Wisconsin Hunting Tragedy handily confirms.....

The professional hunters I've met, while being a wee bit red necked types who's idea of fun is to go down the pub and pick fights, have very strict firearm safety principles and won't even joke about the chance of someone being shot by accident (let alone on purpose).

Even if hunters are hunting for food (ie, they plan to eat what they kill), they don't NEED to hunt for food, hence they are still doing it for fun, for sport. They are still sport hunters. And I doubt most of them are doing it to protect their corn either, deer can't usually work can openers.

xpost: like I was saying

No one NEEDS to save a few hundred in food. They should all go down to Denny's instead.

I don't hunt, but I can think of these reasons off the top of my head:

1) can't eat deer hit by a car
2) cause that hit deer contain people who could be and often are injured
3) cars are damaged by deer, raising TCO and auto insurance costs for everyone
4) hunters (and there are a lot of them) have something to do
5) license revenues for the states generate funds for wildlife areas (it's true, check it out)
6) hunting keeps deer out of populated areas better than allowing deer to get hit by cars would

I'm sure there are a hundred other reasons, but do you really need me to list them?

It's harder to kill a fellow human being with a fishing rod.

For certain. But I thought we were talking about sports!

Shooting a deer is way preferable to it hitting with a car. First, much lower human fatality/injury rate (OK, that doesn't help the deer, but it does help half the equation). Second, intelligent hunting policies (which not all of them are, granted) controls population growth by skewing heavily toward doe hunting (most states let you shoot way more does than bucks). Third, if you used actual bait-and-shoot programs, which some of the most deer-infested places have started to do, and you hire skilled shooters to do it, they can usually kill the deer much more cleanly and painlessly than your average motor vehicle (ever seen an injured deer dragging itself off the road after a car accident? I have).

The deer population in the United States has exploded in the past century with the elimination of wolves and the spread of human habitats, which deer are very compatible with. One of the fallacies is that deer are a problem because we've overdeveloped their natural habitat. Not true -- they like our sprawl. They thrive in it. They're cute, I know -- I used to live in a house where I could get up in the morning and watch a family of them grazing on the lawn, and it felt very pastoral and fuzzy-wuzzy. But they're basically big rodents, they spread disease (I have a very close friend who has Lyme Disease, which is a miserable experience and is spread by ticks that live on deer -- as the deer population spreads and increases, so is Lyme), and they need to be controlled. Nobody has any objections to controlling rat populations in the cities -- deer are the suburban/rural equivalent, except that hitting a rat with your car won't hurt you or your car.

The biggest expense in hunting, especially deer hunting, is probably the license. For the cost of that and a box of shells, though, you can keep a family in meat for the year.

As to #6, hunting is generally restricted to non-populous wilderness areas. Those are where deer like to hang out, when they can. They only move into populated areas with cars when there isn't enough room in the undeveloped areas -- meaning that the deer population is already too big.

(xpost obv)

x=post

Plus, although I'm a pinkocommielefty who doesn't like guns, I'm pretty anti-gun restriction.

xpost: And I'm not just a pinkocommielefty who doesn't like guns, I'm a vegetarian. And I too have no real problem with responsible gun ownership (and the vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners are responsible, just like the vast majority of drivers).

What informs this belief, Alex?

I'm also amused that I'm here defending deer hunting, because I was on another thread on another board recently assailing the cruelties of fox hunting. But I don't think that's a contradiction, they're two different things. Fox hunts are not for population control.

Deaths From Collisions
With Deer Are Increasing

By JOSEPH B. WHITE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
November 18, 2004; Page D4

The number of motorists killed as a result of collisions with animals, mainly deer, is rising -- a trend that highlights the dangers of driving without seatbelts or riding motorcycles without helmets, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Motor vehicle collisions with deer and other animals killed 201 people in 2003, a tiny slice of more than 42,000 overall U.S. highway deaths tallied by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But the 2003 total of vehicle-animal crash fatalities was up 27% from the previous year. Deer-vehicle collisions are estimated to cause about $1.1 billion in property damage a year.

The study by the Insurance Institute, a research arm of the insurance industry, examined vehicle versus animal crashes in nine states from 2000 to 2002. Of 60 motorcyclists killed in accidents studied by the institute, 39 weren't wearing helmets, said the institute's chief scientist Allan Williams and associate JoAnn Wells. Among passenger-vehicle occupants who died in a collision with an animal, 60% weren't wearing seat belts. Deer accounted for 77% of the fatal crashes studied.

"The story is motorcyclists," Mr. Williams said yesterday. Motorcycles were involved in 40% of the 147 crashes the institute studied, far out of proportion to the number of motorcycles on the road. Overall, there are about 41 cars and trucks registered for every motorcycle.

For cars and light trucks, the main risk wasn't the collision with the deer, but losing control and either hitting an object off the road or rolling over. But in 14 out of the 147 accidents, a death occurred because a deer struck by one car flew through the windshield of an oncoming car.

Last year was the first time that the total number of U.S. motorists killed in animal collisions went above 200 people, Mr. Williams said. One factor, he added, could be population growth in suburban and rural areas.

"We're treading into animal territory," he said. November is usually the worst month for collisions with deer. Deer are particularly active at this time of year, in part because it is mating season and partly because hunters are in the woods in many areas of the country.

While deer hunting has detractors, Mr. Williams and other researchers have concluded that reducing the number of deer is an effective way to reduce the number of accidents. Fences designed to keep deer off roadways would help, but they are expensive. In some areas, signs that light up to warn motorists when deer are close to the road have helped.

But deer whistles -- devices motorists can stick to the front of the car -- are useless, Mr. Williams said. Deer whistles are supposed to emit a high frequency sound as the car moves along, frightening away the deer. In tests, however, deer exposed to the sound of a deer whistle don't do anything, Mr. Williams said.

"The theory is they will hear this thing humans can't hear," he said. "If they hear it, they don't react."

The IIHS study highlights the low rates of motorcycle-helmet use in states where laws requiring bikers to wear helmets have been repealed.

"It is likely that many of the deaths would not have happened if these simple precautions had been taken," the report concludes, referring to wearing motorcycle helmets and seat belts.

I agree though that most hunters aren't there to save the environment, first and foremost. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that most hunters aren't out there to hunt. It's usually a bunch of dudes hanging out at deer camp, riding around on four-wheelers, drinking whiskey and eating s'mores for a week. Sitting in the deer stand is sometimes just a formality.

since we were raised in the suburbs(very near open farmlands), we would go hunting for squirrel on the nearby golf course. always eat what you kill, so we had squirrel stew.

later, my dad got me a 12gauge semi-automatic shotgun for christmas. I traded him it for his epiphone acoustic guitar. it;s like a country & western song in reverse.

i still have the guitar, too.

On another note entirely, big predators are returning to many areas where they've been long absent:
http://www.easterncougarnet.org/iowa3-31-02.htm

Mistaken identity? No such thing. I hear a loud, suspicious bang in the night, my finger's on the trigger. I see a face I don't recognize, I pull it. Simple.

And you logic re: kids is flawed, of course. More people die in bicycle accidents than in accidental gun deaths, which many would have you believe is a regular occurance. That fact is that kids who are educated and informed about guns don't usually end up killing themselves.

(note to self: don't deliver pizzas to Roger's house.)

I still can't quite see the connection. And I'm not talking about "morals", I'm talking about being a stupid asshole (the "m" word is one you'll scarcely hear from me). If you want to go shoot Bambi et al, I can't understand it and I think you're a huge greasy dick for doing so, but I don't think there's any code of universal conduct that will or should prevent you from doing so -- beyond self-awareness. In this day and age, no one is born with an irrepresible need to aim a shotgun at an Elk (or deer or buffalo or whathaveyou). Thus, the comparison to those who are born with an inherent sexual preference that happens to be frowned upon by a depressingly sizable percentage of our largely pig-ignorant nation is a moot one.

Go kill it and grill it, man, have a fuckin' field day, but don't try to spin it like it's some biological imperative or god given right.

xpost

Grow up. Thinking someone is a huge greasy dick for killing a majestic animal is, ultimately, YOUR FUCKING OPINION. I mean, what does "beyond self-awareness" even mean? That the only people that go hunting are "unaware"? Aren't plugged into the....the what, dude? Seriously: what the fuck are you talking about?

You're right: no one is born with an irrepressible need to point a shotgun at an animal and kill it. However, ACTUALLY DOING THAT does, in fact, satisfy some irrepressible need, no? A need that might otherwise be satisfied by some other primal, focused and physical activity. Hunters are not kill-bots; they're people doing something they enjoy.

And yes, Alex, it IS my god-given right to kill something and eat it: I shouldn't have to ask for your (or anyone else's) permission. Which brings us back to the homosexuality issue: no one should have to ask for permission to do date/love who they want (except, obv, the other person). But I agree: it's not really germane to the discussion beyond the "free to be me" aspect.

I have about 238,547,000 points to make but this thread is kind of derailed enough.

I sort of over-reacted to this. You mean that, since hunting is no longer a necessity of this our modern age, you can't understand why people do it anyway? Duly noted.

...I'm mostly cheesed because I see a thinly-veiled prejudice against rural America behind all of this.

Note to self: rob Kevin's house.

Seriously dude: you don't have to be naive just to prove a point. Yes, fine, there are some *hypothetical* situations where someone could, in theory, be in your house for a perfectly valid reason. Whatever. Those situations are rare and Rog is banking on statistics.

You don't like guns and don't want one in your house. Leave it at that. Roger will shoot you if you are in his house uninvited. Fine: don't go to Roger's house without telling him. I won't. Unless I'm egging it, in which case I'll hide behind my car.

Kevin - I'm not sure about loads. I live in a pretty rural area. To get into my house, you'd have to park the car in the driveway. You woudn't just be an intrepid neighbor, happening up the street, and see a prowler, and selflessly pursue him into my house. It's just not plausible.

Somebody breaking in to hurt me or my family is much more plausible. And if you don't believe me, just open any american newspaper and check out the Daily Blotter. Of all those dozens of people every day who are knifed, burglarized, raped and beaten, not one of them ever 'expected' to be a victim.

Did I ever suggest that it was something other than my own fucking opinion?

I mean, driving cars in a circle really fast is, well, fun. So is shooting guns (wouldn't know about hunting). Ditto for snowmobiles, ditto for drinking beers around a campfire.

x-post Alex: You're right: you didn't. Like I said before: I'm bothered because it seems as though our opinion goes beyond just hunting. Which is fine, if you admit it.

NASCAR just seems dull to me, but y'know...to each their own.

jesus fucking christ

"You are aware that, in the US, the toughest gun laws are in New York City, Washington DC, and California, right? Even being from the UK, I'm sure I don't have to tell you about the crime rates in those particular cities."

I'm not sure about NY or California, but the vast majority of guns in D.C. come from Virginia, a state with lax gun control. They are simply bought and brought over the border to D.C.

And a great number of guns find their way onto the street from houses like yours. A burgler breaks into your house when you're not there (as they almost always do) and take your gun.

Oh for sure. My neighbor (hi Len! Don't shoot me!) is one of 'em. Also a man that shouldn't be allowed to own guns. And, now that I think of it, ISN'T allowed to own guns in those weeks immediately following his most recent course of shock therapy.

I helped him gut a deer last week. It was creepy. Not because of the guts (my job calls for far worse than that), but because of the heavy breathing. Ewww, Len.

Seriously.

Guns in my mind: don't own one, never want to, bring on the gun control but only if we can go whole hog and repeal the amendment, something which was brought into being due to the historical situation at the end of the 18th century (a recently fought war for independence, understandable concern that the new nation might yet face all sorts of huge troubles, etc.) rather than because of some sort of intrinsic correctness, and which was enacted in an era when revolvers and their various descendants did not exist. The likelihood of the amendment being revoked is extremely slim if not nonexistent at this point, however, which for myself I regret -- the NRA's reflexive paranoia on the point is no less understandable than the ACLU's is on their own particular bugbears, say, but I find it somewhat galling myself that a political pressure group regarding gun ownership and attendant fetishization of the objects has more financial support and clout than one dedicated to principles of civil liberty in general. Such, however, is society, and I do not expect perfection [as I would see it] as an automatic requirement for living in it.

How long do you think it'll be before they decide that with all the kiddie porn, flag burnings, and Eminem CDs, that the first ammendment could use a little, err, reevaluation as well?

I'm entirely serious on a conceptual level. Consider the exact text of the amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

The intent of the amendment is to ensure that the militia can exist and function for reasons of state security -- not, I think, a particular worry for America 2004 as opposed to America 1790 or so -- but that's not my point here so much as it is the bald, core point of the original sentence as it ends. The exact history of gun control and its constitutionalism has a huge history behind it now, but ultimately there is something in the constitution as it currently functions -- something in a specific legal document that, unlike the general concept of gun rights or indeed any rights, is utterly intrinsic to American government and political and social life -- which baldly states that the right cannot be legally infringed. Therefore, in order to outright ban gun use and ownership -- which is my preferred state of affairs -- the Constitution itself would have to be changed. The NRA recognizes this and therefore its core defense of gun rights is actually built on incredibly solid legal ground. The various attempts to regulate and limit gun sales and use in this country, while something I find favor with, ultimately run up against that point, and the Constitution cannot be ignored in a haphazard fashion. Therefore, the amendment must not simply be legislated around in a scattershot way, but repealed.

As I said, I harbor no illusions that the amendment will be repealed or that there would even be something close to a full-on political debate nationwide any time soon. It is not a political issue on that level even slightly, and certainly given the current cast of Congress and the White House, not to mention the current state of affairs in general, nothing will change for a while yet. Like many other issues I have a particular interest in -- I do not believe the death penalty should be applied in any situation, for instance -- I do not expect to see things change in my lifetime. But it is not short-sighted to hold particular beliefs and conclusions about overarching issues, Roger, and I'm not annoyed with your opposition to my general point of view as it is your choice of words in describing it.

Slavery was not ended in this country legally until the appropriate amendment passed. Amendments had to be passed to further enfranchise the vote beyond an extremely limited base. Alcohol was completely regulated by constitutional action, then reversed by the same action. That there has been no successful amendment passed or a repeal put in place for over thirty years is no reason why it cannot happen again -- that is the point of the American experiment, that the law of the land itself is not immutable.

I think Roger is OTM w/r/t repealing the 2nd amendment vis a vis the 1st amendment (how many shorthand buzzwords was that?! gooddam!). The government should have as little oversight of my life as possible. The idea that certain dangerous things should be outlawed is a mind-set motivated by fear AND the idea that you know better than everyone else. That doesn't fly with me.

I find it weird and logically dissonant that there are people that would support the legalization of drugs et al. and, in the same breath, call for the banning of all guns. Imagine the ponderous and harmful War on Drugs expanded beyond stoners to guys like Roger Fidelity except a bazillion times bloodier cause, you know, it's guns we're dealing with.

That there has been no successful amendment passed or a repeal put in place for over thirty years

1992 wasn't THAT long ago.

(This has nothing to do with killing animals. Please forgive me and carry on.)

As is Kevin: there is an almost religious respect for the Constitution over here. I, for one, think the thing is pretty rad as it is. Simple. However, unlike the Bible, the Constitution IS the law of the land and any laws actions, etc. made that contravene it should not--legally--stand. So, to ban guns you have to repeal an amendment. To legally (IMHO) outlaw gay marriage you have to pass an amendment. And passing amendments is really friggin' hard, as it should be. In theory, laws are passing transient things, subject to the whims of fashion (redundant?). Amendments are like Super-Laws. If something actually made it through the rigorous ratification process it MUST be the will of the people and a Really Good Non-Partisan idea.

Which is why neither guns nor gay marriage will ever be banned. Which is great.

The trickiest bit is when you get people that ONLY obey the Constitution--any mere "law" is but an activist "interpretation" of the Immutable Document and therefore illegitimate. Not surprisingly, these people have a lot in common with nut-job Bible thumpers. Frequently they are the same person (there's quite a few batshit Christians that are incredibly libertarian/anarchist; they just don't make themselves known all that often).

I find these assumptions incorrect. I do not fear guns, in that, say, I do not walk down the street gripped by some sort of worry I'm about to be taken out (also, as already noted, I appear to have far *less* fear than Roger does about armed burglary or the like, while living in an area that has a lot more people, for a start, and which Roger himself appears to find suffering more of a crime problem than where he is at). I've shot guns before -- heck, my grandfather taught me how to use a rifle, though all I've ever shot are targets. Meanwhile, I don't believe that I know better than everyone else -- no more so than you apparently know better than everyone else that you are correct, after all. Rather, I am resolutely unconvinced of the need for guns in American society and have not seen a philosophical argument in favor of their possession I yet agree with.

For my part, I wonder if and how a more closely ingrained use of guns from the start of the history of the amendment -- one which was predicated on the 'well-trained militia' clause and which revolved specifically around questions of defense and training that applied to all citizens for those reasons, in otherwards valuing the first part of the amendment *as much as* the second -- would have changed how the current nature of the debate stands, and whether we would not be speaking of issues of fear -- whether it is fear of guns or fear of government or fear of other people -- so much as ones of national defense. The obvious parallel to be drawn, in Western terms at least, would be the Swiss model -- universal male military training, requirements to own guns and ammunition, etc. -- but then again Switzerland is not America and Swiss history is not American history, and wishing otherwise is a pointless exercise.

The observation about how amendments are hard to pass is of course most valid. I would caution against, however, the implication, perhaps unintended by G--ff, that my argument about the Constitution not being immutable is the same as calling it 'perfectly malleable.' I see my take as one of a promise -- in otherwords, that the possibility can exist should there be, as Giboyeux notes, a 'really good' idea, or at the least one that to the voters as represented in both Congress and the state legislatures is a good idea (Prohibition being an instance where it was first seen as a good idea and then a bad one -- an allowance for the Constitution as being not merely immutable but able to have later changes changed back if the experiment doesn't work).

I've already said a couple of times here that I don't believe a repeal of the 2nd amendment would pass due to the current climate, so to my mind I instead have faith in the promise of change rather than the change itself. In contrast the anti-gay-marriage forces more explicitly believed that the change itself was a possibility -- one which was rapidly debunked, precisely because the climate did not exist for it on a national level. The state level, alas, was another matter.

It's a strange, strange world.

For god's sake, what a completely ridiculous comment.

giboyeux is largely OTM. latebloomer is completely OTM, especially here:

i hate people but you don't see me putting animals on a pedestal. if deer or dolphins or platypi had evolved language or self-awareness (or whatever "seperates" us from other animals) they probably would be dicks too.

I am not so sanguine on this point.

TS: Expanded funding for humane ways to curb the deer population vs Homeless shelters
-- The Ghost of Dan Perry (djperr...), November 24th, 2004.

I nominate n/a to be the guy to tell the 400,001st homeless person in line at the new shelters that we could have put in more beds but we decided it was more important to find a way to stop people from shooting deer; please enjoy your street corner!
-- The Ghost of Dan Perry (djperr...), November 24th, 2004.

Ghost - sorry, but i've gone for a few days eating turkey and enjoying the company of my gun toting, deer hunting, and much loved (by me, that is) in-laws deep in the heart of northeastern wisconsin. funny how i can disagree with them about the spiritual relevance of amateur gun hunting as a control on deer populations without them telling me to fuck off as long as i'm as reasonable with them as i've certainly been with you.

above i've included some of the quotes you requested regarding your dismissal of more creative and humane ways to deal with the deer population by saying that any of those notions would inevitably take money from human sufferers. even though your last attack i've cited was against n/a and not myself, i did take up their cause once they bowed out. you picked this fight with me, not the other way around. and if you can't handle sound retorts to your bully tactics, concede like a gentleman instead of sputtering like a retard.

i've read your posts, and i believe i comprehend your very myopic perspective on how the world improves, i just don't agree with you at all. i wonder if you have read and comprehended anything i have written above, i doubt it. i didn't post my thoughts to pick a fight but instead to present some balance to the ecologically ignorant perspectives posted by people like you.

(My "false conflict" is more accurately described as "I would rather spend money to make human beings' lives better than spend money to make animals' lives better"; even without the "unnecessary skirmishes" (which at this point have now become necessary; thanks GWB) I would divert the extra money freed up from that to humanitarian efforts, education efforts, human medical research and Social Security before I diverted money to find a way to sterilize deer in a non-painful manner. This is not because I want deer to suffer; this is because I really don't care at all that people shoot deer. It is a complete and total non-issue to me and, given everything that's wrong with the human condition let alone with life in the United States, I don't understand the mindset that prioritizes the suffering animals over the suffering of human beings.)

Perhaps the name of the author of this piece will sound familiar to some of you. She also wrote this book.