lukeshort wrote:
If you read a little further you can see I allowed room for killing pests in my reply.
Ah yes. Implication that someone has failed in some area or another (in this case reading and comprehension). Backhanded personal attacks like this are often tools used by those who attempt to take a moral high ground by merely trying to put others down.
You qualified it with "if it messes with your livelihood". That's different than allowing room for killing pests. That's only allowing the killing of pests if you eat them, or if they mess with your livelihood. Hunting is about more than just food source, and pest control. It's also about management.
lukeshort wrote:
And yes, you are right. Just because I see it that way, does not make it common sense. There are allot of people that don't see things my way, but they are usually to far gone for any corrective action that can be taken.
So, anyone who disagrees with you is "to far gone for any corrective action that can be taken"? I believe that is what Mr. Huffman alludes to in his comments. Maybe I should just C&P.
Ah yes. Implication that someone has failed in some area or another (explained above). Backhanded personal attacks like this are often tools used by those who attempt to take a moral high ground by merely trying to put others down.
lukeshort wrote:
I'm not sure as to the comment about not shooting it, if your not going to eat it, being put out by anti-hunters.
I don't doubt your lack of agreement. Such would erode your belief that it only makes sense to eat what you kill, and in turn erode your moral view of oneself, since that is part of what it is based upon.
Of course the "don't eat... don't kill" mentality was put out by anti's. It was designed to disparage trophy hunters. some hunters (just like some gun owners), are all too willing to throw their brethren under that particular bus, in an effort to make themselves appear more ethical. I guess it's easier to do that then to stop using foul language and expletives, or calling anyone who disagrees with us "idiots" (which also work to create a poor image).
lukeshort wrote:
It only seems to make since not to waste possible food. I was raised to believe you try and never waste a shot, never waste food and never hunt to close to home.
I'd say it probably does make sense to not waste food, but that doesn't mean that hunting is only done for food. Maybe that's the way
you were raised, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong for not following suite.
lukeshort wrote:
I will take my sense of common, over a total disregard for a commodity any day.
More C&P.
Ah yes. Implication that someone has failed in some area or another (in this case not eating kills is a "total disregard for a commodity", and therefore said killing is wrong). Backhanded personal attacks like this are often tools used by those who attempt to take a moral high ground by merely trying to put others down.
lukeshort wrote:
And this video is the sort of stuff liberal idiots will use to put every gun owner into the same category.
And not just the liberals who are idiots, but also the ones who know better, but will use it as to promote that lie anyway.
Painting every hunter who doesn't eat his kills, in with the same brush as the people in this video, is no different that what said liberal would do.
lukeshort wrote:
And really, I can only think of one species I would consider a pest, but I'd never eat one.
Deer, squirrels, ground squirrels, red squirrels, skunks, raccoons, rabbits, certain snakes and spider, porcupine, and possum are all pests, and those are just some examples, not all inclusive. People kill rats and mice all the time, without eating them. Just because you only see one type of animal as a pest, doesn't make it a reality.
Like I said, I guess it's easier to build oneself up by tearing others down, than to actually just build oneself up. Anti-OC'ers do it all the time.
