed meat Dave (and Mike)?

Pot, kettle, black?


Are you including me in Dave's position? I think I'm the only Mike
that has participated in this conversation, and I have taken the
opposing stand to Dave's.


As the whiner who started this ****storm, let me clarify:

I am not a tree hugging vegan PETA member or even a vegetarian. I suffer
no guilt for living at the top of the food chain, and and take full
advantage of my omnivore's digestive tract. I don't insist that my food be
whole grain free range fair trade organic artisanal anything - I like
French fries with my steak.

I thought it unnecessary to post a picture of a bloody dead deer on the
woodworking newsgroup, as if it were some kind of redneck Instagram. What
the ****, Dave? The wife wasn't sufficiently impressed, you need the
approval of a bunch of strangers?

Yes, the post was marked OT. As my mother would say when being pestered by
a five year old, "Just because you say 'excuse me,' it doesn't mean you're
being polite."

On 11/26/2012 06:47 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:02:48 -0600, Swingman wrote:
IOW, Dave ... if you do not personally and immediately cease swallowing
anything that was once living, you are ignoring some 100,000 years of
human physiological necessity and instinct, as well as exhibiting gross
hypocrisy ... and there isn't anything you can say to change that.

You're absolutely right, there isn't anything I can do or say to
change that. However, that doesn't for one second mean I have to sit
by quietly and not comment where I see fit.

And, however much you disapprove of my comments on hunting, there's
nothing you can say or do to change the fact that for most of us,
hunting is completely unnecessary for survival. It's done for sport
and pleasure ~ something you appear to support and in doing so,
denigrates you far more than you will ever realize.

In my opinion, you're one of the most knowledgeable people on this
newsgroup, but in this subject, it appears you like wallowing in
ignorance.

That is the problem that folks who assume high moral positions have.
They can not allow anybody to introduce logic or intelligence into the
conversation. I pointed out how eating wild game was HEALTHIER than
regular meet at the supermarket. You obviously think it is better to
get cancer and die rather than eat an uncontaminated meat source. Are
you a PETA member?

Back in the valley, most folk raised their own food. We froze, canned
and smoke our food. And people lived long, healthy lives. When they
got old and moved into town, they almost always died within the year.
And it was from eating that politically correct crap from the store.
One of the whiny bitch arguments for not eating meat is that it is
better for everybody. I am concerned about my own health. And I eat
accordingly. I am not concerned what other people do. I take care of
myself and my family.

You like to bitch and moan about survival. You so called survival model
have people getting all kinds of diseases earlier and earlier. Is it
beyond you perception that so called survival may not be all that
healthy? Come on, explain to me how meat stuffed full of chemicals is
necessary for survival.



It's easy to understand Dave's liberal view on this - he wasn't much
good at it, so no one else should be able to benefit from it. It
wouldn't be fair!


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 11/26/2012 9:00 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Elrond Hubbard wrote:


Yes, the post was marked OT. As my mother would say when being
pestered by a five year old, "Just because you say 'excuse me,' it
doesn't mean you're being polite."

I guess that would depend on whether you say it before or after you fart...

+1

Elrond Hubbard wrote:


Yes, the post was marked OT. As my mother would say when being
pestered by a five year old, "Just because you say 'excuse me,' it
doesn't mean you're being polite."

I guess that would depend on whether you say it before or after you fart...

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:09:20 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
I guess - if you're focused on the killing aspect of it. But then, you
should feel the same aversion when it comes to beef, turkey, chicken, pork,
etc. They all had to be killed for you and I to enjoy them. In a
considerably less noble manner I might suggest.

And I would also suggest that the killing of animals for the
commercial market is done in a faster, more efficient manner. I have
to wonder how many hunters kill their prey on the first shot? How much
terror and pain do many gun killed animals go through before they're
actually killed? How many animals escape, critically injured, go off
to die on their own in agony? That's part and parcel of hunting too.
Guess you approve of that, eh Mike?

And for the rest of you, this has nothing to do with culling herds,
getting rid of pests or other bothersome animals. Those are all valid
reasons in my book for killing animals. Hunting for sport or pleasure
is not. And, bragging about it is nearly as bad.

The truth is, that I'm not really so down on hunting. It's the
bragging and professing one's self as a great animal killer that sets
me off. I'd rather that one just did it if they chose to and then went
about their business.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:47:20 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
That is the problem that folks who assume high moral positions have. They
can not allow anybody to introduce logic or intelligence into the
conversation. I pointed out how eating wild game was HEALTHIER than regular
meet at the supermarket. You obviously think it is better to get cancer and
die rather than eat an uncontaminated meat source. Are you a PETA member?

Have you ever heard of chronic wasting disease?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/cwd/

How about Toxoplasmosis?
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/news/yr2011/oct27/oct27_toxo.html

Maybe you've heard of Bovine Tuberculosis?
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/deerhealth.html

Your blind assertion that deer meat is healthy is full of holes. I
wonder how many hunters take their deer meat in to have to analyzed?
My guess would be that the number approaches "0". Food and water
directed to human consumption is inspected on a regular basis.

And you're assertion that regular supermarket meat is a direct source
to cancer makes you nothing more than a nut bar.

Dave wrote:


And I would also suggest that the killing of animals for the
commercial market is done in a faster, more efficient manner. I have
to wonder how many hunters kill their prey on the first shot? How much
terror and pain do many gun killed animals go through before they're
actually killed? How many animals escape, critically injured, go off
to die on their own in agony? That's part and parcel of hunting too.
Guess you approve of that, eh Mike?

Have you ever made yourself aware what the entire life of those commercially
market animals is like Dave? You know - the ones you and I enjoy eating. I
don't see you objecting to that.


And for the rest of you, this has nothing to do with culling herds,
getting rid of pests or other bothersome animals. Those are all valid
reasons in my book for killing animals. Hunting for sport or pleasure
is not. And, bragging about it is nearly as bad.

If there were no seasons regulating the taking of deer, people would simply
go out and shoot one when they needed it. It would be the same people going
afield, taking the same amount of deer. The only difference is it would not
look so much like a sport to you because it would be a regular occurrance
and not something that happens once a year during a specified season.


The truth is, that I'm not really so down on hunting. It's the
bragging and professing one's self as a great animal killer that sets
me off. I'd rather that one just did it if they chose to and then went
about their business.

People have always been proud of their accomplishments. You were once a
hunter, so you know it is not a matter of stepping out into the woods with a
high powered rifle, and shooting the deer of your chosing, three or four
times. Hunting is an objective, and fulfilling that objective is something
that makes people proud of their accomplishment. Happy that they were
successful. Greatful that they were successful. Dave in Texas made no such
profession of being a great animal killer, and your statement is unfair to
him. He simply posted a picture of a deer he took and is somewhat proud of,
amongst a group of friends. Nothing that really warrants your harsh
criticism of him and his accomplishment.

I think I'll bow out of this discussion at this point, since I really don't
even have a dog in this fight. I think we've pretty much established our
individual positions on the matter and pursuing it any further is probably
not going to be very productive.


--

-Mike-

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:42:44 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Have you ever made yourself aware what the entire life of those commercially
market animals is like Dave? You know - the ones you and I enjoy eating. I
don't see you objecting to that.

Because the topic wasn't up for discussion. And you're right. The life
of commercially marketed animals is dismal. It's not something I can
do anything about, nor is hunting.

But then, no one has bragged about the great time he's had butchering
a number of farm animals for market. Guess there is a difference huh?

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


I think I'll bow out of this discussion at this point, since I really
don't even have a dog in this fight. I think we've pretty much
established our individual positions on the matter and pursuing it any
further is probably not going to be very productive.

You may not have a dog in this fight, but you've barked more than anyone
else who's entered the fray (12 posts from you out of a total of 34, with
12 different participants). It hasn't been at all productive from the
start - why quit now? Tired of hearing yourself talk? Unlikely.

Elrond Hubbard wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


I think I'll bow out of this discussion at this point, since I really
don't even have a dog in this fight. I think we've pretty much
established our individual positions on the matter and pursuing it
any further is probably not going to be very productive.

You may not have a dog in this fight, but you've barked more than
anyone else who's entered the fray (12 posts from you out of a total
of 34, with 12 different participants). It hasn't been at all
productive from the start - why quit now? Tired of hearing yourself
talk? Unlikely.

Seems to bother you. Oh well - tough ****.

--

-Mike-

Let me preface this by saying that I mistakenly hit the REPLY button
instead of the REPLY GROUP.
Apparently I emailed it directly to Dave. Now Dave is quite upset with me,
emailing me a reply that I should go F#(K myself for not having the balls to
attack him publicly in the group. It is my earnest wish that posting this
now will show Dave that I meant well.

So, with a little tongue in cheek . . .

Screw the effort, Dave. I'd much rather roll over in bed and poke the
barrel out the open window. Then I could go pick up my meat with the front
end loader on the tractor. Next year I think I'll just buy a hunt where the
operation has paid vaqueros that will fetch, clean, process, and get me my
packaged meat so that I don't have to bloody my hands and clothes at all
[thanks to OxyClean liquid!]. If I'm lucky, maybe they'll tie the animal so
I can just walk out to it and . . . BANG!

But, enough about me. What's your story, Dave? Vegan, PETA - or what?
Where do you come by your PURELY self-righteous bull****? Who died and
anointed you?

Apologies to the group; who'd have thunk it?
End of story

Dave in South Texas

On 11/26/2012 05:19 PM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:47:20 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
That is the problem that folks who assume high moral positions have. They
can not allow anybody to introduce logic or intelligence into the
conversation. I pointed out how eating wild game was HEALTHIER than regular
meet at the supermarket. You obviously think it is better to get cancer and
die rather than eat an uncontaminated meat source. Are you a PETA member?

Have you ever heard of chronic wasting disease?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/cwd/

From the web page: "Surveillance studies of hunter-harvested animals
indicate the overall prevalence of the disease in northeastern Colorado
and southeastern Wyoming from 1996 to 1999 was estimated to be
approximately 5% in mule deer, 2% in white-tailed deer, and 1% in elk."

In other words, 95% of the mule deer, 98% of the white-tails and +99% of
elk are uninfected. Plus, the infection is not widely spread across the
entire US. It is present in specific regions. Overall, the health of
the game population looks pretty good, even in the troublesome areas.

How about Toxoplasmosis?
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/news/yr2011/oct27/oct27_toxo.html

That site tells me that "Authorities estimate that 30 to 60 percent of
adults in the United States have been exposed to the parasite, but the
organism rarely causes disease. Although most human infections are
silent, there may be brief flu-like symptoms in some cases. The greatest
risk of real illness in humans would likely be in someone whose immune
system is already compromised."

Oh, and this was a jewel: "According to Oertley’s study, the prevalence
of toxoplasmosis in white-tailed deer in the Southeast was 24.4 percent.
On the other hand, surveys conducted at commercial slaughter houses to
determine the prevalence of this organism in domestic meats indicated a
great variance in occurrence, but infection rates as high as 64 percent
for sheep, 45 percent for swine and 38 percent for cattle were found
among animals to be used as human food."

What's that? It's two and a half times higher in sheep than white
tails? A bit shy of twice as much for pork and 1.25 (give or take) as
much for cattle.

Tell me again why I'm supposed to worry about this?

Maybe you've heard of Bovine Tuberculosis?
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/deerhealth.html

Sigh. From that web page: "The DNR does not believe the state's wild
deer population is infected with TB. Since 1996, more than 150,000 deer
in Wisconsin have been screened for bovine TB, and no evidence of the
disease has been found."


Your blind assertion that deer meat is healthy is full of holes. I
wonder how many hunters take their deer meat in to have to analyzed?
My guess would be that the number approaches "0". Food and water
directed to human consumption is inspected on a regular basis.

Within any population there will be sick animals. That's hardly an
indictment on the whole population. Wild meat *is* by and large
healthier than what you find at the supermarket. Probably leaner too
which is better for you.

I hunt and fish not just to survive, but to thrive...

....Kevin
--
Kevin Miller - http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
Juneau, Alaska
In a recent survey, 7 out of 10 hard drives preferred Linux
Registered Linux User No: 307357, http://linuxcounter.net

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:34:21 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:02:48 -0600, Swingman wrote:
IOW, Dave ... if you do not personally and immediately cease swallowing
anything that was once living, you are ignoring some 100,000 years of
human physiological necessity and instinct, as well as exhibiting gross
hypocrisy ... and there isn't anything you can say to change that.

You're absolutely right, there isn't anything I can do or say to
change that. However, that doesn't for one second mean I have to sit
by quietly and not comment where I see fit.

And, however much you disapprove of my comments on hunting, there's
nothing you can say or do to change the fact that for most of us,
hunting is completely unnecessary for survival. It's done for sport
and pleasure ~ something you appear to support and in doing so,
denigrates you far more than you will ever realize.

In my opinion, you're one of the most knowledgeable people on this
newsgroup, but in this subject, it appears you like wallowing in
ignorance.

Yes, hunters do hunt for sport and derive pleasure from it. So what,
as long as they eat the meat? It is no better or worse than raising a
chicken or cow and later eating it.

Big bugs eat little bugs. Birds eat the bugs, we eat the birds. Fish
eat other fish. Lions eat wildebeest. The list goes on and on about
how living things survive in nature.

If you want to claim moral superiority, you have to be a Vegan,
otherwise you are a hypocrite. Animals that live in the woods are no
different than animals that live in a pasture or barn. Eating them is
no different that what every other animal does too.

Tomorrow, for breakfast I'm have blueberry pancakes and bacon. Lunch
is leftover meatloaf made from ground up cow.

I don't hunt, but I do get some pleasure from finding lamb chops on
sale for $4.99 a pound.

On 11/26/2012 7:34 PM, Dave wrote:
And, however much you disapprove of my comments on hunting, there's
nothing you can say or do to change the fact that for most of us,
hunting is completely unnecessary for survival. It's done for sport
and pleasure ~ something you appear to support and in doing so,
denigrates you far more than you will ever realize.

Would you like some apple pie and ice cream with that arrogance?
Completely unnecessary for survival, but what the hell ...

In my opinion, you're one of the most knowledgeable people on this
newsgroup, but in this subject, it appears you like wallowing in
ignorance.

It is those who fail/refuse to attempt to understand the root of any
behavior are the ones "wallowing in ignorance" ... to the extent that,
like you, they don't even recognize the fact.

No more desert for you, Bubba ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)