"...UPS won't deliver there if I try to ship them something..."

Wow, that must really be "the boonies"...

UPS wouldn't deliver to a friend of mine either and he didn't live in the sticks. He lived in Camden.


Well, that's a lie. They would sometimes deliver, but they wouldn't stop the truck.

I disagree. In over 40 years in hunting camps I have never met a hunter who was there "trying to survive." On the contrary, with rare exceptions, anybody capable of hunting should be capable of working. A 2nd job is going to provide for the family a lot better than hunting is (unless you are willing to break the law and poach.) I suspect that many people who claim to be "hunting to survive" simply would rather be hunting than working. I know I would....



That is unfortunately irrelevant. With the encroachment of "civilization", all species are having to live in increasing contact with humans. Prey species are much better at surviving this contact than predators. And deer populations have never been higher. I forget the study, but there are now more deer in the continental USA than there were in colonial times.



Nonsense. Even a cursory examination of the big game animals taken by hunters will show the overwhelming number of them to be young. Larger, trophy animals typically require a special permit that is far more difficult to get than a regular license. At least that is the way the experienced wildlife biologists in my state handle things. If things are different where you are maybe you need a new wildlife management team.



It is illegal in every state that I am aware of to kill a game animal and take only the horns and/or head. I happen to like the meat, so I pack it out. But even if I didn't like it I still would. Why? Because it's ethical and it's the law. For those few who don't, the punishment can include fines, loss of hunting priviledges, and the forfeiture of gun and vehicle. That is why it is exceedingly rare (except for poachers, who don't care anyway.)

Yea, I used to want to call them when they would play their ads on TV about shipping to anywhere in the world and ask what world they thought WV was on since they wouldn't deliver there. Last time I tried to ship my parents something I called to see if they recieved it since it showed delivered on the UPS tracking page and it ended up being at the town hall. My dad had to leave work early to get it since he worked 8-5 and the town hall was open from 8-5 only.

" I disagree. In over 40 years in hunting camps I have never met a hunter who was there "trying to survive." On the contrary, with rare exceptions, anybody capable of hunting should be capable of working. A 2nd job is going to provide for the family a lot better than hunting is (unless you are willing to break the law and poach.) I suspect that many people who claim to be "hunting to survive" simply would rather be hunting than working. I know I would.... "

Don't tell them that in Alaska. Besides there, there are many places in America and elsewhere, where subsistence hunting is necessary, as there are not enough jobs nearby. Besides, like you alluded to, if it is better to hunt than to work, what are the factors keeping people from doing just that? Or growing a five acre garden and raising half a dozen chickens for that matter? It is because people have not been taught that living closer to the land is a viable option. I would rather have a ten acre permaculture farm than a job anyday. All the pollution and wasted energy from shipping food grown far away laced with chemicals is not my ideal. If people can't grow their own, they should buy local organic. I would rather live in a functioning village than a city. All cities rely on periphery communities, and that is called urbanization, and that is what is destroying our planet. Jobs are not the answer. Jobs are what displaced indigenous peoples who's forests are being destroyed all around them eventually must resort to getting...sweat shop jobs. They used to hunt. Now MacDonald's owns their land. I hate MacDonald's. I hate sweat shops. I can rant all day, but I'll stop here.

" That is unfortunately irrelevant. "

What "might" be is never irrelevant.

" With the encroachment of "civilization", all species are having to live in increasing contact with humans. Prey species are much better at surviving this contact than predators. "

Coyotes, skunks, raccons, foxes, bobcats, and even mountian lions are just some of the examples of predator species that are just as competent if not more so at surviving near and in human habitat. Basic rule of thumb: Where there is prey there are predators. I know you meant wolves, but there is a reason why I mentioned those others. Animals are evolved to live in niches nature provides. Humans have opposable thumbs and inventive minds so they can "seemingly" live outside of the ecosystem for a short time if they want to, but even so, most humans haven't yet learned that existing within the ecosystem is mandatory.

" And deer populations have never been higher. I forget the study, but there are now more deer in the continental USA than there were in colonial times. "

Seems likely to me.

" Nonsense. Even a cursory examination of the big game animals taken by hunters will show the overwhelming number of them to be young. "

Young, but not diseased or showing subtle signs of unfavorable genetic traits. I think you might have misunderstood my meaning on this one. I'll try to explain things better in the future. Humans don't have any real way of determining whether these younger animals are the best choices for removing from the herd. I think that animals can sense which animals to remove from the herd because they are not interested in wasting energy pursuing the more capable individuals, which are stronger or more highly valued by protective parental instinct, which enables evolution of the species. I think humans have a tendency to cause species stagnation and even devolution, because humans aren't hunting with energy efficiency in mind.

" Larger, trophy animals typically require a special permit that is far more difficult to get than a regular license. At least that is the way the experienced wildlife biologists in my state handle things. If things are different where you are maybe you need a new wildlife management team. "

That might be of benefit to herd viability. I don't know why humans are so indignant in trying to prove themselves by hunting animals they would little chance of catching if they had no modern equipment. Most people scope and shoot. When was the last time you killed a deer with a knife? It sounds ridiculous, but that would rely on instinct, and only the unaware would be taken, to the benefit of the herd. Guns are like random mutation, or an influence coming in from outside the system, like a meteorite. Guns and other easy methods don't discriminate, and it is a roll of the dice whether or not this benefits the herd gene pool. The only positive for guns is a potentially clean, humane kill.
I'm sure you see my point, as irrelevant as it might be to you.

" It is illegal in every state that I am aware of to kill a game animal and take only the horns and/or head. I happen to like the meat, so I pack it out. But even if I didn't like it I still would. Why? Because it's ethical and it's the law. For those few who don't, the punishment can include fines, loss of hunting priviledges, and the forfeiture of gun and vehicle. That is why it is exceedingly rare (except for poachers, who don't care anyway.) "

I'm glad to hear that.

Animals love to go after the young of the herd. Hardly a good thing for the gene pool. They will also go after any animal that has an accident, drowns, whatever. The Walt Disney idea that they "magically" know which animals to cull because of their ESP is utter nonsense. Managed herds do much better than when they are left alone.

We use guns because God gave us the brains to make them. Whether or not we could kill animals with our bare hands (knives are a modern tool also), who cares? I don't hunt to prove anything, I hunt for meat, and I love being outdoors. You have some strange views of hunters, sounds like they are all negative. Perhaps you should meet a couple to break down all these stereotypes you have.

You must have missed my comment about "rare exceptions." These exceptions include Inuits and other native peoples, who hunt to keep their way of life alive as well as themselves. But that is a tiny minority of hunters, at least in the United States.



Where is the source for this claim? Sorry, but it sounds more anecdotal than factual as far as the USA is concerned. Native peoples aside, if I lived in an area where I literally had to hunt to survive, I'd move--particularly if I had "a family to feed."



I never said it was "better". I am saying that for many folks it is simply more enjoyable. And the main limiting factors would have to be game laws and bag limits.



I never said they couldn't survive near human habitat. I said they are not as likely to survive contact with humans as prey species are. Mountain lions and coyotes get shot by sheepherders while mule deer do not. Elk don't typically attack hikers but bears with cubs sometimes do, with disastrous results for the bear. Racoons and skunks are by and large considered pests and are therefore trapped, poisoned, and shot. You don't see that happening with ruffed grouse.



Actually we do. If they are slow enough and unwise enough to be shot by a human then they are removed from the gene pool. The smarter, stronger ones get away. I personally see it just about every year.



I'm not sure what you mean by "indignant", but last fall I hunted mule deer and spike elk with a bow, and later I hunted cow elk with a rifle. I was in the mountains a total of 2 weeks and I never got a shot. (My time was drastically cut short by a serious bout of pneumonia. I make no apologies though; sometimes you are successful and sometimes you are not.)



"Ridiculous" is a good word for it. By limiting hunting to knives you are essentially assuring that no culling takes place, which results in overpopulation of prey species followed closely by widespread starvation. I saw mule deer starving in the deep snow by the thousands in 1983. It's not something I care to see again.

" The Walt Disney idea that they "magically" know which animals to cull because of their ESP is utter nonsense. "

I don't know what this means.

" Managed herds do much better than when they are left alone. "

I guess it all depends on what you mean by better.

" We use guns because God gave us the brains to make them. "

Guns were invented to give people the advantage in war. Their use for hunting is secondary. God doesn't have anything to do with our invention of guns, but Satan might.

" (knives are a modern tool also) "

No.

" who cares? "

I stalk animals for the challenge and because I love outdoors. I can get so close I can touch them, including deer. I think it is funny that people who hunt with guns feel challenged. It is a personal thing. If I were hungry I would kill with my gun, probably at the first deer I saw. I am every bit the opportunist you are, believe me. But I would not pride myself on how much of a hunter I am because I can pull the trigger. For me, hunting is much more than killing an animal for meat. Hunting is a philosophy and a skill set that no man can master in his lifetime.
Don't give me that bull about how hunters aren't out to prove anything. A successful hunt is reason to celebrate and increases the status of men in every culture. It has always been the icon activity for men, and how they prove themselves to be skilled and of value to the community. I think that if you don't understand this, then you have strange ideas about human nature in general as well as about hunters.

" Where is the source for this claim? Sorry, but it sounds more anecdotal than factual as far as the USA is concerned. Native peoples aside, if I lived in an area where I literally had to hunt to survive, I'd move--particularly if I had "a family to feed." "

You are obviously from the middle or upper class. Believe it or not, there are MANY people in the lower US who hunt to supplement a low income. Many of them poach because they can't afford the hunting fees. You rich people can go to your grocery stores as far as I am concerned.

" Actually we do. If they are slow enough and unwise enough to be shot by a human then they are removed from the gene pool. The smarter, stronger ones get away. I personally see it just about every year. "

The smart, strong deer are fast and wise enough to know I am scoping down on them from 50 yards, so they get away. BS!

My father was a partner in a commercial hunting lodge when I was a kid so I grew up around hunting and hunters, I would say that it was almost as big a part in my life as school.

I am still an active hunter today and have introduced my wife and children to the activity. My wife and second daughter enjoy the camp atmosphere but prefer not to actively participate, but my two other children are very involved.

In the Province of Ontario, at age 12 a youth with parental consent can take the Provincial Hunter Course and Federal Firearms Safety Course, including passing two strict exams. The Apprentice is then allowed to share one firearm under the close supervision of a licenced adult Mentor until the apprentice is 15 years at which time the youth can carry their own firearm but still under the direction of a licenced adult. At 18 years the young adult is of age to apply for their own Federal Firearms Licence.

My son has recently completed the 3 year apprenticeship program and is much better trained in safety and hunting ethics than I was at his age.

We are traditional meat hunters and butcher/utilize the game harvested right at our home. If a member of our group is successful in collecting a trophy type animal then that is celebrated (photographs and a toast at dinner) but the trophy is truly secondary to the fellowship, outdoor adventure and quality food harvested.

I find that outdoor activities and especially hunting draws our family together (including a large extended family), it is an activity I hope I can continue to enjoy throughout my life.

Mike

P.S. My son shot his first deer at age 12 with a "youth rifle", a short stocked/short barreled, scoped, bolt action Ruger Mark II compact, stainless/laminate in .260 Rem. A very effective firearm that is scaled to a smaller person and without heavy recoil.