PDA

View Full Version : Hunters are out in full force



Frog
11-27-2007, 07:06
While up at mount rogers area this weekend i saw at least 25 hunters. One in particular that i didnt care for. We where leaving the Scales area on the dirt road heading for the Va highlands trail and to the switchback trail. A hunter squated down and made a shot in the direction of the trails. Which was also the direction of the road since it curves down the mountian. We ask if he got the deer he said i dont know which lead me to believe we should all be extra carefull this time of year. Please everyone just keep an eye out and an ear and be carefull but enjoy the outdoors this time of year.

Thoughtful Owl
11-27-2007, 09:37
I tend to stay out of the woods this time of year. If I do wander out, I always wear blaze orange vest, cap and gloves.

Route Step
11-27-2007, 10:00
One hunter has already been accidentally shot and killed here in Virginia. I guess the hunter that killed him fired on a noise with no visual confirmation.

taildragger
11-27-2007, 10:06
One hunter has already been accidentally shot and killed here in Virginia. I guess the hunter that killed him fired on a noise with no visual confirmation.

Don't start rumors like that without providing something to back up you're guessing.

oldfivetango
11-27-2007, 10:55
One hunter has already been accidentally shot and killed here in Virginia. I guess the hunter that killed him fired on a noise with no visual confirmation.

PLEASE-dont call that guy a hunter.He is not a hunter but he is an
idiot loose in the woods with a gun.I hope he is prosecuted for negligence
and manslaughter both criminally and civilly because anyone who shoots at
a noise is only slightly better than an outright murderer.Just my humble
opinion of course.
Oldfivetango

Tipi Walter
11-27-2007, 11:15
While up at mount rogers area this weekend i saw at least 25 hunters. One in particular that i didnt care for. We where leaving the Scales area on the dirt road heading for the Va highlands trail and to the switchback trail. A hunter squated down and made a shot in the direction of the trails. Which was also the direction of the road since it curves down the mountian. We ask if he got the deer he said i dont know which lead me to believe we should all be extra carefull this time of year. Please everyone just keep an eye out and an ear and be carefull but enjoy the outdoors this time of year.

I've always liked the Scales area and have camped up on the ridge above Scales, far above Scales, not far from the Wilburn ridge. But if a road needs closing, the Scales road would be high up on my list.

Most of the hunters I see, maybe 85% of them, are bunched up along roads and not far from their trucks. When I get into an area to backpack, the hunter sightings go way down, so I'd say part of the problem you mentioned had to do with that danged dirt road.

mcstick
11-27-2007, 11:19
I was out for thanksgiving week between erwin and kincora and saw quite a few hunters too. Its been my expierence that hunters like or dislike hikers in direct proportion to the amount of blaze orange they are wearing and they tell you as much. I was blazed to the gills and had some very nice conversations with quite a few hunters. Other hikers that I saw out there wearing no orange at all had some bad things to say about the same hunters i enjoyed talking too for a while. I was amazed to see presumably seasoned hikers wearing no orange at all.

mudhead
11-27-2007, 12:19
A "hunter" has no desire to plug someone.

Might respect common sense...

whitefoot_hp
11-27-2007, 13:21
since we are all forced to sacrifice for the collective good of society, i see no reason why hunters should be catered to. bunch of chew spittin rednecks should not be allowed to hunt just anywhere. when i am out hiking, i consider the IQ levels of people i know who talk about hunting. then i get scared.

Lone Wolf
11-27-2007, 13:23
and all hikers are lazy, dirty, dope smokin' hippies looking for handouts

Sly
11-27-2007, 13:26
NY story...

http://www.examiner.com/a-1065992~Hunter_shot__another_hunter_charged_with_a ssault.html?cid=rss-New_York_Headlines (http://www.examiner.com/a-1065992%7EHunter_shot__another_hunter_charged_with _assault.html?cid=rss-New_York_Headlines)

taildragger
11-27-2007, 13:39
since we are all forced to sacrifice for the collective good of society, i see no reason why hunters should be catered to. bunch of chew spittin rednecks should not be allowed to hunt just anywhere. when i am out hiking, i consider the IQ levels of people i know who talk about hunting. then i get scared.

I've met more hikers that I'd be worried about killing me than rednecks with guns (that hunt). I think we'd be safer if we just killed off the yuppies, they're a worthless race anyways

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-27-2007, 13:55
Be careful out there - a very brief ook at the news of hunting accidents turned up these:
26 yo hunter killed in WI (http://www.examiner.com/a-1066683%7E26_year_old_hunter_shot_dead_in_Price_Co unty.html)
54 yo hunter in WV (http://www.dailymail.com/News/200711270011)
28 yo hunter killed in MI (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071124/NEWS06/71124042/0/SPORTS02)
13 yo hunter has hat shot off head in WI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1120ap_odd_hat_shot_off.html)
18 yo hunter shot by grandfather in WI (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/teen-deer-hunte.html)

ki0eh
11-27-2007, 15:21
Even with a 20 gauge shotgun area (scroll to 2nd story): http://www.cortlandstandard.net/articles/11172007n.html

taildragger
11-27-2007, 15:27
I wonder whats the chance of getting injured or killed while hiking versus hunting? I think people would be less likely to give me a publicized story if I died of hypothermia, but if I were shot by a deer hunter, oh man, they'd be on that like flies on honey.

Secondly, at 49 the man in Cortland might not have had to take a hunter safety course. These courses are very good for people who were never taught the proper safety precautions to use while hunting (like shooting without knowing your target 100%).

Slimer
11-27-2007, 17:01
A 14 year old boy was shot in the arm while hunting deer recently near my home. Local law enforcement say that no charges will be brought against the shooter.
You better make sure you're wearing LOTS of orange........

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-27-2007, 17:10
Several years ago a housewife in Maine was shot in her backyard while hanging her clothes on a clothes line. The hunter was not charged because the woman was wearing white cotton gloves (a common practice to keep body oils off freshly laundered clothing).

You couldn't pay me enough to hike during hunting season. When I was maybe 12 yo, I was staying part of the summer with my grandparents in rural middle TN. My grandmother's best friend lived on a nearby farm along with a widowed daughter and her two children. One of the children was a boy about 17 or 18. He went hunting with several men from the community and one of them shot him. He lived, but was never the same.....I saw him before the ambulance arrived.
:::: Dino seen shuttering violently ::::
I've never been comfortable in the woods during hunting season since.

envirodiver
11-27-2007, 17:12
and all hikers are lazy, dirty, dope smokin' hippies looking for handouts

I'm not dirty or looking for handouts.

Marta
11-27-2007, 17:16
Over Thanksgiving weekend, 14 people were killed in car wrecks just in North Carolina.

I'll take my chances in the woods.

I'd feel a lot safer if I didn't have to drive back and forth to get there.

Are all people who drive fools?

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-27-2007, 17:20
::: Dino would bite Marta on the toes if she didn't make so much sense :::

Dearest Marta,

I will thank you kindly not to pop my fear-induced bubbles with your pointy little truths.

Love always,
She-Dino

mts4602
11-27-2007, 17:46
So when is hunting season over with?

taildragger
11-27-2007, 17:55
So when is hunting season over with?

Check with your local DEC for zones and dates. Some seasons don't close, but deer rifle should be over next weekend in most states (may still be a late blackpowder or shotgun season)

Mags
11-27-2007, 19:30
All I know is that the hunters last year always hooked me up.

Though I am personally not a hunter, I've had very positive experiences with hunters on my hikes.

A simple hello, a smile and a "How are you doing?" goes a long way to making a good experience for everyone involved.

oldfivetango
11-27-2007, 19:52
Several years ago a housewife in Maine was shot in her backyard while hanging her clothes on a clothes line. The hunter was not charged because the woman was wearing white cotton gloves (a common practice to keep body oils off freshly laundered clothing).

You couldn't pay me enough to hike during hunting season. When I was maybe 12 yo, I was staying part of the summer with my grandparents in rural middle TN. My grandmother's best friend lived on a nearby farm along with a widowed daughter and her two children. One of the children was a boy about 17 or 18. He went hunting with several men from the community and one of them shot him. He lived, but was never the same.....I saw him before the ambulance arrived.
:::: Dino seen shuttering violently ::::
I've never been comfortable in the woods during hunting season since.

FD,I remember the "white gloves incident".That was manslaughter.Anytime
someone pulls the trigger on a target that is not clearly identified and it
"accidentally" turns out to be a human,we should push for the death penalty.Then those types of "accidents" will be exceedingly rare.But don't
hold your breath.

Now that we do require hunter safety courses here in Georgia it has
been quite awhile since i have heard of one of these types of accidents.
They still happen and I think one happened on the AT in Ga about 2 years
ago but they are less frequent than they used to be.

There has been at least two accounts of jealous husbands accidentally
mistaking someone for wildlife and getting away with it that I am aware of
however.:D
Oldfivetango

mudhead
11-27-2007, 19:55
All I know is that the hunters last year always hooked me up.

Though I am personally not a hunter, I've had very positive experiences with hunters on my hikes.

A simple hello, a smile and a "How are you doing?" goes a long way to making a good experience for everyone involved.

Damn guy has his karma going.

I figured they'd flogged it out of him by now.

Mags
11-27-2007, 19:57
Damn guy has his karma going.

I figured they'd flogged it out of him by now.

I know. Trying to be nice, level headed and moderate is not good around this site at times. :D

Frolicking Dinosaurs
11-27-2007, 20:05
::: Dino bites Mags on the Karma :D :::

Tinker
11-27-2007, 20:08
along the North South Trail in Rhode Island. I planned on doing a thru (77 mi. :rolleyes: ) this weekend over 4 days.

Shotgun season is upon us. The guys at the forest service headquarters didn't want to admit it, but they're probably afraid that a hunter that paid to get into a lottery for a 9 day shotgun deer season would shoot an early morning or sunset hiker. One even said "Well, hikers do a lot of things wrong, too". I didn't respond. I know that "we" do ("stealth" campsites are visible from certain parts of the trail where camping is not allowed).

Time to reschedule. :(

sasquatch2014
11-27-2007, 20:10
I went out for a 3-day trip during the opening days of deer season (rifle) in NY. I found as I walked along with my $1.47 Wal-Mart blaze orange vest attached to my pack I began to sing. They say don’t surprise bears and the same goes for hunters. This is the song that began to form in my head as I headed south on the AT. Please keep in mind that it is a work in progress and should be available for down load on iTunes by next hunting season.

I ain’t no deer please don’t shoot me.
I ain’t no deer please don’t shoot me.

Don’t hang me from my knees from the nearest tree.
Don’t gut me like a fish this is my only wish….oh …

I ain’t no deer please don’t shoot me.
I ain’t no deer please don’t shoot me

I carry Leki poles don’t shoot me full of holes.
I ain’t in rut I am only scratching my butt so please don’t shoot me.

It is best if this is sung loud and off key, which for me is my normal style of singing. I can attest to the fact that so far this has proven to be very effective 100% so as I am still here and was not shot.
2676
Please note the “please don’t shoot me” vest on the hammock

FanaticFringer
11-27-2007, 23:28
I went out for a 3-day trip during the opening days of deer season (rifle) in NY. I found as I walked along with my $1.47 Wal-Mart blaze orange vest attached to my pack I began to sing. They say don’t surprise bears and the same goes for hunters. This is the song that began to form in my head as I headed south on the AT. Please keep in mind that it is a work in progress and should be available for down load on iTunes by next hunting season.

I ain’t no deer please don’t shoot me.
I ain’t no deer please don’t shoot me.

Don’t hang me from my knees from the nearest tree.
Don’t gut me like a fish this is my only wish….oh …

I ain’t no deer please don’t shoot me.
I ain’t no deer please don’t shoot me

I carry Leki poles don’t shoot me full of holes.
I ain’t in rut I am only scratching my butt so please don’t shoot me.

It is best if this is sung loud and off key, which for me is my normal style of singing. I can attest to the fact that so far this has proven to be very effective 100% so as I am still here and was not shot.
2676
Please note the “please don’t shoot me” vest on the hammock

:D Too funny....I'll be singing it on my next outing.

take-a-knee
11-27-2007, 23:43
That is some funny stuff Sasquatch

1) All guns are always loaded.

2) Never allow the muzzle of your weapon to cover (point at) anything you are not willing to destroy. (This is known as the "laser" rule)

3) Keep your FINGER OFF OF THE TRIGGER until your sights are aligned with your target, as there is no need to fire an unaligned piece.

4) BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEHIND IT!

If our nation's youth could all be taught these rules, composed by the late COL Jeff Cooper, firearms accidents could be eliminated. The average hunter is totally unaware of these and , sadly, so is the average soldier. Notice that if you only violate one of these rules, you'll only demonstrate your incompetence, you only injure someone when you violate two of them.

Nearly Normal
11-28-2007, 01:38
since we are all forced to sacrifice for the collective good of society, i see no reason why hunters should be catered to. bunch of chew spittin rednecks should not be allowed to hunt just anywhere. when i am out hiking, i consider the IQ levels of people i know who talk about hunting. then i get scared.


I didn't know you could hunt just anywhere.

Perhaps you should talk about hunting with people that have a higher IQ.

How is it exactly, that hunters are catered to?

Nearly Normal

Tennessee Viking
11-28-2007, 01:47
I heard of a hunter shooting himself in his leg around the Limestone Cove area of the Unaka Mountain Wilderness.

oldfivetango
11-28-2007, 08:37
I heard of a hunter(friend of a friend) who shot himself in the back
through the seat of his jeep with a loaded firearm that accidentally
discharged and killed him.Most hunters have enough intelligence to
unload their firearms while in transit;but not all can remember to do it
for some reason.
Oldfivetango

NICKTHEGREEK
11-28-2007, 08:48
Is Cheney still in his bunker???? I feel safer just knowing he is where I ain't.

taildragger
11-28-2007, 09:40
That is some funny stuff Sasquatch

1) All guns are always loaded.

2) Never allow the muzzle of your weapon to cover (point at) anything you are not willing to destroy. (This is known as the "laser" rule)

3) Keep your FINGER OFF OF THE TRIGGER until your sights are aligned with your target, as there is no need to fire an unaligned piece.

4) BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEHIND IT!

If our nation's youth could all be taught these rules, composed by the late COL Jeff Cooper, firearms accidents could be eliminated. The average hunter is totally unaware of these and , sadly, so is the average soldier. Notice that if you only violate one of these rules, you'll only demonstrate your incompetence, you only injure someone when you violate two of them.


Actually, that is what most hunter safety classes teach, look at the people who accidentaly get shot, they've usually not had such a class. This class is now mandated by most, if not all states, for people born after a certain year.

The only person that I have ever met hunting that did not follow the above rules was an older gentleman from PA, and consequently I've told him to his face that I won't ever hunt with him again till he learns how to carry a gun.

So let's see, based off of my experience, I've hunted with around maybe 100 people in my day, and I have had only one experience with a hunter that didn't follow the above rules. Keep it in perspective people, you're still more likely to die on the way to the trail than get shot, you're just more afraid of the big fat hunter than you are the soccer mom woofin down some taco bell while screaming at the kiddies and talking on a cell phone.

Tinker
11-28-2007, 09:50
THAT's the REAL threat!

'Cept they can't drive on most trails.

I have to say that I haven't met a hunter that I didn't like (at least in the woods).

Shotgun season in Rhode Island is something, though. Rhode Island isn't really well known for its hunting, (or passionate hunters). A friend of mine took a six point buck with a black powder rifle. With one shot, the black powder guys have to make sure that they make it count. Sighting is all-important. Same with bow hunters - one shot - wouldn't want to lose a thirty to fifty dollar arrow. The only hunters capable of filling the air with vast quantities of projectiles are the shotgunners. The excitement of the hunt is usually what causes mistakes - costly mistakes.

taildragger
11-28-2007, 09:55
Same with bow hunters - one shot - wouldn't want to lose a thirty to fifty dollar arrow.

I dunno, I've managed 6 shots at one deer with a bow. The site pins had been knocked loose and I was shooting behind the deer on purpose to try and gauge how to shoot this bow without sites.

That being said, I've never actually hit a deer with a bow that stuck around, every now and then the rest will, and if you're lucky enough to live in a state that has tag limits and not daily bag limits, then its time to whack 'em and stack 'em.

Thoughtful Owl
11-28-2007, 10:05
So when is hunting season over with?

By January 5th big game (bear, deer etc) season ends. It's usually safe to go back into the woods. Keep in mind small game may still be hunted. Always use caution.

mudhead
11-28-2007, 10:18
That is some funny stuff Sasquatch

1) All guns are always loaded.

2) Never allow the muzzle of your weapon to cover (point at) anything you are not willing to destroy. (This is known as the "laser" rule)

3) Keep your FINGER OFF OF THE TRIGGER until your sights are aligned with your target, as there is no need to fire an unaligned piece.

4) BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEHIND IT!

If our nation's youth could all be taught these rules, composed by the late COL Jeff Cooper, firearms accidents could be eliminated. The average hunter is totally unaware of these and , sadly, so is the average soldier. Notice that if you only violate one of these rules, you'll only demonstrate your incompetence, you only injure someone when you violate two of them.

Don't forget the back-door rule. Always check for "unloaded" before entering the house. Even if you know. Always.

Thoughtful Owl
11-28-2007, 10:21
The replay about when hunting season ends should read...In Virginia, by January 5th big gam season ends.


By January 5th big game (bear, deer etc) season ends. It's usually safe to go back into the woods. Keep in mind small game may still be hunted. Always use caution.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 10:34
and all hikers are lazy, dirty, dope smokin' hippies looking for handouts
and the sky is blue...

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 10:36
I've met more hikers that I'd be worried about killing me than rednecks with guns (that hunt). I think we'd be safer if we just killed off the yuppies, they're a worthless race anyways

agree about the yuppies, but ill take my chances with hikers over the gun totin chew spittin whisky sippin im gonna git that derr types.

taildragger
11-28-2007, 11:07
agree about the yuppies, but ill take my chances with hikers over the gun totin chew spittin whisky sippin im gonna git that derr types.

Maybe ya'll just do things different in the East, back home there was very little whiskey sippin at deer camp, if you had more than a toddy you wouldn't be able to wake up and get into the field on time, which meant no deer, which meant less meat for the rest of the year. Dippin and smoking wasn't done, that would leave scent on you which would lower chances of getting deer, and once again, less meat for the year.

Maybe we just needed the food more and took the hunting more seriously. I've yet to talk to anyone out here in NY about shotgunning and rifle hunting, I hear them all the time surrounding the farm where I bow hunt (too close to houses to use a shotgun).

Alright, got distracted, lost train of thought, back to your original programming, I'm sure that I had a point, but I lost it, I'll be back when I find it

Lone Wolf
11-28-2007, 11:10
gun totin chew spittin whisky sippin im gonna git that derr types.

i hear all you hicks from georgia are like this. you ain't proud of your heritage?

Sly
11-28-2007, 11:14
I've met more hikers that I'd be worried about killing me than rednecks with guns (that hunt). I think we'd be safer if we just killed off the yuppies, they're a worthless race anyways

Where and how would you come to the conclusion that *hikers* are dangerous and would kill? :-?

And you want to kill off the yuppies? Maybe a name change to "knuckledragger" is fitting. :rolleyes:

Lone Wolf
11-28-2007, 11:22
Where and how would you come to the conclusion that *hikers* are dangerous and would kill? :-?

And you want to kill off the yuppies? Maybe a name change to "knuckledragger" is fitting. :rolleyes:

there have been more murders of hikers than accidental hunter shootings

taildragger
11-28-2007, 11:24
Where and how would you come to the conclusion that *hikers* are dangerous and would kill? :-?

And you want to kill off the yuppies? Maybe a name change to "knuckledragger" is fitting. :rolleyes:

I've met a lot of yuppie hikers that don't know how to drive flying into a parking spot at trailhead etc...

Killing off yuppies, that was a joke, but I really do get annoyed by them :D

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 13:13
i hear all you hicks from georgia are like this. you ain't proud of your heritage?
By gawd! Heritage not hate! lol. even georgia has its animal loving hippies.

taildragger
11-28-2007, 13:26
By gawd! Heritage not hate! lol. even georgia has its animal loving hippies.

Really? I thought that it was against the law in the South to be a hippie (esp if said hippie is a vejietarian)

Proudfoot
11-28-2007, 13:48
since we are all forced to sacrifice for the collective good of society, i see no reason why hunters should be catered to. bunch of chew spittin rednecks should not be allowed to hunt just anywhere. when i am out hiking, i consider the IQ levels of people i know who talk about hunting. then i get scared.

I know many fine hunters, the kind that belong to the NRA, and are proud to display that fact on the bumper of the ford pick-up that all hunters drive. Its stupid to generalize people. Some of these hunters could run circles around the most experienced hikers, in terms of backcountry skill and safety. Its stupid to place everyone who enjoys the woods differently then you do into a group that you label stupid. I learned a lot of what i know about the woods from a hunter. I can track an animal, stalk my prey, and pull the trigger to take it down, I just choose to do something different in the woods. Bottom line, if its hunting season, and you aren't wearing as much orange as it takes to see you with-in ear shot of the noise you make, then you are WRONG. Hunters have more power then you do, and are well represented with-in all levels of government. You will get nowhere fighting it, just play by the rules so everyone can enjoy the backcountry.

sasquatch2014
11-28-2007, 14:37
The only problems that I have with Bow hunters is that they scare the crap out of me. I have on more than one occasion walked by them once in a blind and twice they were in tree stands and I never saw them. Yes that is the point i know and a credit to their craft but then they just have to either say something or in the case of the guy in the blind he began to laugh and I just about jump out of my skin. I have never been worried about getting shot by an archer but they take a few years off my life when they give me a start like that.:eek:

taildragger
11-28-2007, 14:47
The only problems that I have with Bow hunters is that they scare the crap out of me. I have on more than one occasion walked by them once in a blind and twice they were in tree stands and I never saw them. Yes that is the point i know and a credit to their craft but then they just have to either say something or in the case of the guy in the blind he began to laugh and I just about jump out of my skin. I have never been worried about getting shot by an archer but they take a few years off my life when they give me a start like that.:eek:

we do that to anyone just to let them know that we are there, just kind of a heads up, but yeah, I guess it would be creepy when a tree talks to you and then you realize that the knot in the tree that you thought was cool and took pictures of was actually some dude.

Can't be as scary as stepping on a covey of quail though

take-a-knee
11-28-2007, 15:06
Actually, that is what most hunter safety classes teach, look at the people who accidentaly get shot, they've usually not had such a class. This class is now mandated by most, if not all states, for people born after a certain year.

The only person that I have ever met hunting that did not follow the above rules was an older gentleman from PA, and consequently I've told him to his face that I won't ever hunt with him again till he learns how to carry a gun.

So let's see, based off of my experience, I've hunted with around maybe 100 people in my day, and I have had only one experience with a hunter that didn't follow the above rules. Keep it in perspective people, you're still more likely to die on the way to the trail than get shot, you're just more afraid of the big fat hunter than you are the soccer mom woofin down some taco bell while screaming at the kiddies and talking on a cell phone.

That is not my experience Taildragger. I shoot at a public range. About half of the people who show up at the range when I'm there pull weapons out of their vehicle and carelessly wave them around, pointing them at me and anyone else at the firing line. If you say anything to them, they reply with the obligatory, "What's wrong, it ain't loaded?!"

I'm retired Army NG, most of my time was in SF units, our gunhandling skills were nothing to bragg about. I did security work in Iraq in 05, I worked and went outside the wire with young soldiers that didn't have a clue about safe gunhandling, the "lazer rule" was about as well known as the Heisenberg Uncertaincy Principal. Many were so afraid of having an negligent discharge they didn't even chamber a round when we left the wire. An SF Medic friend was at an FOB in Afghanistan a few years back colocated with a unit of the 10th Mtn Division. They had 10 people shoot themselves or a fellow soldier while he was there.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 15:17
I didn't know you could hunt just anywhere.

Perhaps you should talk about hunting with people that have a higher IQ.

How is it exactly, that hunters are catered to?

Nearly Normal
they engage in an activity that produces inevitiable accidental deaths every year. there are plenty of activities that are likewise dangerous that the state outlaws and punishes people for. (speeding, dui after a few drinks, mary jane smoking, ) why do hunters get a pass? i say if their kill isnt tonight or tommorrow nights dinner, rather than next months novelty, get em out of the woods where they wont shoot anybody. civilization has sprawled too far for anywhere to be considered free of humans. look at the AT.

if i could find hunters with higher iq's, i would.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 15:23
I know many fine hunters, the kind that belong to the NRA, and are proud to display that fact on the bumper of the ford pick-up that all hunters drive. Its stupid to generalize people. Some of these hunters could run circles around the most experienced hikers, in terms of backcountry skill and safety. Its stupid to place everyone who enjoys the woods differently then you do into a group that you label stupid. I learned a lot of what i know about the woods from a hunter. I can track an animal, stalk my prey, and pull the trigger to take it down, I just choose to do something different in the woods. Bottom line, if its hunting season, and you aren't wearing as much orange as it takes to see you with-in ear shot of the noise you make, then you are WRONG. Hunters have more power then you do, and are well represented with-in all levels of government. You will get nowhere fighting it, just play by the rules so everyone can enjoy the backcountry.

if i call al quedia a bunch of arab towel had quran thumpers, am i generalizing too much?

i could care less if they have more power than me. every other class that has been 'powerful' has had to compromise with liberalism, why stop with the ones that are actually dangerous?

so you are defending accidental human deaths that are caused by a useless past time (show me a hunter thats actually starving and needs the food)? is huntin' just that darn 'njoyable?

taildragger
11-28-2007, 15:26
That is not my experience Taildragger. I shoot at a public range. About half of the people who show up at the range when I'm there pull weapons out of their vehicle and carelessly wave them around, pointing them at me and anyone else at the firing line. If you say anything to them, they reply with the obligatory, "What's wrong, it ain't loaded?!"

I'm retired Army NG, most of my time was in SF units, our gunhandling skills were nothing to bragg about. I did security work in Iraq in 05, I worked and went outside the wire with young soldiers that didn't have a clue about safe gunhandling, the "lazer rule" was about as well known as the Heisenberg Uncertaincy Principal. Many were so afraid of having an negligent discharge they didn't even chamber a round when we left the wire. An SF Medic friend was at an FOB in Afghanistan a few years back colocated with a unit of the 10th Mtn Division. They had 10 people shoot themselves or a fellow soldier while he was there.

What are the ages of the people at the range? Were they born before 1961 (if so, the course isn't required). Right now the GA DEC won't load for me, so I don't know if there are other ways to get out of the class.

Lastly, dudes at gun ranges aren't necessarily legal hunters.

Random question. Do your gun clubs sell booze? I know that some of the "rod and gun" clubs here in NY do, that could be another issue.

Sorry to hear that thats your experience. I've been fortunate to only have had one bad experience with a hunter and since hunter education and enforcement of game laws in OK have become more strictly enforced I have only had good run ins with legal hunters.

sasquatch2014
11-28-2007, 15:39
I lived in Northern Wyoming for a bunch of years and did a bunch of hiking fishing and hunting out there. The blue grouse were so well hidden that they would not fly half the time until you were about to put your oot down on one of them then the whole bunch would flush up and take off. that always got the old heart pumping.

There were not a lot of accidental shooting out there. If you got shot 9 out of 10 times the person planned to shoot you. Gun control out there is hitting what ya aim at.

taildragger
11-28-2007, 16:07
so you are defending accidental human deaths that are caused by a useless past time (show me a hunter thats actually starving and needs the food)? is huntin' just that darn 'njoyable?

You're obviously blind, I've met people who hunt to subsist, you got em der in Georgia to. I don't have to hunt to live, but it damn sure does give me about 200-300 lbs of meat a year, plus the fish I catch as well.

Wanna see a starving hunter, come on down to the Arkansas River bottom in OK, you'll see a few starving hunters or people who really need/could use a deer to get by in the winter.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 16:21
You're obviously blind, I've met people who hunt to subsist, you got em der in Georgia to. I don't have to hunt to live, but it damn sure does give me about 200-300 lbs of meat a year, plus the fish I catch as well.

Wanna see a starving hunter, come on down to the Arkansas River bottom in OK, you'll see a few starving hunters or people who really need/could use a deer to get by in the winter.

ill concede there may be a few who hunt to subsist... but the vast majority.

i guess what i am gettting at is, do the benefits outweight the cost?

sure, hunting may produce extra meat for some folks, but as long as just anyone can hunt, people will get shot. is it worth it? i guess we would all say yes until it is us that walks into the inbred's sights.

taildragger
11-28-2007, 16:28
ill concede there may be a few who hunt to subsist... but the vast majority.

i guess what i am gettting at is, do the benefits outweight the cost?

sure, hunting may produce extra meat for some folks, but as long as just anyone can hunt, people will get shot. is it worth it? i guess we would all say yes until it is us that walks into the inbred's sights.

Sure, just as long as anyone can drive a car, people will die in car accidents. Is it worth a little bit of convenience, urban sprawl, and pollution that they cause?

Open your eyes, inbreds ain't the only ones with guns, and getting shot is an unlikely way to die. Come on seriously, do you really believe that you are in that much danger from someone hunting? Do you really live in fear of all the ways that might kill you? Put things into perspective, most things out there are deadlier than hunting.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 17:42
Sure, just as long as anyone can drive a car, people will die in car accidents. Is it worth a little bit of convenience, urban sprawl, and pollution that they cause?

Open your eyes, inbreds ain't the only ones with guns, and getting shot is an unlikely way to die. Come on seriously, do you really believe that you are in that much danger from someone hunting? Do you really live in fear of all the ways that might kill you? Put things into perspective, most things out there are deadlier than hunting.
i dont believe my risk of being shot by a hunter is excessive, but still legitamate. yes, modern life is full of risks, but does that mean all are neccessary? that is my assertion, hunting just adds yet another risk to people who live in well hunted areas, like myself. some risks bring more benefit than others. to me, a car is a conveinent. living in a hunted area is not. i am not paranoid, just perceptive of where i am. even tho being shot by a hunter is unlikely, it is still possible, and if the whole activity isnt very beneficial to society, then why should i be required to assume some of the risk? imagine a revolver with room for a hundred bullets. its empty. yeah, you could put a bullet in, spin the chamber, point it at your head, pull the trigger, and there is a one percent chance you will die. yet anyone with a brain would not do it.

I have lived in north georia for 22 years and i have noted that the overwhelming majority of people whom i know that hunt, friends included, arent very bright. and during hunting season i hear gun shot after gun shot that sounds like it couldnt be more than 300 yards away.

amigo
11-28-2007, 17:52
since we are all forced to sacrifice for the collective good of society, i see no reason why hunters should be catered to. bunch of chew spittin rednecks should not be allowed to hunt just anywhere. when i am out hiking, i consider the IQ levels of people i know who talk about hunting. then i get scared.


Whitefoot, may I point out that a good portion of the AT in PA runs through State Game Lands, paid for by hunting license fees exclusively and not generally open to other public use such as camping, with the exception of the AT corridor?

So, who's "catering" to who?

When you're hiking the AT in PA, please take time to thank the hunters who cater to YOU.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 17:55
What if i believe in the collective ownership of land? but i still tolerate the elitist system in america? NOW whose catering to who? the argument goes on.

i would gladly skip any part of the AT that is private property.

amigo
11-28-2007, 18:24
Well, you lost me there, dude. I guess this lifelong hunter AND hiker doesn't have the IQ to keep up ...

Lauriep
11-28-2007, 18:27
For the record, fewer than ten miles of the A.T. are on private property. We've just updated our hunting page at http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hunting to include more information for both hikers and hunters.

Laurie Potteiger
ATC

taildragger
11-28-2007, 18:50
What if i believe in the collective ownership of land? but i still tolerate the elitist system in america? NOW whose catering to who? the argument goes on.

i would gladly skip any part of the AT that is private property.

You might believe in it, but that doesn't mean squat.

It takes money to protect lands and keep them from being developed, whether that development is a cattle farm, wheat field, or planned neighborhood. A lot of that money comes from hunters. In 2006 $300,000,000 was collected from taxation that hunters willingly (now who the hell else takes extra taxes willingly?) paid for their right to hunt. Thats money spent for wetland conservation, WMA's, keeping lands in the NFS etc... Now, to complain about us as unbeneficial to society...well thats just not right. If you want to look back, it wasn't too long ago that they were very few deer left in most of the states (at least before you're time) and turkey, quail, elk, moose, and some species of duck got wiped off of their original territory due to loss of habitat (remember, larger rural farming society back then). It was hunters who started to manage land, re-introduce some species, and protect land from future development.

Here's an example. Ducks Unlimited fought the Army Core of Engineers back in the 1960's (or sometime around then) over the draining of some river bottom land (I believe that it was part of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley) and creating a shipping channel. DU was able to beat them back, and now that area of the country is the primary wintering grounds for mallards in the US.

So, I think that hunting is good for society overall. There are many more stories of success that hunters have had for keeping important areas as WMA's or protecting them from development.

Now, tell me what hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts have done to proctect our woodlands? Probably doesn't compare to what hunters have done.


BTW, hearing a shot that sounds like its 300 yds away, that doesn't mean anything. Dearing rifle season on the Arkansas River bottom I can hear shots for miles. It sounds like someone is damn close to me, but can easily be shooting at something a mile away. It depends on the gun and the accoustics of the area that it was shot in.

Skidsteer
11-28-2007, 19:06
Interesting report on firearm safety stats:

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/IIR_V2N5.pdf

Looks like I should have bought my seventeen year old son another firearm rather than the Subaru.

take-a-knee
11-28-2007, 20:00
What if i believe in the collective ownership of land? but i still tolerate the elitist system in america? NOW whose catering to who? the argument goes on.

i would gladly skip any part of the AT that is private property.

Don't just skip the AT dude, move to Cuba! They are really into that "collectivist" thing, you'd feel right at home.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 21:34
You might believe in it, but that doesn't mean squat.

It takes money to protect lands and keep them from being developed, whether that development is a cattle farm, wheat field, or planned neighborhood. A lot of that money comes from hunters. In 2006 $300,000,000 was collected from taxation that hunters willingly (now who the hell else takes extra taxes willingly?) paid for their right to hunt. Thats money spent for wetland conservation, WMA's, keeping lands in the NFS etc... Now, to complain about us as unbeneficial to society...well thats just not right. If you want to look back, it wasn't too long ago that they were very few deer left in most of the states (at least before you're time) and turkey, quail, elk, moose, and some species of duck got wiped off of their original territory due to loss of habitat (remember, larger rural farming society back then). It was hunters who started to manage land, re-introduce some species, and protect land from future development.

Here's an example. Ducks Unlimited fought the Army Core of Engineers back in the 1960's (or sometime around then) over the draining of some river bottom land (I believe that it was part of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley) and creating a shipping channel. DU was able to beat them back, and now that area of the country is the primary wintering grounds for mallards in the US.

So, I think that hunting is good for society overall. There are many more stories of success that hunters have had for keeping important areas as WMA's or protecting them from development.


the federal government is more than capable of protecting wilderness and land.

its cost nothing to keep land from being developed, as long as the federal government steps in to protect it. i should not have to tolerate hunters simply because they protect land from development. should we tolerate a fascist government because it protects us from foreign danger?

just because you can point out that a few hunting or firearm organizations have been proactive environmental protection it does not change the fact that people who don't hunt have to put up with danger caused by those that do. rarely is a situation like that tolerated in america. Drunk drivers cause danger to others so they are punished. a million other examples follow. as americans, we put up with all kinds of crap for collective security. hunters should not get a pass when i don't.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 21:34
Don't just skip the AT dude, move to Cuba! They are really into that "collectivist" thing, you'd feel right at home.

that was more for sake of argument than anything else. BTW, America is a little more collectivist than one would think. all depends on perspective.

Alligator
11-28-2007, 21:35
You might believe in it, but that doesn't mean squat.

It takes money to protect lands and keep them from being developed, whether that development is a cattle farm, wheat field, or planned neighborhood. A lot of that money comes from hunters. In 2006 $300,000,000 was collected from taxation that hunters willingly (now who the hell else takes extra taxes willingly?) paid for their right to hunt. Thats money spent for wetland conservation, WMA's, keeping lands in the NFS etc... Now, to complain about us as unbeneficial to society...well thats just not right. If you want to look back, it wasn't too long ago that they were very few deer left in most of the states (at least before you're time) and turkey, quail, elk, moose, and some species of duck got wiped off of their original territory due to loss of habitat (remember, larger rural farming society back then). It was hunters who started to manage land, re-introduce some species, and protect land from future development.
...Dude, you have a very warped sense of history here. Who do you think shot the vast majority of those animals? Vegetarians??? I'm not saying there wasn't habitat loss, and that faced with a loss of game hunters didn't wake up and smell the coffee, but lots of species' numbers were critically reduced by hunting.

Alligator
11-28-2007, 21:56
Extinct from hunting
Eastern Woodland Bison (http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/heywood/geog358/extinctm/EstBison.htm)
Sea Mink (http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/heywood/geog358/extinctm/SeaMink.htm)
Badlands Bighorn Sheep (http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/heywood/geog358/extinctm/BadBHShe.htm)
Arizona Wapati (http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/heywood/geog358/extinctm/AZWapiti.htm)
Oregon Bison (http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/heywood/geog358/extinctm/OreBison.htm)

That's just a few. Plus serious declines in other species due to hunting-American Bison for instance.

Hunters got stuck with a lot of these laws due to overexploitation.

Bob S
11-28-2007, 21:57
Hiking like any other activity you need to understand and manage the risk. During hunting season have orange clothing (stay away from white clothing) don’t walk about early morning and late in the day when game is active and thus also the hunters are active. Try to avoid areas that are hunter-rich. And make noise when you walk.

Hunters are like bears, you can coexist just fine if you take precautions.



Hunter safety courses leave a lot to be desired, I have taken the Ohio course and it leaves a lot out. It’s a 3-night course, 1 of those nights is the test. You can’t expect to learn a lot in 2 evenings.

Press
11-28-2007, 22:18
I went section hiking on the last day of deer season last year in Central Va., saw several hunters along the AT, they were friendly, although obviously thought I was a little nuts -- (you're walking five miles that way, then, turning around and walking back? yep.) -- you really can't stereotype them. Lots of talk about inbred rednecks in this thread, but there are also a bunch of yuppie hunters around here too, although they mostly shoot birds, I think.

hurryinghoosier
11-28-2007, 22:19
I was in Grand Rapids this past weekend and in the Sunday paper was an article about a woman who owned a horse and it was kept in an open field. She was worried about hunters so she spray painted the horses mane flourescent orange. Yes, someone shot the horse---clean shot right through the lungs.

canerunner
11-28-2007, 22:48
they engage in an activity that produces inevitiable accidental deaths every year. there are plenty of activities that are likewise dangerous that the state outlaws and punishes people for. (speeding, dui after a few drinks, mary jane smoking, ) why do hunters get a pass? i say if their kill isnt tonight or tommorrow nights dinner, rather than next months novelty, get em out of the woods where they wont shoot anybody. civilization has sprawled too far for anywhere to be considered free of humans. look at the AT.

if i could find hunters with higher iq's, i would.

Throwing such generalities around really shows your ignorance of the facts. I'm sorry that your experiences have been less than you would like them to be, but making such broad statements is akin to saying all white people are racist, or that all men are wife beaters.

Some of the most articulate and intelligent people I've ever known were hunters and sportsmen. The minority (by a large margin) hunt for the antlers to hang on the wall, or whatever trophy they might seek. Most enjoy being in the great outdoors just as much as you do, just pursuing a different passion. All of the hunters I know use the meat, or donate it to charity to feed the homeless and underpriviledged.

I've known some real slobs, but I won't hunt with them. In fact I've reported several of them to the authorities because of their blatant disregard for safety and the game management regulations. If you see something that's illegal (and much of what you seem to see is illegal), report it to the authorities. It's your duty as a citizen to protect society from those idiots. Don't let it go.

A slob with a gun isn't a hunter. A hunter is someone who seeks game animals, but does so with a sportsmanlike attitude, and a great respect for both the game he seeks, and the other people that might be in the woods with him.

I've spent hundreds of days in hunting camps, and some of the people I've shared camps with would dring a beer or two, or maybe have a mixed drink, but NO ONE drank to excess. If they had, they would not have been allowed to hunt, and would have been asked to leave and not come back. That has been a rule in every club and camp I've been involved in.

The risks are too great, and they all knew it. Safety has always been the priority in our camps. We have never had a shooting accident in any of our clubs, and that includes literally hundreds of hunters, and thousands of hours in the woods.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 23:01
hunting regulations make no diferrentations between the 'real' hunters and the slobs with guns, leaving me forced to do the same.

no offense to the 'real' hunters.

canerunner
11-28-2007, 23:07
Plus serious declines in other species due to hunting-American Bison for instance.

Hunters got stuck with a lot of these laws due to overexploitation.

If you checked your history, you know that the American Bison (Plains Bison) weren't hunted to near extinction by what we would consider "hunters" today. The remarkable decline in their numbers was due to market hunting - Killing them just for the hides, and leaving the rest to rot.

The railroads would stop the trains if they encountered a herd, and allow the passengers to shoot at the herds with whatever gun they had, whether it was a derringer, pistol, or whatever. Those animals weren't even skinned or anything. Just left to rot. Killed in the name of entertainment. A total waste.

whitefoot_hp
11-28-2007, 23:33
If you checked your history, you know that the American Bison (Plains Bison) weren't hunted to near extinction by what we would consider "hunters" today. The remarkable decline in their numbers was due to market hunting - Killing them just for the hides, and leaving the rest to rot.

The railroads would stop the trains if they encountered a herd, and allow the passengers to shoot at the herds with whatever gun they had, whether it was a derringer, pistol, or whatever. Those animals weren't even skinned or anything. Just left to rot. Killed in the name of entertainment. A total waste.

so its some huge difference if a hunter is hunting for market or hunting to proclaim to his friend "i got me a dern 12 pointer, by gaud."

Alligator
11-28-2007, 23:36
If you checked your history, you know that the American Bison (Plains Bison) weren't hunted to near extinction by what we would consider "hunters" today. The remarkable decline in their numbers was due to market hunting - Killing them just for the hides, and leaving the rest to rot.

The railroads would stop the trains if they encountered a herd, and allow the passengers to shoot at the herds with whatever gun they had, whether it was a derringer, pistol, or whatever. Those animals weren't even skinned or anything. Just left to rot. Killed in the name of entertainment. A total waste.For sport or for food, please don't try to whitewash history. Point is, it wasn't habitat loss, it was hunters shooting them which devastated the population.
v., hunt·ed, hunt·ing, hunts. v.tr.
To pursue (game) for food or sport.Somehow I don't think it was the railroad shooters doing the major damage either:rolleyes:.

take-a-knee
11-29-2007, 00:03
For sport or for food, please don't try to whitewash history. Point is, it wasn't habitat loss, it was hunters shooting them which devastated the population.
v., hunt·ed, hunt·ing, hunts. v.tr.
To pursue (game) for food or sport.Somehow I don't think it was the railroad shooters doing the major damage either:rolleyes:.

You are both wrong, the Bison were hunted to extinction on purpose to force the American Indians onto the reservation, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the sport of hunting.

The National Park Service was founded by the same man who founded the Boone & Crockett Club, a hunter by the name of Theodore Roosevelt. I wouldn't expect some young skull full of mush to know that because his teachers were most likely equally ignorant of that fact.

Alligator
11-29-2007, 00:15
You are both wrong, the Bison were hunted to extinction on purpose to force the American Indians onto the reservation, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the sport of hunting.

The National Park Service was founded by the same man who founded the Boone & Crockett Club, a hunter by the name of Theodore Roosevelt. I wouldn't expect some young skull full of mush to know that because his teachers were most likely equally ignorant of that fact.Really mushhead?
Roosevelt president 1901-1909.

National Park Service established 1916. (http://www.nps.gov/legacy/mission.html) Try Woodrow Wilson.

Yes, forcing the Indians onto the reservation was a component but not the whole of it.

take-a-knee
11-29-2007, 00:20
Really mushhead?
Roosevelt president 1901-1909.

National Park Service established 1916. (http://www.nps.gov/legacy/mission.html) Try Woodrow Wilson.

Yes, forcing the Indians onto the reservation was a component but not the whole of it.

The first national parks were established by TR, not Wilson.

Alligator
11-29-2007, 00:23
Wrong again. Yellowstone was the first National Park. 1872.

The USFS was established under TR.

Tipi Walter
11-29-2007, 00:29
Both the bison and the Indian were hunted to near extinction in this country, and T. Roosevelt was the man most responsible for taking Indian land and tying it up in the system we now know as the National Forests. With around 15 million Indians in North America when Columbus landed to the year 1900 when there were just 200,000 to 300,000 left, scattered on mostly scrub land, this is a history no one wants to teach except what individual Indians teach their children.

Did hunters participate? I'm sure they did, but then it was government and state policy so nearly everyone participated. The history of California is a stark example of this cultural genocide, not only was the California golden bear eradicated, but the 70 Indian tribes that made up early California were close to totally wiped out, and a paid bounty was given for each male Indian's head, less for the women and children's.

Like the Indian bumper sticker says, AMERICA: LOVE IT OR GIVE IT BACK

Alligator
11-29-2007, 00:50
That's a little bit more than I'm willing to delve into tonight Walter;). My main point was that Taildragger was presenting a serious decline in species due to habitat loss and neglecting to mention the role of hunters in reduced species numbers.

And of course, it is hunting season so wear some orange:cool:.

Tennessee Viking
11-29-2007, 00:54
I saw a line of hunters walking out of Big Laurel Wilderness to Watauga Dam Road. They had a rotten time that day because it was so foggy, but forcasted to be clear.

take-a-knee
11-29-2007, 01:04
That's a little bit more than I'm willing to delve into tonight Walter;). My main point was that Taildragger was presenting a serious decline in species due to habitat loss and neglecting to mention the role of hunters in reduced species numbers.

And of course, it is hunting season so wear some orange:cool:.

No sport hunters today in North American threaten any specie, their dollars from licenses and exicse taxes pay to maintain what we've managed to save. No hunter alive today was responsible for any extinctions, to say otherwise is like blaming the current white population for slavery.

Alligator
11-29-2007, 01:13
No sport hunters today in North American threaten any specie, their dollars from licenses and exicse taxes pay to maintain what we've managed to save. No hunter alive today was responsible for any extinctions, to say otherwise is like blaming the current white population for slavery.I wasn't blaming anyone from today, I was talking about the past and took issue with his using habitat loss as the culprit.

Specie is coin money BTW, I never send anything about hunters shooting coins:confused:.

sasquatch2014
11-29-2007, 09:48
Well I knew that this posting would quickly digress to the hunters, Non-hunter, I have thumbs and am at the top of the food chain but could care less one way or the other, camps so here goes my two coppers.

Yes hunters pay taxes that non hunters do not same as people who pay a tax for an auto and those who don't own one but take a bus does that make the bus taker a better person? don't know you would have to ask each one. One may do it becase the care about the pollution the other may be saving money to buy a big SUV next year.

In the past some animals were hunted out of existance. I still blame prehistoric man for the loss of the Wooly Mammoth. Oh wait that wasn't due to hunters, sorry my bad. Yes sometimes crap just happens.

I know that a lot of people down closer to NYC don't hunt and say how much they like to watch the baby deer each spring. Each winter as they eat the thousands of dollars of landscaping that they put in and then jump in front of their $80,000 Mercedes and smash in the front end they begin to talk about how more hunting should be allowed. It's whats called a paradime shift and happens when you have had an expereinece with something good or bad.

Either way the biggest problem and it is evident in the posts is not pro vs anti it is ISIM's as in extreamisim....choose your isim and insert here.

ok I hope that I stired the pot a bit more. I need to get ready for my trip up north to club baby snow seals.

taildragger
11-29-2007, 09:54
Dude, you have a very warped sense of history here. Who do you think shot the vast majority of those animals? Vegetarians??? I'm not saying there wasn't habitat loss, and that faced with a loss of game hunters didn't wake up and smell the coffee, but lots of species' numbers were critically reduced by hunting.

Not a warped sense of history at all, modern hunters are very different. I in no way put myself in the same boat with the lot of hunters from earlier on.

taildragger
11-29-2007, 10:05
And as for the loss of habitat

development (using fields without a tree row to protect it which in turn creates an edge habitat, or draining playas to plant more wheat), careless control of pollution, I'm fairly certain those did a lot to help decimate wildlife populations.

And alligator, you're right, I'm sure that hunters taken numbers out of a dwindling system at the time weren't helping either. I was just stating that for the rebound many species can somewhat be attributed to the modern hunter and the causes they support. I brought up the issue near Stuttgart Arkansas because it was DU who won that battle.

At this point I'll probably leave the thread cause this is no longer talking about hunter safety, but instead a talk of pro-hunters vs non-hunters

ki0eh
11-29-2007, 10:28
Whitefoot, may I point out that a good portion of the AT in PA runs through State Game Lands, paid for by hunting license fees exclusively and not generally open to other public use such as camping, with the exception of the AT corridor?

So, who's "catering" to who?

When you're hiking the AT in PA, please take time to thank the hunters who cater to YOU.

Although I endorse this general thought wholeheartedly, and as both a hiker and a hunter would prefer to promote mutual respect among our fellow outdoors lovers, it's not quite true that PA State Game Lands are paid for entirely through hunting license fees.

Especially nowadays, $20 x 925,000 / year won't buy squat after paying for law enforcement and basic maintenance. See for further discussion: http://www.satc-hike.org/paoutdoors.html#rules where if you scroll down enough it says:

"Unlike State Forests that were almost always acquired in the first half of the 20th century, the Game Commission continues to buy land. However, usually they legally can pay only $400/acre, so in practice when Game Lands are acquired they need significant contributions from conservation organizations to make up the difference between the $400 and the real price. The $400 part comes from income the Game Commission realizes from logging, ammunition taxes, and hunting license sales. Hunters often complain about paying $20 for a license but point with pride at all the land “they” bought. Some hunters and many hikers know that’s not the whole story. One example is the "Thousand Steps" tract near Mount Union where the Central Pennsylvania Conservancy "sold" steps for at least $100 each, to make up the six-figure difference between what the Game Commission would pay, and what the corporate landowner would sell for."

emerald
11-29-2007, 16:54
hunting regulations make no diferrentations between the 'real' hunters and the slobs with guns, leaving me forced to do the same.

no offense to the 'real' hunters.

Anyone one want to respond to that one? Well, maybe, no, I'm thinking I might just go back to work.

We're swamped. Not enough help, you know? So who wants a job? Only workers need apply.

Mother's Finest
11-29-2007, 19:15
********FAIR WARNING MILD LIBERAL RANT COMING BELOW***********

I have posted my opinion about hunting before, and am going to bring it up again.

As a human, as a living, loving, breathing member of this world, I cannot understand why anyone would want to kill another living thing for "sport", or as I say, for FUN. How can it be a good time to look down the scope or iron sight of your gun, squeeze the trigger and watch something DIE? It is the intimacy of the act, the un-neccessarieness of the whole business that upsets me so much. We simply do not need to participate in needless killing.

Before anyone freaks out, I am not talking about people that are out hunting to SURVIVE, I am not talking about the economically downtrodden that do not have the ability to feed themselves and their family without harvesting game. We have to do what we have to do to survive, and I am fine with that.

Big problem with killing for fun, whether it be a deer, rabbit, bear or insect.

We should love life and love each other and not kill things for a good time.


******************rant off, rip away**************************

peace
mf

Skidsteer
11-29-2007, 19:53
********FAIR WARNING MILD LIBERAL RANT COMING BELOW***********

I have posted my opinion about hunting before, and am going to bring it up again.

As a human, as a living, loving, breathing member of this world, I cannot understand why anyone would want to kill another living thing for "sport", or as I say, for FUN. How can it be a good time to look down the scope or iron sight of your gun, squeeze the trigger and watch something DIE? It is the intimacy of the act, the un-neccessarieness of the whole business that upsets me so much. We simply do not need to participate in needless killing.

Before anyone freaks out, I am not talking about people that are out hunting to SURVIVE, I am not talking about the economically downtrodden that do not have the ability to feed themselves and their family without harvesting game. We have to do what we have to do to survive, and I am fine with that.

Big problem with killing for fun, whether it be a deer, rabbit, bear or insect.

We should love life and love each other and not kill things for a good time.


******************rant off, rip away**************************

peace
mf

Everything I kill, I eat.

Except mosquitos, mice, people, fifths of tequila, etc.. Those I kill for fun.

rainmaker
11-29-2007, 22:57
********FAIR WARNING MILD LIBERAL RANT COMING BELOW***********

I have posted my opinion about hunting before, and am going to bring it up again.

As a human, as a living, loving, breathing member of this world, I cannot understand why anyone would want to kill another living thing for "sport", or as I say, for FUN. How can it be a good time to look down the scope or iron sight of your gun, squeeze the trigger and watch something DIE? It is the intimacy of the act, the un-neccessarieness of the whole business that upsets me so much. We simply do not need to participate in needless killing.

Before anyone freaks out, I am not talking about people that are out hunting to SURVIVE, I am not talking about the economically downtrodden that do not have the ability to feed themselves and their family without harvesting game. We have to do what we have to do to survive, and I am fine with that.

Big problem with killing for fun, whether it be a deer, rabbit, bear or insect.

We should love life and love each other and not kill things for a good time.


******************rant off, rip away**************************

peace
mfWarning: Mild Liberal Response

I eat venison because I prefer it to beef. It is not saturated with antibiotics and hormones and does not require tons of corn to be topped off. It is also low in cholesterol. To eat venison you got to kill a deer. The way things are going I may have to put out a few rabbit boxes. Saves bullets.

Lone Wolf
11-29-2007, 23:01
********FAIR WARNING MILD LIBERAL RANT COMING BELOW***********

I have posted my opinion about hunting before, and am going to bring it up again.

As a human, as a living, loving, breathing member of this world, I cannot understand why anyone would want to kill another living thing for "sport", or as I say, for FUN. How can it be a good time to look down the scope or iron sight of your gun, squeeze the trigger and watch something DIE? It is the intimacy of the act, the un-neccessarieness of the whole business that upsets me so much. We simply do not need to participate in needless killing.

Before anyone freaks out, I am not talking about people that are out hunting to SURVIVE, I am not talking about the economically downtrodden that do not have the ability to feed themselves and their family without harvesting game. We have to do what we have to do to survive, and I am fine with that.

Big problem with killing for fun, whether it be a deer, rabbit, bear or insect.

We should love life and love each other and not kill things for a good time.


******************rant off, rip away**************************

peace
mf

www.dogbegone.com fun for the whole family

Mother's Finest
11-29-2007, 23:22
Lone Wolf I knew you would get it....

peace
mf

canerunner
11-29-2007, 23:30
so its some huge difference if a hunter is hunting for market or hunting to proclaim to his friend "i got me a dern 12 pointer, by gaud."

Last time I looked ALL male Bison have TWO points. :D

Market hunting is a thing of the distant past. It's illegal now, and there is no market. Farms provide all of the "wild game" served in restaurants, etc.

canerunner
11-29-2007, 23:34
You are both wrong, the Bison were hunted to extinction on purpose to force the American Indians onto the reservation, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the sport of hunting.

The National Park Service was founded by the same man who founded the Boone & Crockett Club, a hunter by the name of Theodore Roosevelt. I wouldn't expect some young skull full of mush to know that because his teachers were most likely equally ignorant of that fact.

I knew about the government hunters, but chose not to inject that into my answer for fear that it might start a real flame war.

Most people know about TR and the San Juan Hill adventure, but most aren't aware of the fact that he was really the first modern environmentalist and conservationist. He was definitely the right man at the right time!

oldfivetango
11-30-2007, 11:14
What if i believe in the collective ownership of land? but i still tolerate the elitist system in america? NOW whose catering to who? the argument goes on.

i would gladly skip any part of the AT that is private property.

When we finally get to your UTOPIA and have no private ownership of
lands and the STATE owns it all,then where is tax revenue generated by
all those rich evil property owners(like me) going to come from?

May I guess?Just take the rest of what those people have?
Oldfivetango

take-a-knee
11-30-2007, 11:32
When we finally get to your UTOPIA and have no private ownership of
lands and the STATE owns it all,then where is tax revenue generated by
all those rich evil property owners(like me) going to come from?

May I guess?Just take the rest of what those people have?
Oldfivetango

Sounds like you have it figured out Old Five, but not everyone believes it can happen. Columnist Charley Reese opined years ago that, "Some people won't believe it until someone butt-strokes them with an AK47 and sets their house on fire."

StarLyte
11-30-2007, 11:38
I have to agree with MF. And thank you for your post. You're very brave ;)

My family were hunters. It was nothing to come home from school and see a carcass of any thing laying on a slab watching my dad peel the damn membrane off of it. Lovely.

Then you have the parents that force-feed their kids game. That's a great experience too.

It's no wonder I eat meat at all, but I do. I do prefer other means of protein especially cheeses. Goes great with wine too ;)

All right, come on wid it...kill me qwick here.

Colter
11-30-2007, 12:37
I feel compelled to jump in every time this subject comes up. There are a lot of potential dangers on the AT, but hunters aren't even close to the top of the list.

Hikers have killed more AT hikers (http://hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/archives/free/trail5.html) (at least 3) on the trail. Has there been any hikers killed by hunters on the AT?

Certainly there is some potential danger, as there is from driving, hitch-hiking, bees, and the like. Wear some blaze orange or other bright colors and don't sweat it. Hunters are far more likely to help you than hurt you, and that's a fact.

whitefoot_hp
11-30-2007, 13:26
When we finally get to your UTOPIA and have no private ownership of
lands and the STATE owns it all,then where is tax revenue generated by
all those rich evil property owners(like me) going to come from?

May I guess?Just take the rest of what those people have?
Oldfivetango

if you followed the conversation as a whole, you would understand i made that point more for the sake of argument than out of any collectivist utopian ideology i adhere to (i do not)

someone made the argument that i ought to be thankful to hunters simply because the state of PA uses their liscense fees to maintain forest land that the trail falls in to, in essence telling me to bow to my elitist masters.

whitefoot_hp
11-30-2007, 13:28
I feel compelled to jump in every time this subject comes up. There are a lot of potential dangers on the AT, but hunters aren't even close to the top of the list.

Hikers have killed more AT hikers (http://hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/archives/free/trail5.html)(at least 3) on the trail. Has there been any hikers killed by hunters on the AT?

Certainly there is some potential danger, as there is from driving, hitch-hiking, bees, and the like. Wear some blaze orange or other bright colors and don't sweat it. Hunters are far more likely to help you than hurt you, and that's a fact.
simply because hunters have not killed many hikers it in no way justifies the risk they pose as worthwhile. that is, the risk they pose is greater than any social value they return.

Colter
11-30-2007, 14:19
simply because hunters have not killed many hikers it in no way justifies the risk they pose as worthwhile. that is, the risk they pose is greater than any social value they return.

I guess the first point is that if hunters have never killed a hiker on the AT in history, it is more of a perceived risk than something to do much worrying about, at least in my mind.

We could outlaw people picking up hitch-hikers (very dangerous) poison all the bees, ban hiking in stormy weather (lightning,) kill all the bears etc. Heck, how many rescuers have lost their lives rescuing foolish hikers? Think of all those helicopter and ambulance crashes!

How much social value hunters, or hikers, have is purely in the eyes of the beholder.

whitefoot_hp
11-30-2007, 14:39
I guess the first point is that if hunters have never killed a hiker on the AT in history, it is more of a perceived risk than something to do much worrying about, at least in my mind.

We could outlaw people picking up hitch-hikers (very dangerous) poison all the bees, ban hiking in stormy weather (lightning,) kill all the bears etc. Heck, how many rescuers have lost their lives rescuing foolish hikers? Think of all those helicopter and ambulance crashes!

How much social value hunters, or hikers, have is purely in the eyes of the beholder.
you are missing the logical thread of my argument. Hunters' activity has the inherent capability of harming others. they fire projectiles into and toward things they may not have a good vantage point of. There is legitimate potential they could harm/kill others.

yes, people could get harmed by a hitch hiker. But they are in control of the situation. they can choose to pick up or not pick up the person.

Rescuing people is dangerous, yes. but rescuers choose to be rescuers, and they value human life in general, or so we would assume if they would take risk to save others in general.

People who get harmed by hunters are not in control of the situation. they do not get to choose if they want to intereact with hunters in a specific situation. your only counterargument here is that hikers choose to be in the woods in general, where hunters are likely to be.

however, hunters are stealthy. they are not supposed to be seen by people. the hiker does not get to choose if he wants to interact with a specific hunter. drivers can choose if they want to interact with specific hitch hikers. rescuers can choose to interact with the lost/ in need.

Mother's Finest
11-30-2007, 14:57
you are missing the logical thread of my argument. Hunters' activity has the inherent capability of harming others. they fire projectiles into and toward things they may not have a good vantage point of. There is legitimate potential they could harm/kill others.

yes, people could get harmed by a hitch hiker. But they are in control of the situation. they can choose to pick up or not pick up the person.

Rescuing people is dangerous, yes. but rescuers choose to be rescuers, and they value human life in general, or so we would assume if they would take risk to save others in general.

People who get harmed by hunters are not in control of the situation. they do not get to choose if they want to intereact with hunters in a specific situation. your only counterargument here is that hikers choose to be in the woods in general, where hunters are likely to be.

however, hunters are stealthy. they are not supposed to be seen by people. the hiker does not get to choose if he wants to interact with a specific hunter. drivers can choose if they want to interact with specific hitch hikers. rescuers can choose to interact with the lost/ in need.

hey Whitefoot, I am responding not to cause more trouble, but to maybe clarify they way your logic is working in the eyes of others.

In theory, as hikers, we know when hunting season is, therefore, we are choosing to be in the woods at a time when we know when there is additional danger from bullets, arrows, shotgun pellets....see where I am going, we have the choice of not hiking then, or hiking in a place where there is no hunting.

don't know if that made any sense, but I am trying.

I will never purposefully kill another living thing again as long as I live, but that is me. The problem is we have something bigger than all of us that we need to respect, and that is the Constitution.

peace
mf

whitefoot_hp
11-30-2007, 14:58
i see exactly what you are saying. but, i did address that in my previous post.

hikers only get to choose whether or not to interact with hunters on a general, rather than specific, basis.

oldfivetango
11-30-2007, 21:42
if you followed the conversation as a whole, you would understand i made that point more for the sake of argument than out of any collectivist utopian ideology i adhere to (i do not)

someone made the argument that i ought to be thankful to hunters simply because the state of PA uses their liscense fees to maintain forest land that the trail falls in to, in essence telling me to bow to my elitist masters.

Please define the term "elitest masters" to this dense old man.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Oldfivetango

Tankerhoosen
11-30-2007, 21:51
simply because hunters have not killed many hikers it in no way justifies the risk they pose as worthwhile. that is, the risk they pose is greater than any social value they return.

And what social value do you or any hiker return?

warraghiyagey
11-30-2007, 22:09
And what social value do you or any hiker return?

Bogus dude. Bogus. Have fun hunting with your cousin. My prayers are with you. Or your cousin. Or which ever one of you thought he saw a deer first.

NoKnees
11-30-2007, 22:14
I wonder how much of the AT is on land secured by robertson Pittman funds.. now if only the hiker would pony up some cash

warraghiyagey
11-30-2007, 22:19
I wonder how much of the AT is on land secured by robertson Pittman funds.. now if only the hiker would pony up some cash
I don't get it.

take-a-knee
11-30-2007, 22:31
I don't get it.

There is an 11% exise tax on firearms and ammunition that is supposedly earmarked for conservation, only a small portion of these millions of dollars of funds have actually been spent on what congress intended since this is federally administered.

I have in my pocket a lifetime sportsman's liscense for the state of GA that cost me $500, all of which must be spent on wildlife conservation by law. The state of GA maintains a cave rescue team to rescue cavers in the GA mountains for which they pay nothing. GA DNR is mostly paid for by licsence fees, there is no caver's licscence. This is why hunters rightfully complain that a lot of outdoor types freeload of of them.

warraghiyagey
11-30-2007, 22:38
There is an 11% exise tax on firearms and ammunition that is supposedly earmarked for conservation, only a small portion of these millions of dollars of funds have actually been spent on what congress intended since this is federally administered.

I have in my pocket a lifetime sportsman's liscense for the state of GA that cost me $500, all of which must be spent on wildlife conservation by law. The state of GA maintains a cave rescue team to rescue cavers in the GA mountains for which they pay nothing. GA DNR is mostly paid for by licsence fees, there is no caver's licscence. This is why hunters rightfully complain that a lot of outdoor types freeload of of them.

Oh. A lot of outdoor types also contribute in many ways,not just tax dollars. There's very few sub-sets of our culture who contribute across the board. I'msure you know of plenty of hunters who don't get the tags. But they're still hunters. Some also refer to them as poachers or jackers. I can't think of a group that is beyond question.

sasquatch2014
12-01-2007, 00:14
Well while everyone continues to debate these points all I know is I didn't get shot on opening day up in NY (Nov 17th) and me and a few other fools are heading down to MD (Dec 6-8) to see which state shoots at hikes more. Trust me this is being done in the name of Science. I take no pleasure in getting out from behind this keyboard and going hiking. I would rather stay here and dig up this horse and beat it some more.

warraghiyagey
12-01-2007, 00:17
. . . I would rather stay here and dig up this horse and beat it some more.

Poor horse. Hunter must have thought it had a broken leg.


:p

take-a-knee
12-01-2007, 00:23
Oh. A lot of outdoor types also contribute in many ways,not just tax dollars. There's very few sub-sets of our culture who contribute across the board. I'msure you know of plenty of hunters who don't get the tags. But they're still hunters. Some also refer to them as poachers or jackers. I can't think of a group that is beyond question.

Excellent point, I just wish most hunters would pick up their own trash. Whitefoot's admonition about some hunters being a danger to hikers is, IMO, way overblown, but nonetheless a reality...wear a lot of orange in hunting season. Most states list all their hunting seasons and info on line, check before you hike in the fall. a lot of states have limited hunts (several days usu) in limited areas (Wildlife Management Areas or State Game lands). This means hunters are only allowed to hunt these areas during these few days, if your hike accidentally coincides with them, you'll see a LOT of hunters.

warraghiyagey
12-01-2007, 00:31
Excellent point, I just wish most hunters would pick up their own trash. Whitefoot's admonition about some hunters being a danger to hikers is, IMO, way overblown, but nonetheless a reality...wear a lot of orange in hunting season. Most states list all their hunting seasons and info on line, check before you hike in the fall. a lot of states have limited hunts (several days usu) in limited areas (Wildlife Management Areas or State Game lands). This means hunters are only allowed to hunt these areas during these few days, if your hike accidentally coincides with them, you'll see a LOT of hunters.
My foster mom used to get skiddish when I'd walk in the woods during hunting season. While I realized the possible danger (drunk foster cousins ambling about with guns) I was never deterred. Hunting dangers are over considered. Many daily activities have a higher death rate. Fortunately the cousins used what they hunted, red necks that had their own code of leave as little trace as possible. Those are most of the hunters I know.

Powder River
12-01-2007, 14:21
Just one thing I'm confused about. I went to a Cabella's the other day and it was like a Wal-Mart sized store full of nothing but hunting gear. The biggest section of the store was selling nothing but camoflauge. They had camoflauge gore-tex jackets, camoflauge fleece, pants, boots, even camoflauge underarmor! So here's the question; if you're going to spend all that money on special camoflauge gear, only to put a blaze-orange vest over it, what was the point? :-?

take-a-knee
12-01-2007, 14:35
Just one thing I'm confused about. I went to a Cabella's the other day and it was like a Wal-Mart sized store full of nothing but hunting gear. The biggest section of the store was selling nothing but camoflauge. They had camoflauge gore-tex jackets, camoflauge fleece, pants, boots, even camoflauge underarmor! So here's the question; if you're going to spend all that money on special camoflauge gear, only to put a blaze-orange vest over it, what was the point? :-?

Deer don't see orange, they do recognize the human form however. The portions of a hunter orange vest that a deer would see don't resemble the human form. They alert moreso on movement and the human scent than anything else. They will stand below your stand and paw and snort sometimes in an attempt to get a camo clad hunter to move...if you do, all you'll see is a brown streak.

taildragger
12-01-2007, 14:36
Just one thing I'm confused about. I went to a Cabella's the other day and it was like a Wal-Mart sized store full of nothing but hunting gear. The biggest section of the store was selling nothing but camoflauge. They had camoflauge gore-tex jackets, camoflauge fleece, pants, boots, even camoflauge underarmor! So here's the question; if you're going to spend all that money on special camoflauge gear, only to put a blaze-orange vest over it, what was the point? :-?


Blaze orange shows up very poorly in a deers vision (at least thats the argument, and I've had deer with in 3 ft of me while wearing my 500in^2 of orange)

The main point of camouflage is just to break up a pattern, most deer will see you based on your outline, its harder to see the outline if you're patterned. Some of the blaze orange the sell is also patterned.

Lastly, a lot of these guys do bow hunting, where camouflage is an absolute necessity to shoot a deer with a bow 10-50 yds away (50 is a pretty darn good bow shot). They also do predator and duck hunting, another place where camouflage is necessary.

Think of it this way, when you walk into an REI or an EMS, how much gear do you actually see that is for being outdoors versus all the aisles of zip pants that they have. Clothing is just an easy way to make some bucks (no pun intended)

sasquatch2014
12-01-2007, 20:00
I just got back from my class for Chainsaw Cert in Sterling Forest NY. there were 17 of us total and not one of us got shot even with tons of hunters around. I am not sure but possibly the sound of the chain saws in the woods alerted them to the fact that we were not deer. I can't really be certian though.:-?

Nearly Normal
12-02-2007, 11:44
You are in more danger sitting at a shelter table when someone knocks over a stove or a pot of boiling water.

whitefoot_hp
12-02-2007, 18:54
And what social value do you or any hiker return?
the activity of hiking poses no inherent risk to others in the manner that hunting does. therefore, there is less of a burden of proof on them to prove to non hikers that they should be allowed to use public land.

you are comparing apples and oranges.

whitefoot_hp
12-02-2007, 19:17
You are in more danger sitting at a shelter table when someone knocks over a stove or a pot of boiling water.

tell that to this guy

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2006/11/09/2289193-sun.html

whitefoot_hp
12-02-2007, 19:23
My foster mom used to get skiddish when I'd walk in the woods during hunting season. While I realized the possible danger (drunk foster cousins ambling about with guns) I was never deterred. Hunting dangers are over considered. Many daily activities have a higher death rate. Fortunately the cousins used what they hunted, red necks that had their own code of leave as little trace as possible. Those are most of the hunters I know.
weak argument. some daily activities are actually neccssary for society to function. just because we take some risks doesn't mean we can't ask to avoid the senseless and unneccessary ones.

FatMan
12-02-2007, 19:42
IMO, responsible hikers have little to fear when hiking during hunting season. Heck, here in Georgia it is nearly hunting season year round in one form or another. I know that saying the hunting community is very safety oriented and careful on whiteblaze is not usually welcomed, but the fact is that vast majority of hunters are careful. I can agree that most hunters certainly do not have LNT on their minds, but safety is a top priority for them. Now, my question is can the same be said for hikers. While I was out walking the AT last week on Tues-Thurs I saw 6 hikers backpacking. The only blaze orange I saw was on my cap and the vests that both me and my dog were wearing. All that went through my mind was that for a few bucks these hikers could greatly minimize any chance of ever becoming a hunting statistic. I can't think of anything less responsible than walking through the Chattahoochee National Forest during Deer Season without wearing blaze orange. C'mon hikers. It was an 0 for 6. Hikers need to be responsible as well.

take-a-knee
12-02-2007, 19:46
weak argument. some daily activities are actually neccssary for society to function. just because we take some risks doesn't mean we can't ask to avoid the senseless and unneccessary ones.

Whitefoot, the majority of your comments in this thread qualify you as a poster child of the police state. There are a whole lot of things that people do that are "Senseless and unnecessary". Unnecessary and senseless to who? Are you the final arbiter of individual liberty?

whitefoot_hp
12-02-2007, 19:47
why should a hiker have to dress himself a certain way to avoid being gunned down violently?

whitefoot_hp
12-02-2007, 19:49
Whitefoot, the majority of your comments in this thread qualify you as a poster child of the police state. There are a whole lot of things that people do that are "Senseless and unnecessary". Unnecessary and senseless to who? Are you the final arbiter of individual liberty?
given that i am talking about activities on the fringe of society, i cannot understand how you would extrapolate my specific feelings on a specific issue to an entire political philosophy.

i just believe that all should be able to enjoy the outdoors safely, and no group should have to unwillingly put up with unwanted danger from another group.

that is liberalism and libertarianism at its highest, my friend.

Skidsteer
12-02-2007, 19:54
...that is liberalism and libertarianism at its highest, my friend.

No it's not and you're sniveling.

Stop hiking if you can't manage reasonable risks.

FatMan
12-02-2007, 19:56
why should a hiker have to dress himself a certain way to avoid being gunned down violently?Simple. It's Common Sense. And responsible.

BTW, is there a way to be gunned down gently? Or does writing in a sensationalistic manner make you feel better.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-02-2007, 19:59
The woods don't belong exclusively to hikers. Hunters have a right to use the woodlands as well. Personally, I choose to manage this risk by not going into woodlands that are hunted during deer and bear season. Others choose to wear lots of blaze orange and take other measures to avoid being mistaken for prey.

Marta
12-02-2007, 20:58
why should a hiker have to dress himself a certain way to avoid being gunned down violently?

For the same reason pedestrians and cyclists should wear reflective clothing and flashing lights when they take to the streets at night. Cars don't have a right to mow us down, but we shouldn't make ourselves invisible to them when we're sharing the roadways.

ladd5
12-02-2007, 21:26
A lot people are not aware that hunters have been paying license fees, and taxes on guns and ammo thru the years.And these fees and taxes pay for the purchase and maintainence of large tracts of land we commonly use. Here in kentucky the Fish and Wildlife Department is entirely funded by these taxes and fees.

whitefoot_hp
12-03-2007, 14:55
No it's not and you're sniveling.

Stop hiking if you can't manage reasonable risks.

sniveling? i need some clarification.

Its not that cannot mangage reasonable risks, i am simply arguing it does not make much sense for one group of people to expect everyone else to embrace the risk (in my opinion unneccessary risk) they pose to society.

we could all find ways to deal with drunk driving if it was legal. drive bright orange cars, dont drive at night, etc. afterall, its a manageable risk.

Colter
12-03-2007, 15:19
Drunk driving is always unsafe, and always illegal. As Marta sensibly pointed out, when you are riding a bicycle it makes sense to watch the traffic and wear bright clothing. It does not make sense to ban motorists, or bicyclists.

Statistically, hunting is a relatively safe sport. Much safer than canoeing, for example. If you are hiking in the woods during hunting season and wear some bright clothing, it simply doesn't make rational sense to be worried about hunters killing you, just as it doesn't make sense to worry the people in the next shelter are axe murderers or a plane is going to fall out of the sky and land on your head. Lots of people every year get killed by slamming their cars into deer or swerving to miss deer. Insurance companies are continually campaigning for MORE hunters and hunting for safety (and thus $) reasons.

It doesn't do any good to get all worked up about banning hunters from the woods because it simply isn't going to happen, at least in our lifetimes.

whitefoot_hp
12-03-2007, 15:26
i am not exactly getting worked up about it. ill hike whether they are there or not. just expressing how i feel about it.

rainmaker
12-04-2007, 23:34
i am not exactly getting worked up about it. ill hike whether they are there or not. just expressing how i feel about it.

Young man, and I assume you are a young man based on your stated first name and age, your first post on this topic dated Nov. 27 belies your current contention that you are not getting worked up. I believe in that post you referred to hunters as a bunch of chewing rednecks and questioned their IQs. Now that kinda sounds like someone with something stuck in their crop.I hope that you have learned that most of the folks who responded to your posts do not share your rather limited opinion. Maybe as you mature you'll learn to accept hunters as equal outdoor enthusiasts who share our love of the outdoors. Until then buy yourself an orange hat and pretend your a Clemson fan.

Skidsteer
12-04-2007, 23:45
sniveling? i need some clarification.

The broad definition is bitching about circumstances while engaging in an activity you choose to participate in of your own free will.

Ring a bell?

johnnyblisters
12-05-2007, 00:13
I was on a small trip in MD by route 70 and annapolis rocks a couple of weeks ago and a group of 5 hunters came meandering down the trail. Most had a beer can in one hand and a small deer dragging behind them. There was a blood trail for almost a mile. It seemed unfit for these men to be on the trail with guns, beer, and bloody deer on such a popular section of the trail.

Nearly Normal
12-09-2007, 00:17
that is liberalism and libertarianism at its highest, my friend.[/quote]


libertarianism is the deepest belief that all individuals be responsible for their own actions.

That means you don't trash all hunters because one does something dumb. Mr. dumb*** pays for his own mistake.

The same goes for hikers or birdwatchers etc.....that don't prepare for any evironment they hike in.

Nearly Normal

hair
12-09-2007, 02:01
that is liberalism and libertarianism at its highest, my friend.


libertarianism is the deepest belief that all individuals be responsible for their own actions.

Nearly Normal[/quote]

Libertarianism is the belief that people have unlimited liberty as long as their actions don't infringe upon someone else's unlimited liberty. Apparently whitefoot feels that his freedom to walk through the woods during hunting season without having to dress in orange is being violated by the hunters.

I see his point. However, we willingly venture into the woods knowing that there are hunters. Who cares if you have to wear orange.

The Mechanical Man
12-09-2007, 02:23
Here is a link to a story about an actual shootout in a parking area, leaving one hunter dead.
Not sure if everyone heard about, or really wants to know what goes on in PA. during hunting season...........yikes!:confused:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1196918064129210.xml&coll=2

mozzie
12-09-2007, 02:35
since we are all forced to sacrifice for the collective good of society, i see no reason why hunters should be catered to. bunch of chew spittin rednecks should not be allowed to hunt just anywhere. when i am out hiking, i consider the IQ levels of people i know who talk about hunting. then i get scared.
hunters are responsable for protecting a lot of that land we hike through.most presidents that are responscable for these parks were hunters

The Mechanical Man
12-09-2007, 03:11
I just re-read the article, and realized how close to the AT it really is.


................The killing occurred on Hypsie Gap Road in Tunkhannock, about 15 to 20 miles north of Wind Gap..................

mudhead
12-09-2007, 07:14
Maybe you could post a followup on this article.

Thanks.

The Mechanical Man
12-09-2007, 14:57
here is the latest news I could find on that one.....................

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071205/NEWS/71205001

Nearly Normal
12-09-2007, 15:19
libertarianism is the deepest belief that all individuals be responsible for their own actions.

Nearly Normal

Libertarianism is the belief that people have unlimited liberty as long as their actions don't infringe upon someone else's unlimited liberty. Apparently whitefoot feels that his freedom to walk through the woods during hunting season without having to dress in orange is being violated by the hunters.

I see his point. However, we willingly venture into the woods knowing that there are hunters. Who cares if you have to wear orange.[/quote]

Nearly Normal
12-09-2007, 15:34
Sorry about the last post repeat.

dessertrat
12-09-2007, 15:38
libertarianism is the deepest belief that all individuals be responsible for their own actions.

Nearly Normal

Libertarianism is the belief that people have unlimited liberty as long as their actions don't infringe upon someone else's unlimited liberty. Apparently whitefoot feels that his freedom to walk through the woods during hunting season without having to dress in orange is being violated by the hunters.

I see his point. However, we willingly venture into the woods knowing that there are hunters. Who cares if you have to wear orange.[/quote]

The point might better be made that in a world where all hunters are responsible, you wouldn't have to wear orange either-- the hunter would identify his target and be mindful of the things behind the target before shooting. The fact that some hunters follow the "if it's brown, it's down" philosophy is the real problem.

I am pro-hunting, by the way. I am just very "anti-idiot in the woods with a gun".

dessertrat
12-09-2007, 15:39
The above post got messed up with the quotes. Sorry. Only the last two paragraphs are mine, if you didn't figure it out.

Nearly Normal
12-09-2007, 15:46
I'm certainly becoming dazed and confused with this thread. I guess if I had a "chew" I would be hunting, according to Whitefoot.

sasquatch2014
12-10-2007, 13:51
Well i am not sure about other areas but up this way time is up the hunting season is over for this year. I guess we all survived the dangers real and percieved for another year. As the weather warms up the real danger will once again start roaming the trails. Ticks! They hurt more hikers than the hunters.

Newb
12-10-2007, 14:45
From the Washington Post, TODAY 10 DEC 2007:

"Man Dead After Hunting Accident:

A hunter was killed by another hunter who mistook him for a deer near the Dans Mountain Wildlife Management Area in Allegany County on Saturday. Maryland Natural Resources Police said.
They said James W. Dawson Jr., 46, of Rawlings was killed; he was one of two hunters who another hunter thought were deer.
Police did not identify the hunter who fired at Dawson, and they declined to say whether Dawson was wearing blaze-oragne clothing. the hunter who apparently shot Dawson called 911 froma a cellphone to report the shooting.
Saturday was the last day of the season for hunting deer with firearms - ASSOCIATED PRESS ARTICLE"


Once again....someone shooting at shapes rather than targets.

Nearly Normal
12-10-2007, 17:30
From the Washington Post, TODAY 10 DEC 2007:

"Man Dead After Hunting Accident:

A hunter was killed by another hunter who mistook him for a deer near the Dans Mountain Wildlife Management Area in Allegany County on Saturday. Maryland Natural Resources Police said.
They said James W. Dawson Jr., 46, of Rawlings was killed; he was one of two hunters who another hunter thought were deer.
Police did not identify the hunter who fired at Dawson, and they declined to say whether Dawson was wearing blaze-oragne clothing. the hunter who apparently shot Dawson called 911 froma a cellphone to report the shooting.
Saturday was the last day of the season for hunting deer with firearms - ASSOCIATED PRESS ARTICLE"


Once again....someone shooting at shapes rather than targets.






....and he should be charged with murder. No excuse for hunting accidents.

Nearly Normal

Newb
12-11-2007, 12:09
....and he should be charged with murder. No excuse for hunting accidents.

Nearly Normal

I say reckless endangerment and manslaughter. But then again, the closest I got to law school was "The Paper Chase":cool: