Wild Turkey Question(s) i.e. crazy idea I hatched.

[Tap]

Tap,
For the record, I am not opposed to your (or anyone else's) hunting as long as you don't do it on my land. I don't have any issue with it. I am trying to get you to understand that the two groups of people who point fingers at one another - wildlife advocates and hunters - are two sides of the same coin. Both are "using" animals for their own enjoyment and neither types of persons is actually necessary for the survival of the animals. The problem with the ungulates, mainly the deer, is that we have exterminated all of their natural predators. There are no more wolves and pumas in most places and coyotes are destroyed whenever people can find them. I, personally, like the coyotes on my land because they help keep the rabbits in check. I have lots of apple trees - all of which were labor intensive to plant and expensive to buy or create - and the rabbits reign havoc on them. They were literally destroying my land - eating anything and everything I tried to plant ....then one day along came a family of grey foxes. Within a season, there were no more problem rabbits. The rabbit population was under control. Deer overrun the place so the gobble up the garden almost as soon as I can plant it. Because we are smarter than deer and have more money than they do, I solved the problem by puttng up fences around the garden and blueberry orchard. Unfortunately, coyotes are too small to properly manage the herds of deer which are overrunning our lands. I love coyotes on my property but they can't do the job required to keep the deer under control. They are simply not big enough. I would love to see the return of the wolf but I doubt that will ever happen. Yes, I DO know that wolves and coyotes prey upon people's pets so, for that reason, I keep my cats indoors and my dogs under supervision at all times. I try to keep my land as wild as possible. The simple fact is that we do not have enough natural predators for the deer because we humans exterminated them all. If we had more wolves and pumas - in their natural territories which happens to include my (and probably your) land - we would not be overrun with deer. Thst being said, I still like to watch the deer nibble the corn on the bottom of my porch steps and I still want to go up and train the wild turkey to come to a whistle.......and you still will want to hunt. It's all fine with me. I don't have an issue with it. I am far less concerned with hunters than I am with the bear(s) figuring out where my supply of corn is. I don't want THEM on my back porch and I don't want them smashing my sliding glass doors (which they can do) so as to get at the storage bins of seed and corn which I keep inside. I am far more concerned about that than I am about any stray bullet from a hunter.

Lois, You are mistaken when you separate hunters from wildlife advocates. We are not "2 sides of the same coin", in many cases, we ARE the coin.
I think what you may not understand, and what a lot of other hunters can't fully explain, is the reason WHY we hunt. I can't answer for anyone but myself, but THE main reason why I do it is because it makes me feel one with nature. It's the core of the roots of man. Man has always hunted. We did so for tens of thousands of years before agriculture or the domestication of livestock. Hunting is reality. It's thoroughly clean sustenance. It makes me feel alive and a full participant in our natural world.
It makes me realize that food doesn't come from the grocery store. It comes from mother nature.

And BTW, I AM a natural predator. I was not synthesized. Humans are a natural part of the environment.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

Natty, I do the same thing - I plant countless trees which effort is very labor intensive. I could have retired many times over for all the money I have spent on this land. I am an NP and we make good money - usually just above the 6 figure mark. The vast majority of that money has gone directly back into the land. I spend a fortune on this land and most of what we do here is very labor intensive. I live very simply - most of my money filters directly back into the land, doing the very things you mentioned. I am all with you on the concept of spending money to improve the land. I am now trying to learn now about food plots and how to plant them - any help on that count would be most appreciated. I have to fence in every single tree until it is big enough to withstand deer browse. That means a whole lot of money on fencing for trees and the equipment to put it in. Large machinery needed is very expensive to buy and maintain. Once my husband is no longer able to run the equipment, I will have to hire and pay someone to do it. I also have to fence the garden, the berries and anything else. Even with that, I lose a whole lot of trees to deer. It is a never ending battle. I have had this land for 12 years now and it is gradually going back to the wild thanks to such efforts. My trees are getting bigger and the parts of my land which I decided to return completely to the wild are getting there as well. I also maintain some fields and orchards.

Now here is where I DO differ with hunters. I want the predators back - the wolves, the puma, etc. Most hunters do not. If you were all that concerned, as you say, about the health of the herd, you would not oppose the return of major predators on the land. A pack of wolves patrolling this territory would do wonders for my trees, garden and everything else around here. I do realize they would eat my cats, and my dogs but I can keep them inside.

Yours is a labor of love too then. That's good to hear that you are more invested in the land and stewardship than simply wanting to frolic with the turkeys. I say that not in a snarky way, but in a playful way.

Why would I want wolves on my land? Or coyotes? I am concerned with the management and health of my deer, turkey, and small game populations. Wolves, coyotes, and nest predators are not good for those populations. It's a management decision. You prefer predators because they kill the things that kill your garden and trees. That's your management goal. I kill coyotes and nest predators because they kill the things I am trying to manage. Having no coyotes would do wonders for my deer.

 

[swat1018]

I have taken a mind to calling in wild turkey for the purpose of viewing and enjoyment. There are lots of them on my land (40 acres) and I do occasionally see them here and there. I am not planning to shoot any of them - which is not to say that I don't like turkey meat (I do) but that is not what I have in mind. My idea is to buy a crow whistle and bring up a bucket of dried corn via my gator to the part of my land where I know they hang out. I am hoping to train them to come when I blow the crow whistle and eat the corn which I plan to scatter on the ground. I have heard that turkeys "answer" crow and owl calls. Any idea as to whether this idea will work and how to go about doing it? My plan is to train them first to the crow whistle then switch them over to a regular blast whistle (the kind lifeguards use). Is this idea doable or just some crazy notion I have concocted. If this idea is possible, how should I go about training them to come on command?

Crazy notion......

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

natty, Actually having no coyotes would not be good for your deer at all. Wolves got on man's s__list because of predation on livestock and, equally important, competition for the hunt. Humans don't much like competitors esp competitors who have an advantage in terms of hunting skills. Fact is, however, that wolves are better for the herd than are human hunters. Wolves pick off the elderly, the weak, the sick, etc. Human hunters want the biggest and the best - the multi-point buck - arguably the biggest and the strongest and the most fit to survive. Thing is, natty, you can only legally shoot so many deer per year so your options are not limitless. If you aim to shoot the biggest and the best, then, in fact, the wolf is better for the herd than you are. Coyotes can't pick off the healthy deer so they must take their luck with the weak, sick, etc. The coyote takes down the animals you probably don't want. Mr. (or Ms) Coyote is not even going to think about the big healthy buck which you want. That animal is way out of his reach.

Now you do make a valid point, however. It is your land and you are free to manage it however you see fit. So if you want coyotes off your land in the interest of having a large deer herd, well that is your choice. I like them and I encourage them on my property but they don't do much for the deer problem. Wolves would do a whole lot more good, on that count but I doubt my beef farmer neighbor across the street would see it that way. No doubt, the very last thing he would want would be wolves. Each of us manages our land as we see think best and each of us has his own agenda. You can imagine his dismay we when decided he could no longer hay (or graze) our land (as he had been doing for years before we ever bought the property) because his doing so was too disruptive to our wildlife and that we wanted the space for our reforestation and tree planting projects. Hw was not a happy camper but we owned the land in question. I wanted wildlife and not domestic cattle. We each have our own agenda and when you are the landowner, you get to call the shots. It is kind of like that old saying that the side which wins the war gets to write the history books. I own the land on paper but really I am the steward of it. I have been given the privilege to manage it and, yes, call the shots...so long as I draw air and number among the living. I am taking measures to be sure it stays wild after my husband and I are gone. That being said, this summer, I would like to frolic with the wild turkeys a bit

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Tap, you missed the point. I DO understand why you hunt or fish or plant mass or what not. I seek activities which make me feel one with nature, as well. I don't like killing animals but if I had to do so in order to survive, you can bet I would learn how it is done. I feel at one with nature when planting trees, hiking, observing wildlife, exploring nature, being in tune with my land, etc. Solidtude in nature is awesome and I seek it at. I am bonded to the land and I am one with it. I understand, exactly. The only difference between you and I - on that count - is that I do not have to kill the animal to be at one with the land. If I were starving and there were no other food source, I would absolutely kill the animal so as to survive. I am not a vegetarian, either, but probably would be more so if I had to kill my own meat. I find killing animals very distasteful but I don't pass judgement on those who do so. Each to his own.

The fact is, however, you and other humans (myself included) are not the "coin" as you put it and we don't esp do a good job of it all. Our "humaness" gets in the way. You probably want the biggest and the best buck you can get and since you have a rifle, you can do so. Taking him down, however, is not in the best interest of the herd so, in reality, the wolf is the better predator - in terms of herd health - than you are. He does not have the ego - nor the intellect - which we humans do. He wants a meal and he is going to go after the animals you would never want. He is going to pull down the elderly, the sick, the unfit, etc. Coyotes will do so but to a much lesser degree. They really can't handle the deer so absent the wolves and the puma, the deer become a problem - however cute they are and however much I like to look at them. Bambi is cute but very destructive in the large numbers as now is the case.

As for being bonded to the land, there is a song which came from the Broadway play, Camolot, which probably you have heard. It is a man singing to a woman about how he could never leave her. "If ever I would leave you, it couldn't be in ............." He goes through all the seasons and describes how she looks and acts in each season saying he would need to be there to see her in that context. He concludes that he could never leave her at all - not in any season. That is how I feel about the land. I am bonded to it and - as the song goes "I must be there." You are not the coin. I am not the coin. Hunting is not the coin. We are all of us but a speck of galactic dust in the universe. If our efforts matter, at all, it is only to the extent that we preserve the land and keep it wild for those who will follow behind us. When we destroy the natural order of things - like killing off all the major predators - we can no longer say we are stewards of the land. We might as well just hang it all up and go into the overpacked urban ciities and spend our free time in some nightclub somewhere drinking cheap vodka and talking sh-t with people who think going out on the land for a hike means the same thing as the movie Deliverance.

 

[yoderjac]

Tap,
... I am trying to get you to understand that the two groups of people who point fingers at one another - wildlife advocates and hunters - are two sides of the same coin. ....

I think what many here are trying to say is that most hunters are the real wildlife advocates. Hunters, through the Pittman-Robertson act and well as their individual conservation efforts to benefit wildlife than any of the groups who refer to themselves as wildlife advocates. Why? because they "use" wildlife and want to conserve the resource so they, and their decedents for generations to come can continue to "use" wildlife.

When you strip things down to their core, there are really two philosophic positions. One say God created man and gave much of creation to man admonishing him to be a steward of it. The second says that nature is sovereign and man should not use it but preserve it. It is conservation verses preservation. It is a higher view of mankind verses a lower view of mankind.

You are correct, both groups use wildlife. One uses it primarily for sport and food and as a place to work. The other uses it primarily for fund raising with a haunting background tract of Silent Night and pictures of abused puppies then spends that money to lobby against hunting. The first group is slowly shrinking as demographics change and the other is slowly growing.

 

[Bill]

Find me a wolf that ever planted anything for the deer herd to eat. Just sayin.

I haven't killed a deer in two years (because I didn't want to) but I still plant many acres of food and create habitat that benifits them and other wildlife. Sorry a wolf is a no different than a gangster. Cares nothing about its prey only the kill. Not that there are not hunters like this. But I doubt many could be found here.

To the original ? Corn and bucket will get it done with time and persistence. Have at em as far I'm concerned. It's your land, you pay the taxes, so in my view you make the rules.

 

[yoderjac]

... Wolves pick off the elderly, the weak, the sick, etc. Human hunters want the biggest and the best - the multi-point buck ...

Another cultural misunderstanding. In the last 10 years I've harvested 3 antlered bucks and well over 50 female deer. I have passed countless young bucks over that time period. Why? Because up until 2015 we had an over abundance of deer and the population needed to be brought in balance with the habitat. There are certainly some hunters driven by the "biggest and best" but that is not a reasonable characterization of hunters. There are many things that drive us. In some cases it is the challenge of fooling the senses of a wary deer getting close enough for an ethical shot with a bow (inside 20 yards for me). Sometimes we are driven by balancing sex ratios of the local deer herd that a previous generation of hunters created because methods for herd estimation were primitive. It is not uncommon for me to go on a hunt and have several opportunities to harvest a deer and simply decide not to shoot.

I certainly can't speak for all hunters, but I don't think I'm unique. We've spent tens of thousands of dollars on wireless camera systems that allow us to estimate herd size, sex ratios, and recruitment trends from year to year. Every hunt is logged with hunter observations of wildlife. Data and biological samples from each deer harvested on our farm is collected and shared with a state wildlife biologist who provides statistics and advice. All of this goes into our harvest criteria. We set goals for how many deer and what class of deer we will harvest from our farm each year.

I'm simply trying to point out that one reason you are getting so much push back here is that you are expressing a very simplistic view of hunters on a forum that is full of quite complex folks who hunt. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you choosing not to hunt, and I'm happy to stand by you and condemn anyone who would "hunt" on your land. Anyone who did would not be a "hunter" but a trespasser and poacher. We need to be the first to police our own ranks and call a criminal an criminal and disassociate ourselves with them. You should be able to simply enjoy nature in whatever way you want as long as you do it legally, ethically, and with a well informed understanding of the consequences of your actions. The same holds true for hunters.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[H20fwler]

Lois, if you ended up with wolves on your land your deer and turkeys would turn into wolf scat along with your neighbors and not just the "elderly, the weak, the sick, etc" proven by facts from legit State and Federal biologist that look at real science. Plenty of guys on this site from MN, WI and MI have seen it first hand after the misinformed bleeding hearts stopped the legal wolf trapping and hunting in their areas.
Your ideas of what you think hunting is seams very skewed too, we have plenty of people in my area that will legally shoot the first deer they see because they want meat for the freezer. If your having so much trouble with deer being a problem on your land you should invite a few responsible hunters to thin them down.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Yoderjac,
Well, I am an agnostic leaning on an atheist so I can't relate to anything having to do with God or what he (she or it) said or did to man. If God does exist and wants something of me, he she or it is just going to have to communicate it to me directly. Neither am I a "liberal" with all this politically correct stuff. Every time I read the latest from that group and think I have heard it all, yet something else even more absurd come through. I will say, however, that the person who said that the solar eclipse was a "racist" because it tracts over only the "most white" areas of the country, truly does take the cake. Kind of hard to get anymore ludicrous and mind-blowingly stupid than saying that the sun and the moon are racist. I am embarrassed to say that this idiot was a woman, giving all women a bad name.

I don't know that the first group is shrinking or that the second group is slowly growing. Look at the November 2016 election. Who won? Was it the libs? I don't think so. They are too worried about getting their feelings hurt and "feeling safe" to do much of anything. And who can forget "pajama boy," ....remember him? As for hunting, it is here to say. What you are actually seeing is not the effects of lobbying but rather a situation where less and less people actually do want to hunt and that is OK. This is America, no? We are all free to do what we want. I think what you are seeing is that less people are wanting to be at one with nature via hunting and more people are wanting to do so in other ways. I don't see a problem with that. You want to hunt? No problem, just not on my land and not on the public lands where I want to hike. There are specific places where hunters can hunt. I am a PA resident and we have game lands all over the place. There is one such gameland within walking distance to my house and that is not even counting the 500 to 600 tract of privately owned land behind me where the owner does permit hunting. For my part, I want places where I can see the full spectrum of nature - all of the wildlife and flora and that includes the top-of-the-chain predators. I want to hike where I don't have to fear a stray bullet or stray arrow ala Dick Cheney style of hunting. I go where I want on vacation and you go where you want, no? I belong to the tree-hugging, wolf-loving group of people but the fact is that there is room enough for both groups of people and, best of all, when we own the land in question, we get to call the shots on those acres. I can hug trees, howl at coyotes and feed animals on my land and you hunt on your land. I don't see any problem with that. I have more than enough to keep me busy here without worrying about what you are doing there. Frankly, I don't think you need to worry too much about pajama-boy or folks like him taking over. He is too impotent to do much of anything. First he'd have to find his way out of his mother's basement, no?

 

[OakSeeds]

[QUOTE="Native Hunter, The truth is you can train them to do anything if no one nearby is hunting them - like for miles away. In several big cities where no one hunts, turkeys are tame pests....Examples in links below: [/QUOTE]

Naw, never happen ... now these doves on fermented corn are enjoying a treat on my driveway in a mid-west town of 130,000.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

H2O, I do agree that the whole wolf thing would need to be looked at very carefully to evaluate how much danger it would present to humans. We certainly do not want humans killed by wolves but then I am not sure this was all the rage i.e. a huge problem when we did have wild wolves in our midst. I don't recall reading about how they were a huge threat to the people when they were plentiful. I simply don't know so it is an area where I would have to defer to those with more knowledge. It is something which would have to be studied, for sure. It would not be something to be taken lightly.

 

[yoderjac]

Yoderjac,
Well, I am an agnostic leaning on an atheist so I can't relate to anything having to do with God or what he (she or it) said or did to man. If God does exist and wants something of me, he she or it is just going to have to communicate it to me directly. Neither am I a "liberal" with all this politically correct stuff. Every time I read the latest from that group and think I have heard it all, yet something else even more absurd come through. I will say, however, that the person who said that the solar eclipse was a "racist" because it tracts over only the "most white" areas of the country, truly does take the cake. Kind of hard to get anymore ludicrous and mind-blowingly stupid than saying that the sun and the moon are racist. I am embarrassed to say that this idiot was a woman, giving all women a bad name.

I don't know that the first group is shrinking or that the second group is slowly growing. Look at the November 2016 election. Who won? Was it the libs? I don't think so. They are too worried about getting their feelings hurt and "feeling safe" to do much of anything. And who can forget "pajama boy," ....remember him? As for hunting, it is here to say. What you are actually seeing is not the effects of lobbying but rather a situation where less and less people actually do want to hunt and that is OK. This is America, no? We are all free to do what we want. I think what you are seeing is that less people are wanting to be at one with nature via hunting and more people are wanting to do so in other ways. I don't see a problem with that. You want to hunt? No problem, just not on my land and not on the public lands where I want to hike. There are specific places where hunters can hunt. I am a PA resident and we have game lands all over the place. There is one such gameland within walking distance to my house and that is not even counting the 500 to 600 tract of privately owned land behind me where the owner does permit hunting. For my part, I want places where I can see the full spectrum of nature - all of the wildlife and flora and that includes the top-of-the-chain predators. I want to hike where I don't have to fear a stray bullet or stray arrow ala Dick Cheney style of hunting. I go where I want on vacation and you go where you want, no? I belong to the tree-hugging, wolf-loving group of people but the fact is that there is room enough for both groups of people and, best of all, when we own the land in question, we get to call the shots on those acres. I can hug trees, howl at coyotes and feed animals on my land and you hunt on your land. I don't see any problem with that. I have more than enough to keep me busy here without worrying about what you are doing there. Frankly, I don't think you need to worry too much about pajama-boy or folks like him taking over. He is too impotent to do much of anything. First he'd have to find his way out of his mother's basement, no?

You misunderstood the groups. I was not speaking about liberal and conservative, I was speaking about hunters and anti-hunters. Hunters are shrinking but attrition and the change in demographics. We are losing more hunters than we are gaining. For many years the group of anti-hunters was about the same percentage of the population but it has been slowly increasing. Most people are somewhere in the middle, they don't hunt, but they don't oppose it if the feel it is being done ethically and responsibly.

In the true sense of the word, I'm agnostic too. The existence of God is unknowable with metaphysical certitude. That is why the call it faith.

 

[Lois E Brenneman FNP]

Yoderjac, I think you nailed it. Pretty much everything you wrote is true. My view of the Bible is that it is literary and poetic fiction with some elements of solid wisdom and a whole lot of absolutel nonsense. If, however, it were true that man were given dominion over the earth and the animals, I would say we have done a fairly good job of f___g it up. Probably the reason the anti-hunters are increasing, if, indeed, they are, is because the ethical and responsible hunters - such as the folks who post to this forum - are becoming less common. Instead we see jerks who mix hunting with booze and drugs, making a nuisance of themselves and antagonizing the general population. They used to be fairly uncommon but they are becoming more and more common such that the rest of us have to deal with the mess they create and cruelty they bring about. You guys here, the responsible hunters, complain about it as much as the rest of us do. You don't like these jerks around any more than we do. I have read your threads here and heard your complaints. Sadly we have ever increasing substance abuse in our society and these guys make their way into everything including hunting. They give you all a bad name just like the idiot women who are becoming very vocal of late give all of us women a bad name. Can you think of anything stupider than the woman (a college professor, no less) who claimed the most recent solar eclipse was racist? I can't. How about willingly sleeping your way to the top and then claiming you were raped or getting drunk on campus, willingly having sex because you were bombed out of your mind and then claiming, the next day, that you were date raped. We all suffer the ill effects of the morons in our midst. Hunters are no exception. You have a whole lot of jerks in your numbers and they make it bad for the rest of you. If I had not found this site and gotten to know some of you, I, too, would have thought you were all like these morons.

 

[Natty Bumppo]

natty, Actually having no coyotes would not be good for your deer at all. Wolves got on man's s__list because of predation on livestock and, equally important, competition for the hunt. Humans don't much like competitors esp competitors who have an advantage in terms of hunting skills. Fact is, however, that wolves are better for the herd than are human hunters. Wolves pick off the elderly, the weak, the sick, etc. Human hunters want the biggest and the best - the multi-point buck - arguably the biggest and the strongest and the most fit to survive. Thing is, natty, you can only legally shoot so many deer per year so your options are not limitless. If you aim to shoot the biggest and the best, then, in fact, the wolf is better for the herd than you are. Coyotes can't pick off the healthy deer so they must take their luck with the weak, sick, etc. The coyote takes down the animals you probably don't want. Mr. (or Ms) Coyote is not even going to think about the big healthy buck which you want. That animal is way out of his reach.

Lois, respectfully, I think you're speaking about things you don't understand. I can only shoot so many legal deer...but I am not the only hunter in my neck of the woods Lois? There are probably 150 other hunters in my small town of 700. Then there's the next town over...and the next one and so on. There is a collective pressure being exerted on the population of deer by hunters, for which there is solid data that is generated each year. I can control how much deer habitat I create, how many food plots I put out, how many travel corridors and sanctuaries I create, and how many deer I "choose" to take off my land. But I can't control how many fawns coyotes kill each spring. Have you thought of that; the fawns with very good genes that get taken out of the population at random? You make the whole predator-prey relationship sound like some well package made for PBS documentary you saw on TV. In fact, coyotes here in the Northeast, which are bigger and have wolf DNA, hunt in packs and do indeed take out healthy deer. The weak...sure. The old...yes. But many, many healthy deer and lots of fawns. And if I REDUCE that number of coyotes as best I can, I sure can help fawn recruitment. It's all about balance Lois. Every game manager knows that. Predators have their place in the ecosystem, of course. I do not want to, nor could I if I wanted to, eliminate every coyote, fox, nest predator on my land. But as long as the deer population is not above carrying capacity, having MORE coyotes (or foxes, or racoons, or other nest predators) as you suggested does not help my management goals.

I think I might leave it at that and wish you all the luck with your management goals. Too much going back and forth for me on a thread about throwing corn out for some turkeys.

 

[TreeDaddy]

You misunderstood the groups. I was not speaking about liberal and conservative, I was speaking about hunters and anti-hunters. Hunters are shrinking but attrition and the change in demographics. We are losing more hunters than we are gaining. For many years the group of anti-hunters was about the same percentage of the population but it has been slowly increasing. Most people are somewhere in the middle, they don't hunt, but they don't oppose it if the feel it is being done ethically and responsibly.

In the true sense of the word, I'm agnostic too. The existence of God is unknowable with metaphysical certitude. That is why the call it faith.[/QUOT



"I plant, therefore I am"

Hows that for tree junkie metaphysical certitude?

bill

 

[yoderjac]

Yoderjac, I think you nailed it. Pretty much everything you wrote is true. My view of the Bible is that it is literary and poetic fiction with some elements of solid wisdom and a whole lot of absolutel nonsense. If, however, it were true that man were given dominion over the earth and the animals, I would say we have done a fairly good job of f___g it up. Probably the reason the anti-hunters are increasing, if, indeed, they are, is because the ethical and responsible hunters - such as the folks who post to this forum - are becoming less common. Instead we see jerks who mix hunting with booze and drugs, making a nuisance of themselves and antagonizing the general population. They used to be fairly uncommon but they are becoming more and more common such that the rest of us have to deal with the mess they create and cruelty they bring about. You guys here, the responsible hunters, complain about it as much as the rest of us do. You don't like these jerks around any more than we do. I have read your threads here and heard your complaints. Sadly we have ever increasing substance abuse in our society and these guys make their way into everything including hunting. They give you all a bad name just like the idiot women who are becoming very vocal of late give all of us women a bad name. Can you think of anything stupider than the woman (a college professor, no less) who claimed the most recent solar eclipse was racist? I can't. How about willingly sleeping your way to the top and then claiming you were raped or getting drunk on campus, willingly having sex because you were bombed out of your mind and then claiming, the next day, that you were date raped. We all suffer the ill effects of the morons in our midst. Hunters are no exception. You have a whole lot of jerks in your numbers and they make it bad for the rest of you. If I had not found this site and gotten to know some of you, I, too, would have thought you were all like these morons.

While we may have very different views of the Bible and God, but we are not far off on the fact that people will use religion, hunting, and anti-hunting to justify all kinds of extreme positions. The increase/decrease is largely demographic in nature. The further you go back, the more connected people were to the land. Family farms are being replaced by industrial farming and cities are becoming the environment more and more folks grow up in. When you have not grown up seeing how our survival depends on our environment including wildlife, it becomes easier and easier to anthropomorphize wildlife. I once had a young anti-hunter wright "I don't understand how you hunters can kill poor innocent animals. You say you do it for meat. Why don't you just get you meat from McDonald's like the rest of us do where no animals are harmed". Now, it is funny and it occurred about 20 years ago before the media was flooded with PETA commercials but it demonstrates the disconnectedness we are becoming from our food. Most of the Anti-hunters I've met have good hearts and are trying to do good things. Most were indoctrinated with a philosophy when they were young. Most are truly misinformed.

One more thing we can add to the list of reasons we hunt: I teach hunter safety in a metropolitan area. Some kids come to these classes with no intention to hunt because their single mom just wanted a day to herself. Every now and then I'll strike up a relationship with one or two of them and take them hunting. I do this for a lot of reasons, but one is to connect the kid to his survival. I take them through the entire process of finding game, harvesting it, field dressing it, butchering it, cooking it, and eating it. It seems to help connect them with the circle of life. Regardless if they hunt themselves ever again, the begin to realize that in order for me to live, other parts of creation must die. Whether they are higher forms of life that provide meat or lower forms that provide vegetation, we are dependent on the earth.

This is not just a demonstration for kids. Hunting is one way I personally connect the cycle of life. Hunters often develop an uncanny respect for the animals they harvest. It is because they taking personal responsibility for the taking of a life. The are not hiding their eyes from the ugly and cruel aspects of the cycle of life with a corporate farm shroud and reaping the benefits of food without the cost of taking a life or toiling in the soil.

You seem to be one of the majority of folks who are in the middle. While you don't hunt yourself, you don't seem to have an issue with hunting itself, only with "hunters" who do it unethically, or in a way that has a negative impact on you. We (looking inwardly) as hunters, should be trying to do exactly what you said in your post. Trying to get to know you and let you know why we believe what we believe and do what we do. The last thing we should be doing is setting some harsh tone. When we do, it is often the same defensive knee jerk reaction that many minority groups have when criticized by folks outside with a different experience base.

So, I for one, welcome you hear and am happy to share anything I can with you!

Thanks,

Jack

 

[yoderjac]

"I plant, therefore I am"

Hows that for tree junkie metaphysical certitude?

Outstanding! Love your sense of humor! It keeps me grounded.

 

[j-bird]

I view my habitat efforts as a means to "undo" some of the "wrongs" man does every day. Habitat destruction is a significant issue facing all wildlife in this country and around the globe. Some animals are far more adaptable, while others are not. I may focus on deer, but many other critters benefit from my efforts that otherwise may simply struggle to survive. In my area upland game birds are pretty much GONE! Quail and pheasant are pretty much a thing of the past here. Mostly due to habitat destruction....linked to "clean farming" practices and the removal of fence rows and the related brush that would grow there. This holds true for rabbits as well. These animals when I do have them (I on occasion see/hear quail and a few rabbits) benefit from my work. I don't hunt them. I agree that if mankind was gone in an instant the wildlife would be fine.....however that isn't the case and what is the case is that mankind is destroying habitat far faster than those of us can replace, recreate or protect it and it's becoming very fragmented as well. We should not have to go to the zoo to view "wildlife".

We are losing wild places and wildlife fast enough as it is....semi-domesticating them ISN'T going to help.

 

[Tap]

Tap, you missed the point. I DO understand why you hunt or fish or plant mass or what not. I seek activities which make me feel one with nature, as well. I don't like killing animals but if I had to do so in order to survive, you can bet I would learn how it is done. I feel at one with nature when planting trees, hiking, observing wildlife, exploring nature, being in tune with my land, etc. Solidtude in nature is awesome and I seek it at. I am bonded to the land and I am one with it. I understand, exactly. The only difference between you and I - on that count - is that I do not have to kill the animal to be at one with the land. If I were starving and there were no other food source, I would absolutely kill the animal so as to survive. I am not a vegetarian, either, but probably would be more so if I had to kill my own meat. I find killing animals very distasteful but I don't pass judgement on those who do so. Each to his own.

The fact is, however, you and other humans (myself included) are not the "coin" as you put it and we don't esp do a good job of it all. Our "humaness" gets in the way. You probably want the biggest and the best buck you can get and since you have a rifle, you can do so. Taking him down, however, is not in the best interest of the herd so, in reality, the wolf is the better predator - in terms of herd health - than you are. He does not have the ego - nor the intellect - which we humans do. He wants a meal and he is going to go after the animals you would never want. He is going to pull down the elderly, the sick, the unfit, etc. Coyotes will do so but to a much lesser degree. They really can't handle the deer so absent the wolves and the puma, the deer become a problem - however cute they are and however much I like to look at them. Bambi is cute but very destructive in the large numbers as now is the case.

As for being bonded to the land, there is a song which came from the Broadway play, Camolot, which probably you have heard. It is a man singing to a woman about how he could never leave her. "If ever I would leave you, it couldn't be in ............." He goes through all the seasons and describes how she looks and acts in each season saying he would need to be there to see her in that context. He concludes that he could never leave her at all - not in any season. That is how I feel about the land. I am bonded to it and - as the song goes "I must be there." You are not the coin. I am not the coin. Hunting is not the coin. We are all of us but a speck of galactic dust in the universe. If our efforts matter, at all, it is only to the extent that we preserve the land and keep it wild for those who will follow behind us. When we destroy the natural order of things - like killing off all the major predators - we can no longer say we are stewards of the land. We might as well just hang it all up and go into the overpacked urban ciities and spend our free time in some nightclub somewhere drinking cheap vodka and talking sh-t with people who think going out on the land for a hike means the same thing as the movie Deliverance.

There's so much that you've said over several threads that I feel the need to address.
First, it was you that brought up the "I am trying to get you to understand that the two groups of people who point fingers at one another - wildlife advocates and hunters - are two sides of the same coin". I guess I didn't choose my words carefully when I said "We" ARE the coin. What I meant was hunters are the coin when it comes to wildlife advocacy. Hunters have paid the bills (Pitman Roberts) and carried the load for wildlife. It's been said that the best way to insure a species won't become extinct is to open up a hunting season on it.

And you say you are not a vegetarian, so while you may not pull the trigger, or release the arrow, or butcher the chicken, you are still responsible for the killing of animals. You just hire the rancher and slaughter house to do the killing for you.
You also said that you'd be willing to kill an animal if you were starving. Well, without actually honing the skills that it takes to produce and butcher an animal (whether it be through hunting wildlife or raising cattle), you'll be hard pressed to put protein on your table. I have a feeling you'll be asking a hunter or rancher to feed you.

You also imply that public lands are to be used for your interests (hiking) and it should be off limits to hunting. There are tens of millions of acres of public land in this country...are you saying that none of those acres should be open to hunting because you want to go for a walk? Maybe you hikers would like to pay the taxes for the rest of us. As a taxpayer and citizen, I have as much right to use that land as you do.
And BTW, Pa Game lands are open to non-hunting activities. Yeah, those lands that hunters have bought and paid for are available for you to take a walk, but you'd have other pubic lands shut off to hunting?

And it's clear that you do not understand the predator/prey relationship. It's a fairy tale that wolves, coyotes, bears, etc only prey upon the sick and old. Predators routinely prey upon the new born and the temporarily weak or injured. Just because an animal may have it's health temporarily compromised due to a natural injury doesn't mean it isn't still an asset to the herd.

And the idea that only the strongest breeders are the ones that mate and pass on their genes is also a fallacy.
By the time a buck may be old enough to be viewed as a "trophy", it has long since passed on it's genes many times, BTW, the genes which are 50% acquired from the mother.
In many herds, the rigors of the entire mating process is extremely hard on the strongest breeders. By the end of the breeding period, bucks are run-down, underweight, and beat up. It's often those very animals that become victims to predators.

I commend you for taking an interest in the health of the property you own. I'm sure your neighbors appreciate your contributions to the wildlife that pays no attention to man-made property lines.

And lastly...I don't do show-tunes.