Even those that only hunt for horns/records usually eat what they kill. So maybe up that to 100%.

From the hunters I know, I'd say only about 30% eat what they kill.

Sounds like you know a bunch of assholes, not hunters.

I would never join them.

Here, check it out:

From all the 1991 Ford Mustangs I've driven, I'd say 100% are red.

But the "99%" quote was ridiculously high.

Every hunter I know, and I'm a hunter so I know quite a few, eat what the kill or donate their kills to the needy.

who hunts and doesn't eat it.

Rabbits, deer, and pheasants. Plus I would sometimes have to shoot snakes and coyotes on my granddad's ranch, but that's not really the same.

It's I suppose "interesting", at least at first, but mostly it's just walking around in the woods. We always ate the meat and if there was any extra there was a food bank that took it. Sometimes we would make stuff out of the hides, too. I do like rabbit but I never really got the taste for venison.

I get the argument that some form of harvesting is needed to control the population of deer, etc., so there's that.

But then again hunting is a dying pastime; only about 1 in 10 Americans does it now (even among gun owners it's the minority; most gun owners go to target ranges instead).

Lost my taste for it, haven't hunted since. I don't object to the pastime, when conducted according to the rules...it's just not for me. I do still love to fish, though (and to eat what I catch and keep...pan-fried trout, mmmm!).

So yeah...non-hunting gun owner here. My firearms are for competition (long-range target stuff) and personal security.

Yeah, same. I did both growing up. I never had an interesting in hunting as an adult; I still love fishing.

trout to die for. He grills it over mesquite chips. It's AMAZING.

I'll have to try that. I do them in a pan on the stovetop...simple stuff with butter, lemon juice, a few spices.

by his grilling. He puts nothing on it - no need as far as I'm concerned. Try it sometime. -

Either they eat it, or donate the meat.

I have always used the meat. The only time Ive ever killed an animal and not eaten it was fishing out west. There are invasive fish that are illegal to release into the lake alive.

All native fish I caught I threw back in.

I know some hog hunters that have left the large adults because the meat doesnt taste all that good. I have no problem with this as hogs are an invasive species.

and you would get a different response.

Bryant

Then all those hogs could be sent to food pantries and soup kitchens.

esp. deer, which are butchered in the usual fashion at a licensed processor before distribution to food banks. Hogs are more problematic as they are best controlled by trapping, and the parties involved either plow the animals under, or use a broker to go through the USDA process to ship meat overseas as "wild boar" for $12/lb. Some in the hunting community have suggested "de-listing" feral hogs as a sport animal, and classify it entirely as a pest to be handled by more "industrial means."

no need to do any further research then!

Hunting is important to wildlife management and more generally conservation, it's also a significant source of income for some regions of the US.

Firearms & equipment sales are an important source of revenue for wildlife conservations/restoration and the purchase and set-aside of habitat that benefits species well beyond those hunted...

Funds from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition [Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161(b)] are appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior and apportioned to States on a formula basis for paying up to 75 percent of the cost approved projects. Project activities include acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat, introduction of wildlife into suitable habitat, research into wildlife problems, surveys and inventories of wildlife problems, acquisition and development of access facilities for public use, and hunter education programs, including construction and operation of public target ranges.

Public Law 91-503, approved October 23, 1970, (84 Stat. 1097) added provisions for the deposit of the 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers, one-half of which may be used by the States for hunter safety programs. This amendment also provided for development of comprehensive fish and wildlife management plans as an optional means for participating in the program, and changed the maximum limit from $10,000 to one-half percent for Puerto Rico and to one-sixth percent for the Virgin Islands and Guam.

On October 25, 1972, the Act was further amended by P.L. 92-558 (86 Stat. 1172) to add provisions for the deposit of the 11-percent excise tax on bows, arrows, and their parts and accessories for use in wildlife projects or hunter safety programs.


Considering just WI, the 9-day gun deer hunt injects $1.3 billion into the economy.

I don't get watching professional basketball, I certainly don't get state and local government giving away public land for sports arenas for one dollar, or subsidizing a billion dollar industry with money from poor tax-payers to build venues where the poor will never be able to afford to attend.

Moreover, the life-span of sports arenas is usually several decades at which time the community has a white elephant on it's hands and must once again reach into it's pockets to recycle the venue.

Yet, I am told 'I don't get it' that such things really are good for the economy in general (even though they mostly seem to go to real estate value and retail rental) and -must- go forward whether I get it or not.

People do not understand how much of conservation funding comes from the users of those resources. I think we can argue about whether the "user benefits, user pays" model is a good idea or not. Like it or not, though, it's what we have. In Texas, which has no state income tax, the state has to fund it some other way, so they do it through those fees and through the Sport Fish Enhancement funds.

The problem is that other users (hikers, campers) do not pay in anywhere near the same proportion to fund state parks, for example. I don't think it's possible to have state park entry fees high enough to pay for what it actually costs to run them, especially the more remote or less-visited parks. There have been several efforts to created an excise tax on camping and hiking equipment, but they have always failed, for whatever reason.

Murder apparently provides an opportunity to caste tolerance and rationality to the wind and hate on things that people don't 'get'.

and sees in a way I don't understand and have to compensate for. My advantage is much more my predator brain than my gun.

What if you eat what you shoot AND enjoy the sport of it?

But yes, I do have the final advantage, in the end. I'm human, after all, with a human tool.

than your knowledge of the animal, and your woodcraft skiils. These must be relied upon to get the animal close and in an open area for a shot -- even if what you are shooting is a camera.

This notion of an animal that "shoot back" as an argument against hunting is peculiar. Prey animals are generally well-equipped to evade hunters, and in most hunting situations they usually succeed. THAT is the challenge, not fending off a charging elephant. That kind of hunting is quite rare (and hugely expensive) considering the scope of hunting.

There is nothing wrong with Enjoying the hunt.

to put food on the family table but to sorrowfully take grandpappy's rifle from over the door and reluctantly head out to the woods so the starving children may eat, and the assertion that if you don't "need" to hunt you shouldn't. Just...what?

to live out their lives in excruciating pain and suffering.

I get hunting for food but I shake my head at people who get off on the actual killing part, which is inflicting suffering on a sentient being.

Sick.

and certainly regrettable. When those who hunt for food and sport, and those who hunt trophys, and even those who poach are all accounted for (none of the foregoing has any incentive to Lose an animal), one is left with the cruel sort who hunts only to kill. This is a rather rare bird and is detected by authorities -- usually by a tip from a hunter.

At the moment of a kill, most hunters of large game tremble, breathe irregularly, and have accelerated heartbeats, experiences which must be ameliorated to get off a killing shot. Is this a sign of that dreaded pleasure? Would it be preferable for the hunter to not have these reactions? What would that indicate?

He enjoys the sport and jerky...


Oh and deer chili too.

I like every hunter I have ever meet eats what we kill... if I didn't I sure as heck would not spend 7-10 days a year sitting in the cold/rain/snow...

Oh... and while trophy hunting is not really my thing I know people who have done the African safari thing... cost about $50k... about $10k went to the local villages in the form of room & board, hiring guides, support team, transport, etc. The villagers ate the meat from the kill and prepared the hides for tanning and mounting... bones are collected and used to make things (mostly to sell back to tourists)... there was nothing wasted.. remove hunting from the picture and most would just kill off the animals for food... as it stands now they have finical incentive to keep them around...

I have no desire to do any of that but the economic impact of that one hunt was more then I will probably ever have on those villages.

Now I would love to do a moose hunt someday... not really a trophy hunter but I would love a moose mount for my cabin... and I would eat the meat...

I know some elephant hunts, there is a specific bull elephant they are hunting. The bu elephant is past the breeding age, but he wont allow other elephants to mate with the females. To increase the population they need to remove him, to allow other elephants to mate. They sell the rights to the hunt for 50k and use that money to protect elephants.

If you ban the hunting, local game wardens might take him out but now they never get the 50k to help fund conservation.

Or they do nothing and for the next 5 years there is no breading until another elephant becomes the dominant male.

I have no desire for big game hunting myself, but its not an easy subject and a simple ban is not always the solution.

It was for meat and materials. Sport hunting I've never understood.

they shoot when they go hunting? Or that someone isn't eating what was hunted?












Disclaimer: I'm not a hunter and have only killed a squirrel and rabbit in my whole 51 years.

Ducks and geese, for example, are very crafty. They fly high, well out of shotgun range, and it's a challenge to coax them to come in closer. A lot of the time if they see the least little thing out of place they'll just move on and leave you sitting in the cold empty-handed.

Pheasants would rather run than fly, and are very good at sneaking low to the ground through cover. You can't just walk along hoping to flush one; when they hear you coming they take off and you may never even know they were there. To be successful you have to manage the terrain correctly and hope your dogs have a clue.

Don't get me started on quail. They fly erratically and very fast, so most of the time you get one shot and maybe two if you're lucky.

The number of times when the animals get the better of me is embarrassing to admit.

"The number of times when the animals get the better of me is embarrassing to admit."

I don't hunt...but I do flyfish. The number of times that I get outsmarted by something with a brain the size of a cashew is humbling.

I have also eaten road kill that others have hit.

Taste just like chicken.

I should have more emphatically distinguished between hunting for fun and hunting for sustenance. Too late now!

The only part of the hunt I don't enjoy is the death and pain part. I don't understand those that think that is fun, or those that trophy hunt, you can't eat horns.

I find the meat healthy and taste good. I skin, butcher, cook and eat all of it. I respect the animal and follow all rules.

I'm one of the few I know that find "catch and release" fishing cruel. I only fish to eat, releasing only undersize and out of season fish.

It is just disgusting sport.

They kill a sentient creature who likely has family and say it is all good because, "I eat what I shoot."

It is sick.

anyone that eats meat sick if they don't do it themselves.

Just because carrots and lettuce are mute and don't cry out in pain doesn't mean they don't feel it when you chomp down on them.

and when the deer population explodes we will see how you feel... many areas already need to do controlled shots with police because the deer population is out of control in those areas... when there are too many deer local vegetation is decimated and deer / car collisions go up...

Shipped in trucks crammed in tiny cages in all weather? Raised in their own shit barely able to stand?

More moral to eat cows and pigs who are in terror throughout the entire slaughtering process?

Have you ever read how veal is made?

I'm not a hunter, never hunted, but I don't think there's much of a difference between how these animals die, except for one thing _ the hunted animals never know the misery or terror of factory farming and butchering.

Ever seen a chicken house on a factory farm? I have. Ever seen how they're loaded into tiny pens on trucks? I have.

Ever seen a chicken truck sitting in the pouring rain, freezing cold, or the pounding heat with the poor creatures stuffed in four (or more) to a tiny cage? I have.

Wanna know what happens to them in the factory when they're off-loaded?

IF you think they are handled humanely, think again.

Chickens, cows, and pigs are sentient creatures too.

I do still eat some (not much) meat. I am still a work in progress and do realize the actions taken for my eating habits and admit to playing my role in causing them. I believe I will get to the point where I can be vegetarian, but have not arrived there as of yet.

And if someone likes the taste of venison, is that unacceptable to you?

I commented upthread on that subject.

Not all hunters go to Africa and shoot lions named Cecil you know.

I have killed plenty of deer, dove, squirrel, etc for consumption and the pleasure of hunting them. But the actual killing act does not spur some unmentionable pleasure in the loins. I am happy that I make a skillful wing shot, but in that second I am watching the bird's fall so that I can retrieve it. Then I am happy for the experience.

With deer, I am absorbed with correct breathing, proper rifle form, aim, stance and bullet placement (on/in the vital area). The act of killing is complex and deserves a measure of orthodoxy. Is it exciting? Yes, in the since that my breathing must be consciously controlled, my heartbeat is accelerated, and my movements subject to trembling. Yet even here it is best to "call the shot:" Through the reddish flame front, the kick and the world-filling report, you should have an instant snapshot of where the cross hairs lie on the deer's body. This better ensures a clean kill (the deer goes down on the sport, or runs maybe 70 yards and falls, never again to rise).

Maybe this is what some call taking pleasure in killing, sharing with ancient humans the same emotions coursing through the blood. Is it really "pleasure?" Is it ambivalence of the highest order? Will I grow tired of it? I don't know, but it is in us whether we choose to experience it or not.

Do you hang their body parts on your wall?

We tend to channel "acceptable" pleasures quite narrowly, sometimes secretly, and condemn those who don't fit the mold.

Haven't yet made a wall hanger, though I have a nice rack from a kill 5 years ago: A 5.5 yr old buck closing out his reproductive life, but consuming lots of foliage in a drought year. Just the kind of animal best killed (or culled, according to some). And contrary to uninformed opinions about bucks, quite tasty.

Hunters are often the allies of conservationists.

if we banned hunting of deer, at least.

red-tailed hawks can't keep up . . .

Maybe some kind of stoat?

the best, but for obvious reasons not candidates for introductions into city parks.

though mustelids would also eat bird eggs.

Before I thought about that for a second.

people have killed anything that rattles in some places, so they've wound up producing a population--via natural selection--that strikes before rattling.

For a spell folks were afraid to walk their dogs because of a coyote scare.

They run with their tails down; otherwise they can be hard to tell from dogs.

It may be one of the few things that helps against the huge rat population...

You can kill a moose with an arrow, sure.

It's more likely that the moose will be annoyed and kill you with its everything, though.

State bird, etc.

There are certain parts of this state I won't even approach in the summer. LOL.

I get hunting completely. Trophy hunting not so much.

I also understand cases where hunting is used to control populations or dispatching vermin or other similar scenarios.

I shot and ate deer, ducks, pheasant, squirrels, rabbits, etc. But it bothered me to shoot animals. I figure it's better to raise animals for meat and kill them quickly. We could all become vegetarians and not kill any animals. Or we could reduce meat consumption and kill fewer animals.

Dove and quail, for example, are small birds and they move fast and erratically.

They are difficult to hit at the best of times, and other factors like weather and terrain can make it even tougher.

The latest national numbers I can find, 2006, say there was a national bag rate of about 50 percent.

The last I knew there are more hunters in Wisconsin than there are members of the military.
Now times that by 50 states and yes, game will be killed.
I know a few people that hunted for a few years before they ever bagged a deer, it's not as easy as non-hunters think.

IMHO it is far more inhumane than using a long gun.
I have several friends that bow hunt, hit deer and never found them even after searching for hours over the course of 2 days.

When I hunt I use a long gun and have never lost one.
Deer are also over populated here and do severe damage to farm fields, even the DNR comes out and kills off a bunch of them every few years.
I live out in the sticks and shoot coyotes, wild dogs, racoons etc because they are a danger to the animals I raise.
Racoons kill my free range chickens and do serious damage to buildings.
Racoons also kill dogs out here because they are smart and lure them into the area ponds and drown them.

However, finding an animal in the wild can be challenging, as well as getting close enough and a good enough sighting to make sure to kill it rather than simply randomly shooting at movement in the bushes.

They can't just hop down to Krogers, so they go out and kill something made of meat to bring home to feed the family.

Easy peasy.

...and in times of famine even their own neighbors.

That's why eating pork is a little creepy to me.

I've known pigs more intelligent and more likable than some humans I've met.

I've heard similar stories about hunger and the extreme winters in Russia. I don't doubt some of it is based in fact.

Normal grocery store meat is way more cruel than hunting.

from their natural habitat.

Some die because of it.

Just sayin'.

put out feeders and start feeding the deer a few weeks, sometimes months, leading up to hunting season plus hang out their cameras to take a peek at what the hell is eating their corn. Now I ask what is the sport in that?

The Pittman-Robertson act's tax has also funneled over two billion (with a 'b') dollars into habitat restoration, protection, and facilities.



That being said, the second amendment isn't about hunting. It's a side effect.

lived in the boonies and had 8 kids to feed. My grandfather HATED hunting and avoided it if he could. He said he felt just sick every time he killed a deer. He was a farmer and when it came time every year to butcher the cows, he would hire people and pay them with my grandmother's preserves or homemade wine, or he'd offer mechanic services for their cars or tractors. He couldn't stomach killing animals - even though he knew they had to for survival.

I agree, people who hunt for sport have a screw loose.

to buying beef at the grocery store or restaurant. That's about the main difference.