Montana..The Good Life

[Larry]

Ok, try this: Enter into the Deer's domain with a Spear...and leave the Deer's domain WITH a Deer....then you can truly wear the "hunters badge"   

Its called evolution. Humans started using stones to kill their food, then spears, atalatals, bows, and now firearms. Hell if I wanted to I could set a net up in a tree and but food under it. Wait until a buck comes by and let the net drop over him then while he's trying to get out I can club him over the head with a big stick a few times until hes unconscious then find a sharp rock to cut his throat. That may be what you call hunting but I doubt its leagel I its not very humane. I along with most other hunters kill for food, and I don't want to make the animal suffer no more then it needs to to make that happen. We evolved to make more effective tools to kill our food. If you don't like it then you should go put body armor on all the deer you can find.

[mtnman]

You can hunt on any public land as an out of stater as long as you have a tag...I think (but I'm not sure) if you can get a general license for the state. Or you might have to specify what areas you want to hunt. There are general elk tags here that allow you to Hunt Bull's or special drawing tags , if drawn allow you to get a cow (elk)...Look me up in the MA sometime and ill give you my Cell# we can talk. I'm on Ch 169 on rook when I'm on...<S> bro

KAM

TY Sir!  I'll keep an eye open for you...

[mtnman]

Ok, try this: Enter into the Deer's domain with a Spear...and leave the Deer's domain WITH a Deer....then you can truly wear the "hunters badge"   

That wouldn't actually be that tough, were it legal.  I've been in a position to do it many times, but used an arrow instead.  I'm not aware of any state where spears are legal for deer.  Feral animals such as hogs, yes, but not deer.  Same goes for the knife idea that someone else mentioned.

A few years ago I shot a deer with my muzzleloader from less than 10 feet away.  It had no idea I was there, and a spear would have sufficed.
 
In terms of killing, an arrow and a spear kill basically the same way (a blade causing major hemorrage).  The arrow and the spear are both tools used to deliver the object that matters, which is the blade.  Is one worthy of more praise than the other?  If I use a hammer to drive a nail, am I better for it than if I drove the nail with an pneumatic nail gun?

(That's really the extent of my comment on you post Dentin- the rest is just my own rambling).

As one who's done a huge amount of hunting, I think it's important to realize that the actual effort/technique used to kill the animal is a very small part of the hunt.  Far less than 1% of the total effort exerted and time expended is used to squeeze the trigger, draw the bow, or whatever.

I have to admit though, I find the technique I use to hunt far more important (to me) than my "success rate".  I'd relish the legal chance to hunt with a spear, or even to use the stone heads I've knapped for my arrows.  That's a big part of why my hunting is mainly (not entirely) limited to falconry, muzzleloaders, and archery.  I favor removing as much "modern technology" from my hunt as possible.  I do that because I want to, not because I think it's any "better" than another person's legal methods.  I also like to be able to turn the animals I hunt into many products other than food.

[dentin]

Quote from: dentin on Yesterday at 09:51:49 AM
Ok, try this: Enter into the Deer's domain with a Spear...and leave the Deer's domain WITH a Deer....then you can truly wear the "hunters badge"   Evil

That wouldn't actually be that tough, were it legal.  I've been in a position to do it many times, but used an arrow instead.  I'm not aware of any state where spears are legal for deer.  Feral animals such as hogs, yes, but not deer.  Same goes for the knife idea that someone else mentioned.

A few years ago I shot a deer with my muzzleloader from less than 10 feet away.  It had no idea I was there, and a spear would have sufficed.
 
In terms of killing, an arrow and a spear kill basically the same way (a blade causing major hemorrage).  The arrow and the spear are both tools used to deliver the object that matters, which is the blade.  Is one worthy of more praise than the other?

Short answer:  "More praise"?? yes, meaning, (to clarify my meaning ) more skill is required to "hunt" with a Spear, Bow&Arrow OR black powder....AND the preceding methods  excludes the use of a "deer stand"/artificial lures, etc.

If I use a hammer to drive a nail, am I better for it than if I drove the nail with an pneumatic nail gun?

Tsk, tsk...   Sure, you'd be "better for it" IF you were hunting with a hammer    Well, hey, I thought it was funny. 

(That's really the extent of my comment on you post Dentin- the rest is just my own rambling).

As one who's done a huge amount of hunting, I think it's important to realize that the actual effort/technique used to kill the animal is a very small part of the hunt.  Far less than 1% of the total effort exerted and time expended is used to squeeze the trigger, draw the bow, or whatever.

No disagreement there.  ^^^^

I have to admit though, I find the technique I use to hunt far more important (to me) than my "success rate".  I'd relish the legal chance to hunt with a spear, or even to use the stone heads I've knapped for my arrows.  That's a big part of why my hunting is mainly (not entirely) limited to falconry, muzzleloaders, and archery.  I favor removing as much "modern technology" from my hunt as possible.  I do that because I want to, not because I think it's any "better" than another person's legal methods.  I also like to be able to turn the animals I hunt into many products other than food.

Correct me if I'm incorrect, but based on the above statement , your preferred methods of "hunting" is more in line with my definition than not.

[mtnman]

Correct me if I'm incorrect, but based on the above statement , your preferred methods of "hunting" is more in line with my definition than not.

I guess it would depend on what you mean by "my definition". 

If you're referring to a more skillful method earning a higher "praise", sure I'd agree. 

The difficulty factor is important to me, but I don't believe it needs to be, or should be, important to everyone.  Hunting can be broken down into different "stages", that aren't necessarily progressed through, or progressed through in any set order.  There's the guy who just simply wants to succeed, or the guy who wants to get his "limit", or only a "big" animal, or a certain color of animal, or who only wants to use a certain tool or weapon.  I find myself mainly in that last category, although I had to progress through some of the other categories first.  I get a kick out of working with old, hand-powered tools.  That couldn't always be termed "efficient", and is actually probably "unnatural", and sometimes even unsafe.  What other organism does things the "hard way" by choice, for enjoyment?

If you mean the definition mentioning "unnecessary" and "blood sport" (I'm not going back to look at it to get the specific wording) then no, I'm not in line with that, for a few reasons.  It could be argued that the existance of humans isn't "necessary", so why would anything we do be "necessary"? 

Besides being unnecessary, our lives impact other organisms, and cause their death, whether we intend it or not.  Practically every facet of our lives impacts the other organisms sharing the planet.  I'm typing on a computer using electricity derived from burning fossil fuels.  The components of the computer were also made from petroleum products, and the gathering of materials to construct the components in all likelyhood caused habitat destruction and displaced animals (as did the building of my house, and the city I work in.  I eat a lot of pre-packaged food.  Beyond the food itself, the packaging process isn't environmentally friendly.  I work for a food package manufacturer.  We made enough plastic film last year in our fairly small facility to run a 5 foot wide strip around the earth over 11 times.  Some of what we made was "waste" that we processed.  All the "good" material ends up in a landfill after the final customer empties the potato chip's bag and throws it away.  By helping make the product, I'm responsible for part of the environmental damage that occurs as a result.  By eating the pre-packaged food I'm monetarily supporting the process as well.  By eating food and going to work (burning gas in the process) I'm impacting the environment, and causing a lot more harm to it than I would in a lifetime of "hunting".  I'm not planning to ever hunt polar bears, but my everyday, non-hunting actions could theoretically be helping them to go extinct.  I need a job though, and my family needs to eat.  But is the survival of my family "necessary"?  Would our death have an effect on the world?  Being unnecessary, are my actions illegitimate?  And much of my use of products isn't even remotely justifiable.  I watched a football game on TV this weekend, purely for enjoyment.  What harm was done by the manufacture/transport/use of the TV, or the couch I sat on, or the house I was in, or the toilet I flushed, or...

I also think you're muddying the water with "deer stand" and "artificial lure".  What constitutes the "terms" of difficulty/fairness you're looking for?  I've never been big on lures for hunting, but their use is natural (many animals use lures).  Many "natural" (non-artifical) lures are illegal.  By "deer stand" do you mean pre-manufactured?  Or location (in a tree, or on a hill, or behind a bush?)  Use of terrain, and features there-on, is natural for any predator.  And again, the tree stand (or even the lure) is simply a tool, made for a purpose, by a tool-making, tool-using organism, so therefore its use would be natural too, right?  I shot a deer a few years back with a bow, from 1 row of standing corn into the next.  I used the corn as a tool to hide my presence , movement, and sound, and used the wind as a tool to hide my scent.  I was stationary, and let the deer come to me.  Does that meet/exceed the "deer stand" definition?  What if I'd have been in a tree?  Using a device to aid my safety?

[mtnman]

Don't take any of that an attack on you, or your opinions Dentin. 

I'm simply looking for a good, mind-opening conversation.  May as well be informed, entertained, and enlightened as I use my environmentally unfreindly computer (which is probably still better than paper, right?)

[dentin]

                            ------snip------
 If you don't like it then you should go put body armor on all the deer you can find.

Ya think that would help??..naw, that would encourage the use of AP munitions.   

[mtnman]

I don't think body armor stops centerfire rifle bullets anyway.  My little .22-250 will put a tiny 55g bullet through 1/4 steel plate at 200 yds.  My .270 puts a bigger hole through the same steel plate at 200 yds.

[dentin]

I guess it would depend on what you mean by "my definition".

 

if you're referring to a more skillful method earning a higher "praise", sure I'd agree.

Really not thinking " praise".."skill" pretty much nails it.    Once again, couldn't pass it up. 

The difficulty factor is important to me, but I don't believe it needs to be, or should be, important to everyone.

In my opinion, a "true hunter" such as you appear to be, welcomes the challenge to pit his/her "hunting skills" against the quarry.  The more rudimentary the weapons, the more it meets my definition of a "hunter".

I also hold the opinion that hunting (misnomer in the following sense) WITH A 30-06 or any high power rifle w/ a scope, sitting in a tree, or other elevated structure, using artificial scents, salt licks, feed of any kind (probably missed a few) becomes imho, a "blood sport". BTW, do a search on the preceding..you'll discover that I didn't use "selective definition"..or not.   

 

Hunting can be broken down into different "stages", that aren't necessarily progressed through, or progressed through in any set order.  There's the guy who just simply wants to succeed,

Simply for the sake of " succeeding" (we're talking hunting here) for the sport of it...makes no sense to me.

or the guy who wants to get his "limit"

See "succeeding" above..

or only a "big" animal, or a certain color of animal,

The above statement equates to a "trophy hunt"...AKA,  Blood Sport...imho.

 

or who only wants to use a certain tool or weapon.

 Like what..a Bazooka, Chainsaw, Bolo..sorry, crept up on me.    sure I have no problem with someone wanting to use a "certain tool", just as long as its a "Spear, Bow&arrow, Muzzle Loader( no wheeled cannons), etc. 

I find myself mainly in that last category, although I had to progress through some of the other categories first.

And why did you have to progress through some of the other categories ?  I think I already know the answer.

I get a kick out of working with old, hand-powered tools.  That couldn't always be termed "efficient", and is actually probably "unnatural", and sometimes even unsafe.

I Don't think "old hand-powered tools are "unnatural OR unsafe...my F.I.L (recently passed @ 93 yrs old) was an antique dealer for 70 yrs, and worked with MANY old tools, very skilled in their use, never had any problems. There is much to be said about using tried & true methods..AKA preserving the past...but not in this thread.

 

What other organism does things the "hard way" by choice, for enjoyment?

Well I did see a Chimp antagonize a dog by yanking on the dog's tail...does that qualify? 

If you mean the definition mentioning "unnecessary" and "blood sport" (I'm not going back to look at it to get the specific wording) then no, I'm not in line with that, for a few reasons.

I think I've explained my opinion on the above quotes...and my arthritis is hindering my typing abilities, ergo I don't think I'll revisit my position.

It could be argued that the existance of humans isn't "necessary", so why would anything we do be "necessary"? 

I suppose it could be argued, but not on a "hunting thread"....just a tad too subjective for me, at this time.
                                          ----------snip---------

I also think you're muddying the water with "deer stand" and "artificial lure".  What constitutes the "terms" of difficulty/fairness you're looking for?

I do believe I've already answered that question.

 

I've never been big on lures for hunting, but their use is natural (many animals use lures).

 

I shot a deer a few years back with a bow, from 1 row of standing corn into the next.  I used the corn as a tool to hide my presence , movement, and sound, and used the wind as a tool to hide my scent.  I was stationary, and let the deer come to me.  Does that meet/exceed the "deer stand" definition?

No comparison..you utilization involved  natural vegetation, although the corn WAS planted by a human...still doesn't compare to a device constructed in a tree.

 

What if I'd have been in a tree?  Using a device to aid my safety?

Depends, how safe is the safety device?  I suppose you could, theoretically, fall from the tree and in the process hang yourself...and if this act was accomplished in the presence of a Deer, well you can just imagine the entertainment you just provided.   

[dentin]

Don't take any of that an attack on you, or your opinions Dentin. 

I'm simply looking for a good, mind-opening conversation.  May as well be informed, entertained, and enlightened as I use my environmentally unfreindly computer (which is probably still better than paper, right?)

Entertained..I might be able to dance around the edge of that..as far as the others..naw, to difficult.

Better than paper?  You've most certainly heard of the many products derived from the Hemp plant, paper being one of the many. So no, it's(your computer) not better.   

[dentin]

I don't think body armor stops centerfire rifle bullets anyway.  My little .22-250 will put a tiny 55g bullet through 1/4 steel plate at 200 yds.  My .270 puts a bigger hole through the same steel plate at 200 yds.

Sure it does..to wit: type IV   .30-06 =.30 M2 AP    Armor Piercing, 166 grains (10.8 g)    2,850

 If I'm not mistaken the 22-250 is around 3700 fps, so, that particular weapon probably would inflict some damage.  Know anyone thats willing to test the theory?   

More info at http://www.bulletproofme.com/NIJ_Test_Rounds_CHART.shtml