GOOD NEWS FOR DEER IN MISSOURI

On October 15, 2007, Greg wrote:

Have you ever accompanied anyone on a bow hunt? Have you ever seen the devastation to the environment of an overpopulated species? Have you seen diseases and their effects on wildlife when left unchecked? Do you know what happens when game animals lose their fear of humans? Science isn’t bought and paid for to enhance the results in favor of hunters. These “Reports” as you call them have been verified through decades of research, and guess what? They’ve been verified through out the WORLD!! It was hunters that restored populations of turkey, deer, elk, and countless other game animals including bears and mountain lions. I could go on and on, and present all sorts of verified scientific benefits, but you aren’t interested in the truth. You think that all the facts that are given are some form of manipulation in its truest form. So you my friend, have no reason that makes us greater beings than the animals we pursue. Did you know that all of the vegetarians diet is produced on farms that ALL kill animals to protect their crops that uninformed people eat? In some cases more animals are put down for this reason that the entire year’s worth of hunting seasons! I doubt that as well, just as I doubt that you’ll ever use your brain for anything beyond fantasies that give you reason to support your uninformed, fanatical beliefs. So, I know my wisdom gathered from several years of research that I’ve been a part of and have never been “paid” for, will be wasted upon you. So I see no point in giving you the REAL Facts in any more depth than I already have.

On October 18, 2007, Scott wrote:

I couldn’t agree more. People from your side of the argument are always pushing other people around trying to force your opinions on the rest of us. We don’t flaunt the fact that we hunt - some of us rarely ever have time to go hunting, even though we support it. It is a free country and it isn’t against the law to hunt. The first comment hammered some very import points home and your response was completely emotional and baseless. In the wild, don’t animals die anyway? If we “selectively remove” some isn’t that the same as the circle of life? C’mon, show some respect and back off! It’s fine to believe however you wish, but it’s not a crime to disagree with you. It seems that is exactly what you’re pursuing! A law that makes it illegal to disagree! This spurned me to do some research of my own and the factual evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of hunting. Where are your facts? It’d be nice to stop this immature way of life that many people with your beliefs simply want their way and nothing else. No matter what the cost. You can officially scratch me off the “friends” of animals support list! Of course, I doubt that you’ll actually post any of these type of comments. Why should you? they’re respectful voices of disagreeing opinions and you don’t like that.

[Blog editors’ note: Don’t Homo sapiens die anyway, Scott? Is it therefore acceptable to shoot them? Please note: This is not a disrespectful question to ask.]

On October 18, 2007, Scott wrote:

You’re right, this is a respectful question, when asked appropriately. But again you turn to insults - as in insulting my intelligence - rather than say “ok we disagree.” The difference in our positions is that people that share your opinion think that it’s ok to put animals over humans. When in fact, all you really seem to care about is your own agenda. If you cared about animals you would support hunting. As brash as that sounds, let’s analyze that statement and apply our brain - which separates us from animals - and think about it. Let’s say that there’s no hunting in an area that is overpopulated with deer. Rather than try to understand that deer devastate the habitat - the habitat that they share with other animals…. say, songbirds for example. The deer will shortly start eating all the forage within their reach. Leaving no cover to help the songbirds hide from either birds of prey or other predators. OR, lets say there’s no hunting in an area again, overpopulated with deer. Let’s say there’s heavy rains, and since the deer have eaten every morsel of vegetation erosion devastates what earth is left causing mudslides of both minor and great proportions. What then? These examples casually slip the minds of “environmentalists” and it’s left to the tax payers to make up the difference when hunting could actually increase revenue rather than have us working individuals from suffering tax hikes due to this extremist oversight. You asked me if humans die, yes they do. As I assume you already know (note: I assumed you had intelligence rather than make an insulting reference about something obvious). The truth is hunters don’t run through the woods with automatic weapons shooting down everything that isn’t human. Yet this is what you’re trying to pass as my logic. Humans are humans and animals are animals. We’re at the top of the food chain because we worked our way there. What’s wrong with choice? Is it that I made it on my own with out talking to you to see what is the right or wrong way to decide? Maybe your insensitivity to the fact that statistics show (here we go again, referring to facts, sorry I’m not playing fair) that children that hunt are 76% less likely to commit a violent crime. Maybe I should point out that statistically hunting is safer than ping pong! Again facts are being used here, google them for yourself. Never has there been a hunter shoot defenseless school children for fun. Yet, it’s the same people that get spit on and have their rights trampled by people that share your beliefs. To answer your question - yes there are acceptable times to shoot humans! Such as self defense for example. But that’s another subject. One that’s comparing apples to oranges. I can’t recall a conversation with an “anti” in which comparing apples to apples was a fair tactic. Hunters actually protect the animals you claim to be. Without hunters each family in America would spend an estimated $517 per year in the produce section alone. Airlines would raise their prices in the neighborhood of 30%. Insurance companies would raise their costs to a modest 35% hike. The food vegetarians eat comes from farms that - GASP - use hunting to cut losses and protect the very objects you enjoy to eat. There are so many arguments that can be made, all of which support hunting. All of these ideas are easy to find and use evidence based practices. So rather than keep going, I’ll ask you, don’t animals kill animals? Shouldn’t we start monitoring them and try to force your opinion on them? Or maybe we could organize a protest and call them murders! If you want to go tit for tat, we could do that for the rest of our lives. So can you point to some evidence or is all of your material based on what you say we should believe? Aren’t we able to challenge your ideas? Isn’t that how we came up with democracy and the conception of this great nation? I must thank you for posting my last comment. On several message boards it is said that you guys screen your comments and don’t post anything challenging. I suppose this will give me an idea of what is actually the truth. :-) Please, try some understanding rather than condemnation, you’ll have greater success. Have a good day.

On October 19, 2007, Bill wrote:

All hunters are a bunch of murderers of innocent animals. They use LYME disease as their big excuse. Go shoot mice?? they carry lyme?. Its just a sport and their thrill to kill or watch a deer suffer with an arrow. Slow death is what creates their adrenaline rush, watching an innocent animal suffer. How sick is that? Hunters are people that were not “wired” correctly at birth. short for “KILLERS”. They are not men at all!!

On October 20, 2007, Sonya wrote:

I think Bill said it all! I agree with him 100%. Cruelty won’t ever end, there will always be heartless people.

On October 21, 2007, Scott wrote:

I’m very happy that some people are listening! There have been several posts that I’ve submitted that aren’t viewable here. You “Editors” pick and choose comments that you think you can make some comical, sarcastic, rhetoric to. I’ve been nice, I’ve spoken the truth and yet you still can’t post any responses to my facts. That in and of itself should tell the world that you have something to hide! There are thousands of people out there that aren’t sure what the truth really is. I’ve approached this from an educational standpoint. If people don’t agree with me, fine. But the truth of the matter is, you are afraid that people will learn what hunters really do and that’s ensure the positive existence of not just game animals, but all animals for our future generations to come. Your organization has little to nothing that supports this. You’re only interested in the almighty dollar. When people challenge you, you rally all the people that ignorantly believe anything you say. You prevent recovery efforts in Africa - yes I said that! You don’t think that it’s important human beings that live in Africa should eat. Even though several species are overpopulated and severely decimating the available resources that BOTH humans and animals need to survive. Heaven forbid hunting should be a major benefactor for starving human beings!! Forget about supporting a money making industry that can help all God’s creatures. If it doesn’t suit your money making scheme - forget it! People need hunting to ensure we all benefit equally from what we can. Rather than take your approach in a positive way, you use half truths, deceit, and at times outright lies. You know what, I don’t stop caring about what is right, even if it isn’t the “cool thing to do”. Still I wait, my challenge stands. Your president has spoken and yet all she can do is a weak company line. FACTS? I’m gonna do what I can to spread the truth about organizations such as yours and one by one people will make an informed decision - right or wrong. At least when I’m done talking to them, they’ll have some understanding of what the environment could be when managed and what it could be left unchecked.

[Blog editors’ note: Apparently you are unaware that Friends of Animals’ work in Africa supports the avallability of fresh water for humans and nonhumans simultaneously. Our well digging work is supported by the Arcus Foundation in recognition for its respect for human and nonhuman life. It is you who needs to be educated before you communicate.]

On October 22, 2007, Greg wrote:

I’m waiting for facts that support your point of view! What are you afraid of? Why haven’t you posted my follow up comments to your weak comments and replies? This is why you will end up writhing in failure. Because you can’t support a debate with any truth. This is a free country, you claim to welcome all opinions, so why do you make such an effort to suppress what people truly want to know? You’re hypocritical in all your viewpoints! They’re all unfounded to boot! How often are you urbanites ever in the woods? I don’t mean hiking! I mean really taking part of nature. I’d be interested in your comparisons to the actual time that hunters spend. Remember: The TRUTH shall set you free. Time to get with the program - the real program!

[Blog editors’ note: The U.S. is not a free country, Greg. Yesterday, Bush II demanded another $46 billion to occupy Iraq, and that’s not about “taking part of nature,” anymore than shooting a defenseless animal to death ratifies a peace accord with nature. We do believe the public should determine policies, and that’s where hunters will be outvoted, if democracy prevails.]

On October 23, 2007, bill wrote:

Thats what all hunters say. Oh we give the meat away! Or I eat the meat! How come I see deer with arrows still in them, dead in the woods and even shot deer. Where are those deer taken? Or, are they just left to die? No one seemed to be using their meat! Hunting is just killing and animals are just left behind and are not taken to the appropriate stations as they are supposed to. Like I said “the thrill to kill”. Its a sport to kill and nothing else!! All the EXCUSES deer hunters use to hunt is just as insane as their action ‘KILLING INNOCENT ANIMALS”

On October 23, 2007, Lee Hall of Friends of Animals wrote:

Does it matter to the deer what is done with their bodies? Interesting, isn’t it, that in human killings, using the flesh is considered a more offensive crime?

On October 23, 2007, Scott wrote:

Blog editor notes: Brief excerpts from Scott’s redundant rant begins:

…Again you assume people are stupid. …You’re promoting death and desparity! You have a song and dance that portrays hunters as beer guzzling red necks that run out and when they feel like it shoot anything they wish…. . Back to Africa, did you know that the average adult elephant knocks down an average of 1500 trees per year and drink on average of 13 gallons of water per day? Because you should know that Africa’s elephants haven’t been endangered in quite a while. In fact in many areas of Africa elephants are overpopulated! … I can debunk all… Post this one, I DARE YOU.

[Blog editors’ note: We prefer double dares.
Now Shhhhhhhhh. ]

On October 23, 2007, Lee Hall of Friends of Animals wrote:

And aren’t “common blue collar people” becoming vegetarians?

Answer: Yes, many are.

On October 28, 2007, Natalie Jarnstedt wrote:

There is one thing that hunters and others never consider, think of, or mention: Deer don’t die only by hunters’ hands….there actually is a natural attrition rate - they die, just like the rest of us! Yes, cars, diseases, old age can kill them… Why do hunters believe that they are the chosen ones to decide the fate of wild animals? They are not predators; they kill for recreation and pleasure - and anyone who says otherwise, is deluding themselves! …Whatever natural predators there still may exist, you can bet that they’re on the list of animals to be exterminated! Yotes, for example, don’t stand a chance because they may be in direct competition with deer hunters! So much for those excuses.

On October 28, 2007, Greer Ashton wrote:

Hunters may consider themselves to be predators; they are NOT. Predators prey on young, sick, and old animals - hunters want a perfect specimen, a trophy for their wall, and by doing so, they are actually downgrading the gene pool. Hypocrisy, that’s the operating word for hunting! There’s not much else to add.

On October 30, 2007, Jill wrote:

I wonder if I might just add something, seeing as I live in the southern part of Africa. Decisions are being made as to how to control the elephant population - hopefully without having to resort to mowing down herds with helicopters or cutting off the water supplies. The problem is… overpopulation of the human species, many years ago when James Stevenson Hamilton took over the running of the Kruger National Park, the preditors had all but been wiped out, causing an imbalance, herds of buck starving… it took years for the park to regain its balance, not by hunting (which was what started the problem in the first place) but by re introducing the natural preditors…Up to this day (80 years or so)the Wild dog is still highly endangered, remove the natural preditors and the problems start.
From what I can gather, Bow hunting is extremely cruel, I dont believe that every hunter is a sharp shooter either. Anyway,these are extremely leathal weapons which, in my opinion should be outlawed, along with firearms, claw traps and other darstedly inventions of man, that inflict painful death to their victims (who are usually - animals).

Too many people in the world…Getting off my soap box now and retreating into the bush.

Kind regards

On October 30, 2007, Kayleigh wrote:

I must say that I agree with practically everything that scott wrote.(or atleast whatever the editor has chosen for us to see) It’s frustrating to see all of the true facts that he has pointed out and yet you people are still too ignorant to realize how important hunting really is.(and please note that there is a difference between ignorant and stupid) I can remember a time when I was younger that I thought hunting was a cruel vile thing but that was because I was so wrapped up in my emotions of how cute the deer are or how sad it is to think of a doe losing its fawn or even visa versa. You need to realize that it is part of nature. How about that theory “survival of the fittest”. It’s absolutely true. All through out time there has been a food chain. The biggest and strongest kill and eat others. Animals are just as much predators and prey to eachother as they are to us. If it’s not us killing them its them killing eachother or even us for that matter. Granted it doesn’t happen as often now as it has in the past but that’s because of the advancement of society. Have there not been bears or other wild animals that have wandered into our towns and cities? Maybe even harming or killing a couple people? And yet you all gasp and cry when they take the animal away and put it in captivity or kill it. The fact of the matter is animals kill and harm eachother and even sometimes humans. Your reasons for not wanting us to hunt are assanine. I’m sorry that you feel bad for the animals who suffer or die but I feel sorry for the people who are driving and get killed or injured by the group of deer running across the road, or the bear who decided it wanted to attack a moving vehicle(which happened right in my area just recently) and have you ever seen how big wild turkeys get? Can you imagine what just one of those can do to a car? It’s not like we can prevent that from happening because we need to drive and hunting seems to me to be the only logical plan for overpopulation. And I know you don’t like the fact that there are some morons out there that do shoot and kill just for the thrill and then leave the animals to suffer. I don’t like that any more than you do but those are the morons that are gonna go out and keep getting their cheap thrills even if hunting is illegal. So yes you have your false stereotypes of hunters just like they have their stereotypes of you. Do you really want to punish and restrict those people who actually do survive and live by hunting. And just so you know the majority of hunters do hunt for the meat or the fur(people need to eat and stay warm)or they sell it because that is the means of living that they choose. Hunters aren’t cold heartless people that only think about killing things, they also have pets such as dogs or cats. They do have emotions and can love animals in other forms than just digestion in their stomach. And it’s also just as much in an animals nature to eat meat as it is ours. Why should we restrict what we eat when the animals don’t. Do you think the bear or coyote thinks first before it eats that deer or that turkey. They eat what their body craves. Why shouldn’t humans have that same right. It’s part of freakin nature people. I mean come on, study our teeth, they were made to eat both vegetation and meat. Now granted I may not completely agree with being a vegetarian(it is a pretty healthy life style) but I’m not about to try to force my eating habits on you nor my religion nor my political views. Scott made some great points and if you’d put aside your emotional views about the poor defenseless animals you would realize that hunting is necessary. We really don’t need an overpopulation of animals. It would cause more problems than you realize. Imagine yourself making a living as a farmer. How are you gonna make money if half your crops are eaten by the overpopulation of wild animals that can’t be contained from your field of food(money). So in turn the only way that you can make a profit on your food is by raising the price you sell it at. I really really don’t think you grasp the concept of how much damage just a few animals can make in a field of crops. Do you really want to imagine an over condensed population? I mean some of you vegetarians must have some idea. Because if ur so against meat you must have at some point planted yourself a nice garden and maybe some of it didn’t grow because of poor planting and some because of poor weather and then on top of those problems already some more is lost because of some squirrels or rabbits or woodchucks or deer or even other animals who got hungry. I can remember countless times my mother didn’t get as many tomatoes or cucumbers that she wanted and more times that all of the squash and lettuce had been eaten leaving us with none. It’s very disappointing especially when you put hard work and pride into something. Now I’m not against animals and I myself don’t hunt but I’m definitely not against it because I recognize how necessary it is. I’ve lived in both urban and rural areas growing up and I’ve seen my fair share of car and animal accidents. I’ve seen people go to the hospital and hitting my fair share of deer and maybe a turkey I know how scary it can be wondering if your sister in the passenger seat is gonna be ok or wondering if your husband driving behind you isn’t gonna get the deer that flew off your car smashed into his windshield. You people need to lay off your selfish views(they are selfish whether you want to realize it or not) of feeling bad for the poor helpless animals. There is a lot more to hunting than meets the eye.

[Blog editors’ note: Imagine a bow hunters’ blog allowing such a mouthful from one of their critics. Hunters appear self-absorbed and without sympathy toward the animals they victimize and whose freedom and families they destroy. I resent hunters and the violence from which they derive pleasure because I respect turkeys, deer, squirrels, rabbits, woodchucks — all animals with whom we’ve co-evolved and whose interests matter — at least to them. Humans can choose avocado sandwiches; polar bears can not. There are moral distinctions for Homo sapiens, but hunters who opine on our blog fail to grasp them. ]

On October 31, 2007, Bill wrote:

Its pure and simple. What is the meaning of “CRUELTY TO ANIMALS”!! Hunters who kill deer with Bow and Arrows, shotguns and attracting them with feed and then to massacre them….

On October 31, 2007, Billy wrote:

Quoted in the article, “Warrensburg Police Chief Bruce Howey reported only nine city accidents involving deer in 2006.”

Let the vegetarians pay for the increases in auto insurance in Warrensburg.
Look, if left alone and kept unchecked, the animal populations would grow too large for earth’s carrying capacity. Disease and famine would do more harm to the animals than all the world’s hunters. Animal related traffic fatalities would increase exponentialy. And finally, many poor families would go unfed, eventually creating famine among Americans. I know of too many families who solely depend on wild game and subsistance gardening for their food.

[Blog editors’ note: That’s what they teach you in wildlife management school, Billy, a prerequisite for working as an apologist for hunters in a state or federal wildlife agency. Truth is, the species that’s overpopulated is the Homo sapien. Deal with that. ]

On November 1, 2007, Cari wrote:

I think the main issue at hand here is whether hunting is justified. Back in the days, hunting was done for survival purposes, and perhaps a good example is the Native Americans. They would hunt only as much as they can consume to survive, and this would include using almost every part of the hunted animals. Had they not killed these animals, they themselves may have starved or froze to death. They say a prayer of respect and apologize to the animal they killed that they had to take away its life. Nowadays, however, hunting is done for pleasure, thrill, and a sense of conquering. Do hunters need to kill these animals for survival? Most likely not. You may argue that in the long run, hunting helps keep certain animal population from reaching levels that could threaten the wellbeing of other species, but I believe there are other means of doing so without pain and suffering to the animals. You may also argue that hunting is carrying out Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. However, like Greer Ashton’s post said earlier, hunting today is not targeting the weak/young/old but the healthy, in other words — the fittest. Hunters look for the buck with the bigger antlers, the bear with the best coat, etc. If anything, hunting is doing exactly the opposite of Darwin’s theory. The offspring of these hunted fit victims will often perish as a result of losing its parent, and over time, we lose the best specimen of many hunted animals. Yes, we humans are superior in brains, but being a part of nature, a part of the world, we all have a duty to respect everything that’s around us. Species thriving today may not be in a few decades, as there are enough changes in the environment caused by human innovations already, and we should all try to make sure that our children and our children’s children will get to see as much as possible all inhabitants of earth.

On November 2, 2007, bill wrote:

I guess hunters do not know the meaning of “cruelty” so thats why they deny that killing deer is cruelty. Hunters make up their own rules and excuses.

Baiting deer and massacring them, what is that? Thats not hunting. Hunters use noises, food, and other means to get the deer in their range so then they can kill them. What category does that fit into?
Thrill to Kill. NOT HUNTING.

On November 4, 2007, Mike wrote:

I’ve read some of the comments and am hurt by those that depict all hunters as thrill seekers. My admiration of Tom Scholz led me to pursue vegetarianism. The short version of a 10-yr long story, is that I was unable (medically) to convert to complete vegetarianism. Even my much reduced need for meat protein disgusted me, the more I came to understand what had to occur to get heme iron and animal protein in me to keep me strong and healthy.

I decided that the most humane and conscious thing I could do was harvest my own meat. Again, the short version of a long story, is that a single adult deer provides my needs for a full year.

I hunt with both bow and rifle and have never had full death exceed a minute. And yes, I resort to many tactics (calling, bush pushing, scents) to get one within quick ‘kill’ range. And yes, I am always elated with a successful kill. Ironically, those who know and have come to know me and understand my stance on harvesting game meat (even those who detest hunting and hunters) actually accept and respect my hunting reasons and methods.

The point I’m trying to make is a plea to not ‘tar all of us with the same brush’. After my most recent harvest/kill (just a month ago) my sister (also a hunting and hunter hater) called to congratulate me while in the same breath reminding me that she could never kill an animal because she loves them too much.

Ironically, I explained that I do my own killing because “I love them so much”. I once read “It takes the same degree of intelligence to love all things as it does to hate all things”. I truly believe all people should be valued for their merits and not their actions alone.

By the way, I despise trophy hunters, thrill seeking killers and those who take “Hail Mary” shots on any living creature. You’d be hard-pressed to illustrate to me a solid justification for any of the above.
Peace & Love

On November 4, 2007, Lee Hall of Friends of Animals wrote:

Thank you, Mike. Your decision does sound based on a concsious decision, and those who make such a decision have indeed found a way to consume far less animal products than those who simply visit the supermarket and toss groceries in a bag. Are you aware, though, that you are still talking about the harvest of meat? Recall that this is an advocacy forum, and you’ll understand our view of this: we’re advocating for animal rights. Can we at least agree that the phrase “harvest of meat” would not be one you’d use, or one that others would find acceptable, if there were no other animals on the planet and you were deciding whether to eat other human bodies?

George Bernard Shaw was told by a doctor that eating animal products would, in Shaw’s case, be necessary for survival. Shaw wrote to the London Daily Chronicle:

“My situation is a solemn one: Life is offered to me on condition of eating beefsteaks. But death is better then cannibalism. My will contains directions for my funeral which will be followed not by mourning coaches but by oxen, sheep, flocks of poultry, and a small travelling aquarium of live fish, all wearing scarves in honour of the man who perished rather than eat his fellow-creatures. It will be, with the exception of Noah’s Ark, the most remarkable thing of the kind ever seen.”

Shaw, a lifelong vegetarian, outlived the doctor and passed away at the age of 94.

At 84, Shaw wrote, “I am oppressed with a dread of living forever. That is the only disadvantage of vegetarianism.”

On November 5, 2007, Mike wrote:

Thanks you for posting my letter and for that response; though I must admit, it eludes me. I used the term ‘harvest’ as it relates to my taking of a naturally occurring game animal, in no disrespect. No differently than I would refer to ‘harvesting’ of a bag of field mushrooms or tub of wild berries.

Though I am not a member (yet) of FOA, I truly consider myself a “friend of animals” and have the greatest regard for those who genuinely care about living things. With that, I am lost at how my use of the term ‘harvest’ advocates disrespect to animals or the FOA or for that matter advocates in favour of canibalism.

I hope you don’t think I’m being ‘cheeky’ in asking you to clarify that Lee.

With that, I should clarify that though I am in fact repulsed by almost all animal product (specifically flesh) in grocery stores, I bear no judgement towards those who produce or consume it, nor do I advocate (categorically) in favour of hunting. I was simply stating that I believe ‘hunter bashing’ is as thoughtless as ‘hunter loving’; when stated categorically. My observation has been that neither defence is solvent.
Peace & Love

On November 8, 2007, jane wrote:

Why do you people care what animals feel? I show animals in 4-h and they are pefectly fine with because guess what THEY DONT CARE. deer cant feal it cause there dead! and the deer and other animals like cows will breed and they are ment to be killed.

FoA comments: We need to care how animals feel because you obviously don’t. And we care for how animals feel because we respect them, and hope one day you will as well.

On November 9, 2007, Mike wrote:

This may surprise those of you who have read my previous letter(s), but I speak from personal observation from years of respectfully enjoying and observing the outdoors, that many animals do care and feel.

I have witnessed grown deer lay next to a dying or dead carcass of another deer that had been shot or hit by a vehicle - I don’t know if they were grieving or just being vigilant, but they did so without regard for their own well-being. I also once watched a bull elk nudge at his shot dead buddy attempting to revive him - again, oblivious to his own well being.

With that, I have not observed all animals to be this chivalrous, but I believe deer in particular, in their natural community, feel and care - very much.

I think most people who have had the joy of experiencing the love of a well-cared-for pet, will attest that animals definitely feel and care. I once let emotion get the best of me and hollered at a friend’s border collie who was behaving a bit overzealous. It took weeks to reestablish the dog’s desire to love me again. I don’t believe animals in the wild are that much different.

With that, my experience around horses is that if you don’t treat them very firmly, they will not respect you. But with established boundaries, I’ve observed them to be a very caring, loving and feeling animal. I could go on and on, and though I don’t have personal experience with every animal on the planet, I can say that most of the ones I have observed appear to behave in a manner that demonstrates the presence of feelings and caring.

On November 11, 2007, Crystal Chesnut wrote:

It makes sense to me to control deer populations by hunting and making a QUICK CLEAN KILL instead of them starving to death in the winter, dying slowly and painfully of a disease, or killing me on the highway.

On November 15, 2007, Sally wrote:

Enough is enough… It seems that everyone has to fight over something… Why not find a positive solution? Turn your negitives into something positive.
Since the beginning of time man has hunted for food and will forever continue.

Veggie heads, you use to eat meat at one time or another…but now the fake nasty tasting Tofu. Get real and remember that the ORGANIC actually comes from MEAT not your VEGGIES.

Read about the killing…and how many of your Forefathers fought for your freedom that you have and so on…

People get real and remember the BASICS that this country was FOUNDED ON…

[Blog editors’ note: What’s positive is nonviolence. Also, great vegan cooking abounds if one bothers to learn how to cook. Time to evolve, Sally.

On November 30, 2007, nathan wrote:

that is cool

On December 6, 2007, savanah wisdom wrote:

theres nothing wrong with killing a buck! you eat them and hang there heads on you walls like trothys! i got my first deer this fall! and most of my deer is in the freezer for me and my family to eat! i love animals but deer are way to over populated so you all need to stop freking out! im 14 and i think its perfectly fine to kill a deer! =)

[Blog editors’ note: You’re 14 and we hope
you develop some decent, thoughtful ideas in the years ahead. Meanwhile, it’s a pity you’re another teenager with access to a gun. Loving animals isn’t about shooting them, Savanah, and it’s humans who are encroaching on land and destroying the environment — not the reverse. Leave the deer alone. The terror and misery you’re imposing isn’t justified by science or ethics. ]

On December 15, 2007, Mike wrote:

Savanah,
You sound like a passionate dude. Congrats on your deer kill. Now that hunting season’s over, hit the books and apply that passion to strengthening your language skills.

As a hunter, who was weaned around a culture of self-provisal, with respect for the miracle of all life (animal or plant) taken for our consumption, I must say that I’ve never understood this ritual of displaying any portion of a dead animal for all to see. With deer in particular, it’s not as if you saved yourself from some marauding predator who spontaneously appeared before you, challenging your life for theirs. And let’s get real, it’s not as if the exchange (the deer’s life for your’s) was on a very even playing field. Do you really think that humans would stand a chance if the deer had guns and could shoot back? Or if the only way you could get wild meat on your plate was to stalk and defeat the animal with what nature provided you? Of course not. Humans didn’t rise to the top of the food chain because of our physical supremacy.

So where does this perceived bravado come from, that inspires anyone to mount a symbol of their kill?

With that I’ll corroborate the editor’s note, inspiring you to “develope some decent, thoughtful ideas in your years ahead”.
Peace & Love

On October 20, 2008, David wrote:

I know this might be a bit late to enter this, but here goes a full rebuttal to quit a lot of things these hunters are saying:

1. Greg’s October 15, 2007: Your statement about mountain lions was incorrect. Mountain lions formerly lived in Missouri, but were hunted to the point of near extermination in the state. There now are very few in the state.

2. Scott October 18, 2007: “Selectively removeing” animals from the habitat by hunting typically equals the biggest, strongest, healthist animals being taken, whether for trophy or for food. Wolves, mountain lions, and other such carnivores cannot kill the healther deer. If this was not true, it would disprove the theory of natural selection, as this would cause chance to favor weaker animals. Human hunters remove any animal that they want on their wall, which typically isn’t a deer without antlers and that is old, or, in the case of food, one that is scrawny and diseased.

3. Do you have a shred of edvidence for this besides what you got off a hunting site? I will now begin rebuttal.

a) “76% less likely to commit a violent crime.” If this is true, it does not change the fact that hunting exposes children to bloodlust, thereby making killing seem more exceptable. I know this because a lot of kids my age (13) who are outspoken hunting advocates are also the one’s threating my personal well-being and cats.
b) “Maybe I should point out that statistically hunting is safer than ping pong!” For whom? People with exceptionally thin skulls who are on chemotherapy?

I’ll continue this later, my dad wants me off.

On October 21, 2008, David wrote:

More on Scott’s long rant from the 18th last year:

“Let’s say that there’s no hunting in an area that is overpopulated with deer. Rather than try to understand that deer devastate the habitat - the habitat that they share with other animals…. say, songbirds for example. The deer will shortly start eating all the forage within their reach. Leaving no cover to help the songbirds hide from either birds of prey or other predators.”

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Deer and songbirds have existed in the same place for millennia, and the birds haven’t died out yet. Oh, and “survival of the fittest.” Sound familiar? Also, the ecosystem automatically adjusts to deer population to correct levels. If there are too many deer, deer will naturally emigrate or die off. Also, hormones will keep some deer from breeding. In addition, songbirds are smart enough to hide in trees from predators, and anyway, hunters killed off most of the predators.

More on the ping-pong debacle: If you aren’t playing on ice-covered concrete in your socks, you should be fine. Anyway, ping-pong is usually played indoors, which means that there is no risk of falling (oh, and the balls are heavy enough to cause damage unless you have hollow bones).

“(here we go again, referring to facts, sorry I’m not playing fair) that children that hunt are 76% less likely to commit a violent crime. Maybe I should point out that statistically hunting is safer than ping pong! Again facts are being used here, google them for yourself. Never has there been a hunter shoot defenseless school children for fun. Yet, it’s the same people that get spit on and have their rights trampled by people that share your beliefs.”

Lot of nonsense here, and you probably won’t listen, but here goes:

1. Referring to facts is fair. Unfortunately, you aren’t using many. Here is the article I believe you are referencing.

“According to a report from the National Safety Council, hunting,
often regarded as dangerous by those unfamiliar with the activity, is

actually safer than such mild activities as badminton and ping pong.

The council’s studies reveal that hunting has fewer accidents per

100,000 participants than football, baseball, cycling, volleyball,

swimming, golf, tennis, fishing, bowling, and billiards, as well.

Of the activities researched, hunting endures about 7 injuries per
100,00 participants while the next safest, ping pong, has more than

15 injuries per 100,000. As would be expected, football has the

most, with about 3,313 injuries per 100,000.

Ironically, hunting accidents may get more media attention than
injuries in other sports because of their rarity.

Mandatory hunter education courses throughout the United States is
credited with dramatically reducing the number of hunting accidents

in the last 30 years, making it eight times safer than bowling.”

That might mean fewer accidents, but in ping-pong the accident would be a sprained wrist, and in hunting, about 40% of accidents (figure from C.A.S.H., or the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting) are fatal. I sincerely doubt anyone has died from a sprained wrist.

2. “Without hunters each family in America would spend an estimated $517 per year in the produce section alone. Airlines would raise their prices in the neighborhood of 30%. Insurance companies would raise their costs to a modest 35% hike.”

Where are you getting your figures from? Also, statistics can be very deceiving.