2009.11.01
The deer I shot Saturday on Mill Mountain
With a camera, that is.
Zach and I spied this guy near the base of Mill Mountain as we walked down "Old Road" on Saturday. He looks pretty healthy. He stared at us for awhile, before he ran off after a doe. Enjoy!
boooooo..hiss
Comment by Tony — November 1, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Oh.didnt see the caption..thought you shot him..with like a gun..
Comment by Tony — November 1, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Being an hunter either way works for me once it's drop off at the processor it's all meat.
But if it runs across the highway and stuck by a car it's higher insurance premiums, and more road kill for cities to remove.
Hunters for the Hungry have an excellent ideal as we head into the Holiday Season.
Oh Dan....Great Shot!
Comment by Static Lines — November 1, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
He is a lovely creature, and how anyone can shoot him is beyond my ken.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 1, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Most hunters just enjoy killing things.its not the woods..or love for nature..I think their sick man..Ive always wanted to hunt the hunters...ya know let um hunt something that can shoot back,,
Comment by Tony — November 1, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Right on! I don't know what's wrong with people. I'm a vegan simply because killing animals is wrong. And what is up with animals killing and eating other other animals? That's just plain nuts!
Comment by PU — November 2, 2009 @ 3:12 am
Nice "shot."
Comment by Lynda K — November 2, 2009 @ 4:38 am
Be careful. That deer could have a conceal carry permit.
Comment by Chris G. Muse — November 2, 2009 @ 9:01 am
Tony... Are you serious? I enjoy hunting because I can be out in the woods and enjoy nature. Even if you see nothing all day, you get to be outside, see a sunrise, and have some peace and solitude away and alone. If you do see something and have an opportunity to harvest it, great. My family does not buy beef at all because we are able to eat deer meat all year. It is healthier, helps control deer populations which would be otherwise decimated by disease and eat out their own habitat. It is not for some joy of killing. Please think before you post something and use some intelligence.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Tony. If you Hunted the hunters, I'm sure you would loose!
Comment by Keith Holyfield — November 2, 2009 @ 10:53 am
I agree. We need to not kill the deer in southwest Virginia. They are so precious...especially when they are bounding across our highways with such splendor and in great numbers. I especially love the beauty of a blood splattered road and intralls scattered in the median. Hunting is evil, so please...please..PLEASE!! Don't kill the deer. Do it for me please!
Comment by AutoBodyRepairman — November 2, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Hey PU,
Why do you go around eating poor defenseless plants? I am sure it is very painful for them as they are sliced off at the root to make your salad or jerked out of the ground. That potato that is still alive, is still a seedling that could make many more potatoes feels pain and is dies in your oven.
Plants are a thing of beauty. have you ever seen a broccoli flower? It is a nice shade of yellow.
Why is your method of sustenance by death any better than anyone elses?
Comment by Bob H — November 2, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Since their so plentiful why do hunters need to purchase a tree stand,lure them with scent,wear camouflage and use a high powered with scope to kill them.then wear a blood stained jacket all week to show they are indeed"great white hunters"..
Or how about the proud Dads that give their 10 yr old daughter a gun to kill a treed bear and then say how brave the kid was..I stand by my post no. 5
Comment by Tony — November 2, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Tony,
If the founders of this country hadn't been more effective hunters than the Indians who were already here, you probably would not be here.
I would caution you to not take out the big brush and paint all hunters from the few (if any) you may have seen. That is just very close minded.
Did you know that Teddy Roosevelt, you know, they guy who preserved the Grand Canyon and a bunch of other national parks, was an avid hunter? Was he also sick?
The state of Virgnia recently overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment about the right to hunt. You are in the minority.
But given your views, I am sure there are a few hunters of the variety you mention who would like to be pitted against you mano e mano in the woods if you care to try your luck.
Comment by Bob H — November 2, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Bob H,
Did Bob McDonnell support the right to hunt amendment? Just curious.....
Comment by Dan Casey — November 2, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Tony,
It sounds like you have had a bad experience with someone. First, hunters purchase tree stands to sit in trees. Just because deer are plentiful (and they are) doesn't mean they will walk right up to you. Same with the camouflage and scent. You use a high powered rifle because it is a more humane way of taking a deer. You could use a .22, or a stick or rock, but then you are only wounding the animal, and that is cruel. You use a scope to get a sure shot, again to assure you do not just wound the animal and be sure to take it in a humane way. I don't know of any hunters who wear a blood-stained jacket all week. I prefer to wash my clothes.
If deer become overpopulated because people do not hunt, then more are hit by cars, destroy farmers’ crops, and cause other damage. Deer will run out of food, which will cause malnutrition in the population. Also, when there are more deer than an area can support, disease becomes widespread and you have large numbers dying from the disease. Hunting ensures that the deer do not overpopulate an area. It provides a way to manage the population without hitting them with your car. It also ensures that the deer that are not harvested by hunters live healthier and have the food they need to thrive.
Tony, remember, hunters are people, just like you. There will always be a bad apple in that group (which you seem to have experienced); it's the nature of people. Please do not paint all of us with a broad, uninformed brush and your ignorant comments.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
BobH,
Plants don't have feelings. Stop being silly. And stop the killing. It's not necessary and is just plain scary that a bunch of irresponsible crazies are running around with guns shooting the place up!
Comment by PU — November 2, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
People who would compare mammals with plants must have pretty stupid friends and family.
Comment by Kristen — November 2, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
PU,
Without hunting your vegitables would be destroyed by deer. Then you couldn't eat them and would have to eat meat.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
If you review the post..no.5 I said"most" not all.and BobH..
Theyed be one mano short.and it aint me bubba!
Comment by Tony — November 2, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Let's put it this way... which is better?
1) A hunter shoots a deer and uses it to feed his family or those less fortunate (look up Hunters for the Hungry).
2) Deer become overpopulated and are hit by cars everywhere. Rather than be used to sustain someone and actually be used for something, they instead are hit by a car (causing thousands of dollars of damage and possibly taking a HUMAN life, which is far more valuable), sit by the side of the road and rot creating an awful stench and eyesore, waiting for raccoons and crows to come eat them. Then the raccoon or crow gets hit by a car and it sits there waiting for raccoons and crows to eat them. Then the raccoon...
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Tony. By saying most, you went wrong. It is few.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
PU,
How do you know that plants do not have feelings? Or does it just suit you better to say it because that is your lifestyle?
There have been studies that showed that plants grew better when exposed to music as opposed to those who were denied it. Everything that lives feels. Haven't you ever seen a tree weep when a chop mark is made and the sap runs out of it?
I see, you define right and wrong based on what you do.....
Comment by Bob H — November 2, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Andrew, you make a good point about hunting and even being a vegetarian, I have no quarrel with legitimate, legal, dues paying hunters (albeit that is not my idea of fun or nourishment). I agree that a broad brush is almost always unfair. I have a brother and a close friend who were mistaken for game and shot (one while turkey hunting and one while deer hunting) so the risk is not nil for any hunter in the woods (not to mention the falling and shooting self accidents). I do not see any need to disparage hunters who actually eat the game they take, but trophy hunting and thrill killing is disgusting and inhumane IMO. This is, after all a blog for opinions to be expressed not a movement to ban hunting. Your willingness to admit there are bad apples carries a lot of weight with me, but seriously there are alternatives to killing deer (and other critters) to keep them out of your garden.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 2, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Andrew,
You cannot use a .22 to shoot deer. That is illegal. I believe the law requires a larger caliber than that (for the reasins you mentioned).
Dan, don't know whether McDonnell supported the hunting amendment and don't care. The position of AG or state senator has little to do with the populace overwhelmingly supporting the right to hunt to make it constitutional (and therefore cannot be taken away by the judicial process).
Kristen: What a judgemental statement! Just because we cannot communicate with plants does not mean they don't have feelings. Obviously a potato is alive. Are you tellling me it doesn't feel anything when it is being nuked in the microwave? Can you prove that?
The FACT is that all continuation of life is contingent upon the death of other living (or once living) things for the sustenance of life. Therefore, why is it worse to be a meat eater than a vegetarian? What proof can you cite that one is better than another? Since both require the death of living things for sustenance?
ah, it is because those of you who are vegetarians say it is. Pot meet kettle. Ignore that log in your own eye (oops, that's a plant too).
Comment by Bob H — November 2, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
My point was "why" they do it..I know lots of hunters and even though many eat the food..or their culling the herd or any additional reason..they like killing..right or wrong..you pro hunting folks..are you saying you dont enjoy it..you dont get a rush from the "kill"?..Cmon..who are you kidding
Comment by Tony — November 2, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Bob H,
I know. I was speaking figuratively trying to make a point. It doesn't have the necessary muzzle velocity or the necessary foot pounds of force to be used legally for hunting deer. As you said, that would be inhumane. I prefer a .35 caliber for my deer hunting.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Sandi,
I agree. I don't hunt things I won't eat, because I don't think it's ethical, but that's just my opinion, which I will not try to force on someone else. If someone wants to legally trophy hunt, that's their decision. I also agree that there are other ways to keep animals out of gardens. I am arguing that it is a benefit of hunting, but not the only reason for it. I get to enjoy being outside in nature, provide food for myself and family, help control the population, and keep them out of the garden. It's a side benefit, but not a sole reason.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Bob, when I dump a can of paint and the paint spills, is the can "weeping"?
I believe plants have consciousness....I even saw George Bush once or twice look like something was crossing his mind. Whatever it was, it was obviously lost.
Comment by Kristen — November 2, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Tony,
You answered your own question. They do it for the food and to be outside involved in a sport. The adrenaline rush is not, I would argue, just from the kill. It is instead because the objective is there in sight. Like hitting a homerun in baseball gives you a rush, you have been striving, searching, and hunting a deer for hours. When you see one and are able to harvest it, you have reached your goal. That's the thrill. It isn't just killing that makes it exciting, it's the achievement of doing what you set out that morning to do.
Again, are there a few people who just like killing? Sure. Are they the majority? Definitely not.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Kristin,
A can of paint is not a living thing.
How did Bush get into this discussion? Oh, you brought it in as a diversion. Nope, not going there.
Andrew, I think we are in agreement, but I have found that the shooting of the groundhog is the more effective way to insure he does not return to make mmy garden his all you can eat salad bar.
Other than the occasional rodent that crosses my path, I do eat what I kill. Which is basically limited to deer. I could have gotten a turkey this past saturday but they are still too inexpensive at the grocery store. I have had multiple opportunities to take a bear but I have seen what they eat and have no desire to consume one of them. Therefore, I do not shoot them.
Oh, I did shoot a copperhead earlier this year. It was on the patio after it had either fled the yard or the engine compartment of my riding lawn mower. I shot it with a .22 and I do believe it suffered for a little while because it did not die immediately. You know what? I did not care. If he wants to live, stay in the woods and away from the house....
Frankly, and all humor aside, I am constantly asked by well meaning people how someone like myself (described as basically a nice person, churchgoer, giver of blood to the red cross, did the crop walk, etc) could shoot an innocent creature like a deer. Well, I never met a guilty pig, calf, steer, lamb, lobster, or head of lettuce either. These self same people who ask that question have no qualms stopping by the colonel's to pick up a bucket of his own fried birds right after asking me. At least I am able to kill what I consume myself without my $ doing it for me. At least I am strong enough to do that.
No one can say one lifestyle or "choice" is actually better than the other. The difference is that I don't criticize veggies. I don't try to convert them. I don't judge them. I recognize their rights.
A deer is a renewable resource. People are hungry. I don't get any pleasure out of shooting a deer, honestly. I get even less with having to field dress one. And then less to drag it out of the woods. I consume, and I provide to my other family members if I have an abundance (last year I got 3, none this year though). And I thank the almighty for the gift of the deer, and the gift to me of the abilities to harvest it.
I fail to see what is "wrong" with that.
Comment by Bob H — November 2, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Bob,
Well said. There is really no difference between buying ground beef at the store and getting a deer in the woods, you've just cut out the middle man. I feel that I actually have more respect and gratitude for the deer burger I eat than any meal purchased at McDonald's. I know what it took to put that food on the table, and I have respect for the animal that became the food.
And for those who think people hunt for the thrill of the kill, an example. The first deer I got this year was during archery season. I got a not great shot on it, and it lingered for a while before it died. I felt awful having to sit and watch it, and I felt awful about it still for at least a week. Did it keep me out of the woods? No, because I knew that nature's intent is for us to consume some animals (that's why they're edible), and it was going to a good use (food). Had I been just hunting for the thrill of the kill, that would not have been the case. I would have been happy to shoot something and moved on from there.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
hmmmmmm..killing..homerun..homerun... killing..hmmmm nobody ever splained it to me that way before..I just hope no one dies in the World Series tonight from a "homerun"..The rush is not "just" from the kill hmmmm..But that does say that it gives you a rush to kill..right?
Comment by Tony — November 2, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
So apparently, Bob, you shoot every animal with the audacity to wander into your yard.
Tell me...how does shooting a groundhog eating your garden prevent another groundhog from showing up and doing the same? Wouldn't it be smarter to just protect your garden otherwise?
Comment by Kristen — November 2, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
You people are crazy. I've seen people walking down the street in camouflage. Did they just come back from a safari? How do I know they aren't going to start blowing people’s heads off? I don't know if they have a rifle or shotgun in their car? It's madness. Why can't we all just farm the land, and live peacefully. I suppose someone is going to try to tell me that it’s their right to hunt. Hogwash. We can give up some of these rights if it saves a few innocent’s lives! Go to Kroger like everyone else if you must eat meat.
Comment by PU — November 2, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Tony,
A homerun was an attempt at a simple analogy using sports achievement, one that was clearly still too complex for you to understand. Did you read the whole post? Or any of the others, especially the one right before your last post? How's this. Hunting is legal. Therefore, it is allowed. Eating vegetables is legal, therefore it is allowed. I won't judge your moral decisions if you don't judge mine. Does that work?
As I said, I feel I have more respect for the meat that I eat when I have produced it myself through hunting. It is healthier for me to eat because it is essentially organic. I waste much less food than I otherwise would, because I know what went into putting it on the table, and I have more respect for the animal that went into providing the food.
With that, I bid this conversation farewell.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
No Kristin, I NEVER said I shoot every animal that wanders into my yard. How did you get to that conclusion?
I shot the copperhead because it can cause me harm. Copperheads are pit vipers which means they just lay there and wait for you and strike when they get the chance. Not only could it cause me harm, but it could cause any of the 3 cats, the 2 labradors, or the Mrs. (all of which I dearly love) harm as well.
Actually I shot no groundhogs this year. Last year I shot 2 who were decided on domestic cuisine rather than whatever they usually eat. The ones I shot did not damage the garden any further nor did they tell others about the buffet therein. Another groundhog can show up and if it stays away from the garden, I could care less. The rabbits, for whatever reason, seem more content to eat the clover in the yard and they are not shot (although the red tail hawks and the owls have their own version of population control).
I actually have 74 total acres that I own, so with the exception of the house site and the garden which is probably an acre or 2, the critters are free to have roam over the rest of it. Until hunting season when I enter the woods in pursuit of the white tail deer. I would like to think that I could have an arrangement with the critters where they can pretty much use 72 of the 74 acres to their hearts content 9 months out of the year if they will just leave the other 2 acres alone for 12 months of the year, but the animals don't recognize my rights as the landowner or taxpayer at all. They seem to want the whole enchilada.
The place also provides me with winter fuel that is not fossilized. But, I only cut trees that have already been felled by a storm or died by batural causes, have the utmost respect for the pain that plants go through when they are butchered. And yes, even then I give thanks for the wood. Which, BTW, warms you teice, once when you gather it and another when you burn it.
But, I do not shoot everything that comes into the yard, nor did I shoot the bear that not only came into the yard but came up on the deck and turned the barbecue grill over to get the fat drippings off the grate. I am tolerant, you know (the wife did shout at the bear who thought better of it than tackling her)?
Comment by Bob H — November 2, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
Andrew,
Congratulations on the deer! I use the crossbow because my shoulder is too bum to use the bow anymore. This is the first year I have not gotten one with it. I feel very bad though. I did shoot one but could not find it (see how honest I am people). It was probably the worst feeling in the world. I literally covered just about every inch of my land trying to find that deer.
Since the wife works for a veterinarian they seem to think that the deer probably survived. Kinda like the theory that a cut from a sharp knife one heals faster from than a paper cut. I never saw any crows or buzzards to indicate there was a dead animal around so I also hope that happened. But honestly to all, I felt terrible about it.
But, that being said, there are bears around and coyotes too and they also need to eat. Nothing goes to waste in nature's way.
Tony, Since nobody ever explained it to you like that before, how many hunters have you actually talked to? And why are you making statements about "most hunters" when obviously you apparently know little about "most hunters"?
Dan, hook him up with Mark Taylor who also works for the RT.
Comment by Bob H — November 2, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Bob #25,
Just fyi, Creigh Deeds was the sponsor of the constitutional amendment protecting the right to hunt and fish in 2000, when McDonnell was still a delegate. McDonnell voted against it.
News reports at the time quoted him saying, "It's the Constitution of Virginia. It's life, liberty, property, freedom of speech. You're gonna add to that the right to raise sheep and put a worm on a hook?"
Comment by Dan Casey — November 2, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
I'm not a hunter and couldn't do it, but I don't think they are horrible people. There is no question that there is a need for culling in many areas, due in no small part to an earlier human mistake, killing off their natural predators. If you really want to ban deer hunting, you have to understand what you are doing. You are virtually guaranteeing that, in the long run an immense number of deer (higher than now, which is already too high) will be hit by cars and die of disease and starvation. If I knew I was going to die, I'd take being shot to starving to death or painfully withering away due to disease.
As a meat eater and animal lover, it pains me to say this, but a legally hunted deer has almost certainly had a Hell of a lot more pleasant life, and very possibly a less horrible death, than most commercially raised meat. That might be condemning hunting with faint praise, but that's reality.
Comment by Jason — November 2, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
I will not condemn hunters or the sport of hunting (especially since most get skunked as often as they score). I know legal hunters pay dearly for the pleasure and support much of the conservation efforts through those fees. I also respect that many eat what they kill and many share the kill with organizations that feed the hungry. Frankly, even as a reformed meat eater turned vegetarian, hunting is 100% better for the animal and the consumer than the factory farm torture chambers some of the meat you consume comes from. Unless you do not eat meat (of any kind) you have not much to stand on in condemning hunters IMO. I have known hunters to track a wounded animal for days and I understand that most aim for a clean quick kill and end suffering as quickly as possible. Hunting is not for some of us, but it does help with overpopulation and starvation tactics. I will never support hunting with dogs but man against animal is about as fair a deal as an animal can get and a meat eater can offer. Nature is cruel, factory farming is an abomination and hunting is a far far distant last on my list of concerns even as I know I cannot bear the thought of the act itself.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 2, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
PU,
You have to be kidding, right? That has to be a joke. Someone wearing camo is going to start blowing heads off? Your ignorance in regards to sportsmen is mindblowing, if you'll pardon the semi-pun.
Dan,
I agree with Bob (McDonnell). Governments should not be changed "for light and transient causes", as stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is unnecessary to add an amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt, at least at the current time when it isn't threatened.
I know I said I was gone but PU brought me back. Talk about insane.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
Oh, and PU, whether a deer is harvested hunting or I go to Kroger and buy beef, it's the same thing. Think about it...
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
This is my primer for how to get 42 responses over a deer pic..BTW..I know lots and lots of hunters and I back all my comments..
Comment by Tony — November 2, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Wow. Some of these comments show an absolute ignorance about how the world works. I'm sure most of the people posting against hunting still eat meat. If people didn't hunt, more of you would be hitting deer with your cars.
Comment by Elliot — November 2, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Nice try Dan,
I wasn't biting. I grew up watching Perry Mason who NEVER asked a question he didn't already know the answer to.
As far as hunting goes, Deeds has it over mcDonnell and I have told Mark Taylor that. But, as you know, there is alot more to being governor than that and, Deeds is a candidate short of tangible plans....
Comment by Bob H — November 2, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
Andrew, No joke. You gun nuts are crazy! You are the ignorant one! Get rid of the dangerous guns and stop killing!
Comment by PU — November 2, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
PU,
I didn't say you were ignorant, I said you had ignorance to sportsmen, as in you really don't know anything about us or what we do. It's not supposed to be an insult, just a statement regarding your lack of knowledge. I am ignorant to quantum physics, for example.
You have said that we should go to Kroger to buy meat. Is there any difference between a dead cow and dead deer? I would agree, as many people have argued, that a deer has had a better life and a more humane death than a cow, pig, etc. that is sold in Kroger. It's easy to say "get rid of the 'dangerous' guns and stop the killing!" It is impossible to, and unnecessary to, and in terms of the (not)“dangerous” guns unconstitutional, to do any of the former.
My rifle locked in a cabinet and taken out Saturday morning to go hunting, then locked back up, is not a dangerous weapon. It becomes dangerous when used irresponsibly. Proper fire arm handling is key to hunting. Are you aware of the classes required to get a hunting license? They include hours of safety training (and as far as I know, Dan, can't be done online; you'll have to wait on your hunting license). Sportsmen are not your concern when it comes to gun crime. Take your fears elsewhere. Many sportsmen probably do have a shotgun or rifle in their car. They are also unloaded and safely secured, again, not dangerous.
If you chose to eat only plants, that is fine. That's your decision for your life, not mine. You may see it as the moral thing to do. I see responsible game management and conservation through population control as the responsible thing to do. That’s my decision, but it's backed up by research and fact. Take a look at nature. Animals eat other animals. They do it as a way of providing nourishment. The same is true of most people. We eat animals to provide nourishment for our bodies. Deer is a better source of nourishment than beef. It is leaner and has no steroids or other such chemicals. It might even have more protein, but I'm not sure.
Being a hunter doesn't make you a gun nut. I know several people who only use archery tackle to hunt and, in fact, don't even use a gun at all. I guess they would be "bow and arrow nuts" straight out of Robin Hood.
I appreciate your passion and feelings on the subject, but you need to present an argument with a little more fact and a little less "you're a camo wearing crazy that really freakin' scares me! Can’t we all just have a salad?" Please add something to the discussion besides two sentence posts completely devoid of anything that supports your thesis.
Comment by Andrew — November 2, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
I never thought it would happen, but I believe I've run into someone more anti-gun than I am! Hey PU!
Dan, looks like the gauntlet has been thrown down. Are you going to look into a hunting license now?
Comment by Kristen — November 3, 2009 @ 7:18 am
Chris & Tony
The one thing constant is the anti-hunting crowd message PETA spreading we hunt and strangle animals with our bare hands or hit them in the head with rocks.
How about Jerry Vlasak of PETA, and both Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) renown stating "that it is morally just to kill people if it saves animals"?
Still these groups mission hasn't changed. To stop hunters from hunting on any day.
No these animal rights groups mission hasn't changed.
And maybe the Montgomery Police needs to extend their investigation toward people that make comments like yours.
Comment by Static Lines — November 3, 2009 @ 7:35 am
Yes I think the Montgomery Police should investigate any comment that "static" doesnt like..
Comment by Tony — November 3, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Static Lines (aptly named), I have seen some PETA undercover videos that made me think that exact same thing and would gladly shoot to kill the people I saw torturing defenseless animals, so report me, I live in Hardy and will await their visit. Your diatribe is also the reason some people will never agree that hunting is OK. PETA is an extreme organization fighting an extreme problem and I applaud the courage and sacrifice they make for animals. I have already defended hunting all I am going to, but you deserve no defense for your paranoid statement IMO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 3, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
"How about Jerry Vlasak of PETA, and both Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) renown stating "that it is morally just to kill people if it saves animals"?"
There was a group in Africa that started picking off the poachers who were killing elephants for their tusks, et al. I thought that was a good trade.
Comment by Kristen — November 3, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
I have a real hard time with those PETA folks.....in many ways they are the wackiest activists out there.
Comment by Dan Casey — November 3, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
PETA is quite extreme.but they defintitely have raised awareness..
Good point Kristen(Im a really saying that lol)But if I saw someone torturing an animal .or killing an endangered animal...or dogfighting ..Id have to stop them..
Comment by Tony — November 3, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Dan, have you seen the videos? Do you know what those wacky activists are up against? If you want to talk outrage, you give that a shot and see how well you end up liking your fellow man. I do not condone the antics and they are without doubt their own worst enemy but the outrage is real and justified.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 3, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Dan,
Wanna hazard a guess as to which way they lean poltically? You are in some good company mon frere'.
Comment by Bob H — November 3, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
When people advocate the death of people for hunting or just enjoying the outdoors is no laughing matter and one I don't take kindly too.
Jerry Vlasak has even called for physical action to be taken against Steve Irwin's The Crocodile hunter Daughter stating she promotes a show that further abuses animals.
Yes I do believe people that are involved in the PETA organization that act and think like that should be investigated and arrested when ever the law is broken.
To think an animal is more valuable than a human life is criminal and insane Just like Dawn Myers, 38 left her 22-month-old son alone in a hot 90 degree SUV 40 minutes while she took her dog to the Vet.
There is a word that do come to mind ....
Criminal.
Comment by Static Lines — November 3, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Sandi, Kristen, Tony
Genesis 9:2-3…God tells Noah, after the fall of man and the flood, to further multiply and fill the earth. God placed the animals in Noah’s/Man’s control/power.
“All the wild animals, large and small, and the birds and fish will be afraid of you…I have given them to you as food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables.”
(Genesis 9: 4-7), one may argue that God says murder is forbidden (v5), but upon valid inspection, the Lord is speaking of murdering another human…
“For to murder another person is to kill a living being made in God’s image.”
This does not relate to animals as they are not made in God’s image. If murder were related to animals, then the previous verses would not correlate.
If all animals are given to us for food, but we are not to eat animals with the lifeblood still in them (v4), then you must kill the animal before eating it, correct?
Yes, so therefore, killing an animal is acceptable, but the killing of a person is not.
Far as deer being on the endangered species list that's not possible at their current levels. At Current levels in Virginia it's estimated that their are over 150 deer per square mile.
Creating deer Car collisions costing nearly 2 billion dollars annually and over 100 lives.
So what do we say to those that believe in God and to someone that loses a family member to a deer car collision... To bad??
Laws are built on ideals and opinions, but the Bible is forever constant.
Surprisingly, in a country which was primarily founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic, Rakow says, the topic of hunting is seldomly addressed with scriptural principles in mind.
Furthermore, those who do venture to quote from the Bible often arrive at conclusions which are based more upon emotion or personal conviction than on sound interpretive methods.
Comment by Static Lines — November 3, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
Ok, enough.
Static
Your post is full of religious lies, misdeeds and logical error. You cherry pick verses from the OT which suit you, but I am certain you have never stoned an adulterer, or rebellious child. In our discussion, if I get you to continue long enough, at some point you will no doubt erroneously make the claim that you are not bound by the OT.
The claim from you is that some 'god' told this noah character in your work of the worlds most evil fiction that animals were in his control. You quote dietary rules from the OT, yet you probably eat lobster or shrimp or beef gravy, which is an abomination.
The bible is not constant, there is one set of rules in the OT and a different one in the NT and there are numerous contraditions not only between the OT but also within just the NT. The bible has been used to justify almost every evil and oppression we now no longer accept.
The bible is a book of evil which espouses some of the most abhorrent concepts in fiction. Your god's message of original sin is evil and degrading. Your god's use of eternal punishment for finite crimes is evil and unjust. Your god's use of substitutional atonement is unwanted, evil and just plain silly.
Your post just goes to show that said book of evil can be used to justify almost any evil. You use it to justify hunting, which many people consider wrong (I do not happen to be among them, but they do so for valid and decent reasons, unlike what you use to support your position.) Just like 'good christians' have used the bible to justify slavery, female subjugation, racism, bigotry against gays; anyone can use the bible for their own ends. Fred Phelps has perfect biblical justification for his actions, so did Scott Roeder.
The bible has changed more often than any other work of fiction because people actually try to use it to guide their daily lives despite its antiquated, late bronze age, bigoted mindset. The problem is that some of them actually then try to read this drivel. Then they see how evil much of it is, although they rarely see the true depravity that are the central tenets of the NT.
Also, how was this country founded on "the Judeo-Christian ethic" Do, tell. Set it all out here so I can shred your foolish christian nation revisionist lies.
Comment by VVarlock — November 3, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
Ya know.5000 years ago ya had to kill wildlife to survive.I mean they were barbarians..no need to kill wildlife now..I mean they sacraficed lambs on the alter then.no comparison and irrelevant..and guess what.we ARE animals
Comment by tony — November 3, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
Ever heard that old yarn that ends, "stop digging"? You have gone on over into the absurd and I am not going with you. You defend what you want and so will I. I have never read anything in the Bible or any other Holy Book that sanctions the torture of animals but since you feel qualified to speak for the Lord, do tell what scripture sanctions torture of any animal.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 3, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
yea.killing is a sound interperative method..I cant stop laughing at that moronic BS..you just like killing things dont ya.like i said from the git go..right!
Comment by tony — November 3, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Lets see.God wants ya to kill it right!Your a joke man.a sad one indeed....but a joke still the same..
Comment by tony — November 3, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Guns kill people. They scare most people. Use some common sense!
Comment by PU — November 3, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
All these anti-hunters/anti-hunting rants... wonder how many still eat a burger, steak etc???
I walked into the Fairlawn Wal-Mart once in camo clothes. An older man walked up to me in the MEAT department with a package of ham in his hand. The conversation went as follows...
Old Man - have you been hunting today?
Me - yes I have.
Old Man - it is my understanding that no season is in right now!
Me - Sir you are mistaken there are quite a few seasons in right now.
Old Man- (starts shaking the package of ham at me) I have always said leave well enough alone. Those animals have caused you no harm!
Me - you do realize that the ham you are holding is a pig right????
True story! Some people would rather have the killing done for them so they do not have to think about it. Others are still willing to leave the cave and drag it home to eat with the family.
Comment by TScottW — November 4, 2009 @ 1:49 am
PU,
Cars (hitting deer) kill people. Lightening kills people. Drowning kills people. Surgery kills people. Airplane crashes kill people. Black Friday shopping crowds kill people.
Again, thanks for adding nothing to the conversation and absolutly no fact to your argument.
Comment by Andrew — November 4, 2009 @ 6:33 am
No offense Static, but what is it about me that makes you think I give a rats butt what "Genesis" says on this issue?
"Surprisingly, in a country which was primarily founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic, Rakow says, the topic of hunting is seldomly addressed with scriptural principles in mind."
Because that entire premise is stupid, and if the topic of "hunting is seldom addressed with scriptural" blah blah blah in mind, it's because it's not a relevant discussion.
I don't have a big beef with people who hunt for food, but please don't start dragging the Bible, car wrecks, etc, ad nauseum into the discussion. Also, please drop the "Hey we're communing with nature out there!" nonsense, because I can assure you that given the option, "nature" would certainly kick your butt right out.
Comment by Kristen — November 4, 2009 @ 7:36 am
And PU Says: "Guns kill people. They scare most people. Use some common sense!"
Gee, really? Cause you know, I have all sorts of guns from all sorts of manufacturers - and they haven't killed anyone. Must be defective, huh? Think I should ask for my money back? I'll tell you what scares a lot of people, and that is ignorance. Even Dan went out and shot a gun and *gasp* said it was rather fun. Is Dan going to turn into a homicidal maniac now? I don't think so.... I don't really care if you're anti-gun, you've your right to your opinion. But your "common sense" approach isn't very sensible, it smacks of ignorance.
Comment by jc — November 4, 2009 @ 7:56 am
According to Dr. Rakow, a major contributor to the anti-hunter sentiment which presently exists has to do with the extensive urbanization of our modern society. Due to societal changes, people who were at one time directly tied to the food chain now eat at one instead.
He also sees that our cultural views toward hunting have been strongly affected by such things as the influence of evolution and Eastern religious thought which places humans on a similar plateau with animals, the humanization of animals, erosion of Judeo-Christian values, and, of course, the unethical behavior of some hunters themselves.
These are profound statements I feel are very true today. Along with Rakow’s thought about many eating at fast food chains instead of being directly linked to the food chain…what do you think would happen in the world if the grocery stores and restaurants disappeared? Hard to imagine, but I’ll bet some minds would be changed in favor of hunting.
Now the next thought would be, we don’t even need meat…we could just eat veggies and such! Well, that is true, but our life expectancy would drop off. Not because vegetable aren’t as good for us, but because of the animal population! I’m no master of statistics, but if we were to stop every form of hunting and meat eating, do you have any clue how many animals would be around! And how would they survive?
They would have to eat our vegetables too! The numbers are astronomical. Animals repopulate much faster than we do and I guarantee it wouldn’t be long before they would cause serious problems to the human population. There is a reason animals can reproduce more and why there are so many. Why, because part of God’s intelligent design and purpose for animals was to be food for us, like the Bible says. That’s the bottom line.
I am interested in your thoughts, so please respond. Being a vegetarian is fine, but when one doesn't see eating meat as Biblical...that's a stretch.
With God as our commonality,
Comment by Static Lines — November 4, 2009 @ 8:11 am
Static
The lie of intelligent design should be apparent to anyone who has actually looked at the earth's ecological system. Like the legend of the biblical god it is capricious, cruel and harsh. Natural means of population control would handle the populations and were, according to ignorant superstitious followers of your 'good book' designed by the supreme being.
God is not a commonality. God is your myth and many of us (22% of the US aged 18-29 and 15% in general) want nothing to do with the lies and evil.
Eating meat may be biblical, but so is having more than one wife, lying to save your own skin, murdering your rivals, throwing temper-tantrums and many other horrors (like all the original NT concepts).
If you want to discuss hunting as a means of population control that is one thing, but trying to use a book of misogynistic bronze age dark fairy tales as a justification for it is the work of a fool.
Comment by VVarlock — November 4, 2009 @ 8:56 am
Here is a Obama quote as reported by the Boston Globe:
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen…. We can work together to enact common-sense laws … so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists and criminals.”
When asked what if you are in mortal fear for your life, he responded you have your local police authority to handle specific emergency situations.
I have lost family members to violent crimes and I say this each person have a right to bear arms to protect themselves, sometimes the police isn't around the corner and in some instances the police being there doesn't make a hill of beans difference.
Case in point Brian Nichols Atlanta Court House Murderer of 4 People or
in Britain which have some of the strictest gun laws:
Police chief appeals for calm as 20th teenager stabbed to death in just 72 hours as Blade Britain's knife Ban.
Maybe Japan Temp worker stabs 7 to death, injures 10 in Akihabara, another country with strict gun laws.
But when I read stories like this: 19 yr Missouri woman shoots, kills would-be rapist at her home, or
75 yr old Woman Shoots Intoxicated Home Intruder in Groin.
Would you like to tell these people they don't have the right to defend themselves when their very lives is in grave peril, knowing me I would buy them a box of bullets.
I bet in 1776 they didn't use harsh language and sling shots deter murderers.........
they hung them.
Comment by Static Lines — November 4, 2009 @ 9:04 am
Static,
I am not master of statistics either, nor am I a vegetarian or anti-hunting. But your argument that humans would find themselves directly in competition with animals if humans ate only vegetables is rather ridiculous.
It assumes humans hunt for a majority of meat they consume. That is wrong. We breed the vast majority of animals we consume. If we stopped eating meat, we'd stop breeding/raising/feeding them. And if we put that time, effort and energy into raising vegetables instead, there would be more than enough veggies to go around.
If we did that, though, deer-control measures would still be required near population centers.
Comment by Dan Casey — November 4, 2009 @ 9:10 am
VVarlock
Freedom of Religion... I never knock any one personal belief that's a choice for you to attack ones belief is no more different than what some Muslims do with confiscated Bibles....
Then demand that All Americans respect the handling of the Koran. To practice religion is one of the basic ideals this country was founded for and to continue with you in this manner is pointless.
Comment by Static Lines — November 4, 2009 @ 9:10 am
TScottW
Well put!!
PU
My niece off to college on her own for the first time. She meets a man that want to befriend her she tell him she isn't interested. He continued to pester her
She informed the police and have a restraining order against him, her mother and father want her to leave the college or move back home. She decides to move and take a self defense course.
The instructor of the course teaches hand to hand tactics but because of her size I encourage to purchase a hand gun and take a combat hand systems course.
2 months past nothing more has happen, yet she continued to take the course. She wakes up in the middle of the night to find 2 intruders in her apartment.
She ran back to her bedroom just in time to retrieve her firearm firing twice striking the first intruder in the leg and hip the second intruder was shot in the torso.
Both lived and were arrested.
It the investigation the police got 3 911 calls of suspicious people trying to look through her apartment window. Those calls were ignored by the dispatcher by saying "you know how those people are".
Police were never sent to investigate even when they were 2 blocks away.
The criminals confessed to their plan was to kill rape and my niece then cut her body up in pieces so no one could ever find her nor identify her.
The criminals were the cousin of the person that pestered my niece. My niece left that college due to the publicity some people advocated that she be prosecuted for using a firearm to defend her self.
Now you tell me what do a young woman 5'4 110 lbs suppose to do being faced with knife welding intruders with a combined weight of 400 plus lbs???
Ignorance kills and criminals prey on the fact you won't arm yourself, a comedy looks great to face a burglar with a baseball bat, but a burglar with a gun that bat is useless as Jeter's batting average.
A gun is nothing more than a what it's use for to put food on the table or a means to defend oneself. It can be the great equalizer or it can a used paper weight.
For the firearm in a right persons hand it can be a lifesaver and I for one glad she had one to defend herself...
Criminals aren't going anywhere no time so how you protect your home, family and your persons is a personal responsibility.
As Thomas Jefferson said...
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Comment by Static Lines — November 4, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Dan Casey
Did you know The Roanoke City Council Spent $40,000 Dollars on an outside entity to come in the urban areas of Roanoke to cull the herds of deer.
Why waste tax payers money when the hunting public would have did it free of charge?
Animals breed in large numbers sustain it's population, heck you can get that on any Animal Planet program, but if the numbers goes unchecked the population can will eventually explode.
Rats, Cats, what have you I mean why have a spay and neuter program? What's the natural predators of dogs and cats?
Deer natural Predator is Coyote, Wolf, Cougars, Bears and Man. Would you love to see a Cougar Prowling the edges of a neighborhood looking for a meal?
A Predator will expend as little energy as possible for a meal so if a hapless child is playing in their yard then the Cougar will make a meal of the child.....
Evaro, Montana - Jake Gardipe, age 5, was killed by two or three mountain lions (possibly a female with two kittens) while riding his tricycle in his front yard during a family reunion.
The boy was dragged from the yard and the body was found nearby several hours later. The boy's home was 100 yards from U.S. Highway 93 just outside of Evaro.
As I've said before people value animal lives more than human life or a way of life.
Comment by Static Lines — November 4, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Static,
Read my post. You are preaching to the choir.
Regarding deer-culling in Roanoke: The city's approach employing professionals is vastly preferable to opening up a Roanoke hunting season to every amateur with a deer rifle. Roanoke's average population density is greater than 2,000 people per square mile. It is exactly the kind of place you DON'T want Bubbas in camos shooting it up.
Comment by Dan Casey — November 4, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Static, how does your story about the mountain lion in any remote way support your ridiculous claim that people "value animal lives" over those of people?
Build in the wilderness where the animals are, and the animals will find you. Build into their habitat and you'll find them in yours.
I'm guessing you think the Bible would advocate wiping out all apex predators so to better toddlerproof the "wilderness".
There aren't too many deer. There are too many houses built where the deer used to live.
Comment by Kristen — November 4, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Static 74
There is a huge difference. I am attacking evil. Muslims are practicing evil and being hypocritical about it. You choose not to attack anyone's personal beliefs because people who live in glass houses and all.
You claim, without support, evidence or reason that "To practice religion is one of the basic ideals this country was founded for"
Before you discontinue surely you can provide evidence to back up this claim.
(For those who recognize the rest of this post, I apologize I am just cutting and pasting since it is basically the same christian nation revisionist history claim I see no reason to rephrase much of my completely unanswered counter-argument. )
Flip to the section of the U.S. Constitution which refers the christian god (other than the date above the signatures which uses the AD dating system common at the time, there isn't one. The only reference to god/religion in the body of the Constitution is that there shall be no religious test for public office. The only portion which refers to religion/god in the Bill of Rights is the amendment which tells government to stay away from religion.)
Perhaps you can retell the story that one of the first acts of the Constitutional Congress was to decline to pray as an opening. When someone suggested a motion to open each day with prayer, we have Ben Franklin's words, in his writing, that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention declined, said no thanks: "The convention, except for three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary".
http://www.fi.edu/franklin/birthday/faq.html
We could use the words of Madison and Jefferson on the matter.
Madison
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance"
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Jefferson
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding..." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " – Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
We could use the words of Reverend Wilson, Epicscopal minister "The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.... Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." As quoted in "Six historic Americans" by John Remsbert and "George Washington and Religion" by Paul Boller.
Then there is the famous Treaty of Tripoli which was ratified by congress and signed by the Second President of these United States, Adams, a christian which clearly and without equivocation states that the U.S. was not in any way founded as a christian nation. Article 11 from same treaty begins "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
John Tyler, 10th president of the United States wrote in 1843 "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us."
http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/schools/wmmary/quarterly/v13n1/pg1-3.txt
In light of that tease of evidence surely you have some source, some creditable, reliable source who states otherwise. And before you go there, the liar, bad scholar and proven fraud David Barton is not creditable or reliable.
Comment by VVarlock — November 5, 2009 @ 2:54 am
Some education for some...
"Under optimal conditions, a deer population can double in size annually. With no regulating factor (e.g., predators, hunters), a deer population would expand to the point where some resources, generally food, would become scarce. Sources of mortality other than hunting (e.g., diseases, injuries, predation) are typically not sufficient to control deer populations. Active deer management is necessary to maintain deer populations at optimum levels to meet the needs of citizens of the Commonwealth. An optimum deer population balances positive demands (e.g., hunting, viewing) with negative demands (e.g., agricultural damage, vehicle collisions, ecosystem impacts). The Virginia Deer Management Plan identifies areas where deer populations should be managed to increase, decrease, or remain the same."
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/WILDLIFE/deer/management-plan/
another post to follow...
Comment by TScottW — November 5, 2009 @ 4:34 am
Hunters can get a bad rap and some really deserve it. However, if not for the modern hunter the wildlife in this state and others would be hurting.
After the mass killings of animals for market use hunters helped bring conservation to the states. Even a progressive President who loved to hunt created the national parks to help protect the land and the animals.
Did you know that 90% of the National Forest is paid for by excess taxes on guns, ammo, archery gear, fishing gear and hunting gear? The other 10% is paid for via conservation groups such as Rockey Mountain Elk Foundation (hunters), Ducks Unlimited (hunters) National Wild Turkey Federation(hunters) and via your taxes.
Not only that but hunters and fishermen have to pay to use the National Forest on top of the excess tax. A bird watcher, hiker or dog walker does not have to pay.
Comment by TScottW — November 5, 2009 @ 4:39 am
Static
I guess not huh?
Your christian nation revisionism fell short didn't it?
Stop getting your history at church and go to the friggin library.
If you insist on getting a history lesson at church ask the pastor how many of the 13 books attributed to Paul/Saul were actually written by him and why the last time he quoted Paul in the letter to Timothy he failed to mention that Paul was not actually the author of that letter and that the pastor had known this since seminary.
Comment by VVarlock — November 6, 2009 @ 2:15 am