I want to begin by apologizing on behalf of all legal, ethical hunters. I have no love or respect for poachers. Here in Mo, if you are poaching or road hunting and get caught you are arrested and your truck, everything in your truck, and your rifle are all seized.
But I did some digging on Fl game laws. Road hunting is a prohibited method for taking game. As for the use of dogs in hunting, this is actually a traditional method for hunting going back through colonial times, the middle ages, and to the first dogs prehistoric humans domesticated. In modern times though, many states such as Missouri prohibit the use of dogs in taking game such as deer but allow them for hunting small game such as raccoons.
You are correct to be upset over poachers and road killers. This is not hunting, legal, or ethical. It also gives hunters a bad name. However, it has been my experience that legal & ethical hunters far outnumber the those who are criminals.
But at the same time, I would like you to recognize that you err in painting legitimate hunters with too broad of a brush. Furthermore, there are many reasons people hunt. Some for sport, others for meat, and yet others for wildlife management. Me I'm the latter two. I'm not in it for the sport. My reasons are twofold:
1) I am a landowner, I own and live on 52 acres in the middle of the country. One of the issues we have in Missouri is the health of our deer population. As the human population has expanded, the deer's natural predators have shrunk in population whereas people feeding deer because they are cute and cool to have around causes them to overpopulate and succumb to diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) and starvation during droughts and harsh winters. As a landowner I have a responsibility to monitor the wildlife on my land. I can take up to two deer for free a year as well as an additional two for $15. I can also allow other hunters on my land. How many I take per year is dependant upon the size of the herd and their health which I monitor with trail cams.
2) I also hunt because it IS a source of cheap meat. Of the deer around here will yield 70-80lbs of meat. The cost to process it is about $70-80. So I get steak and deer burger for about $1/lb. I cannot get meat at the store for cheaper.
As for hunting methods:
These too change with the hunter. Some hunters prefer more traditional means of hunting such as black powder, bow, and even an atlatl. However there are some ethical issues with these methods that cause hunters like me (who are not in it for the sport) to prefer modern firearms:
1) You point to hollowpoints as something that takes away from hunting. But here's what it adds: humanity. These rounds are quicker to kill which means that the animal suffers less. It also means that wounded animals are easier to track and do not run as far, therefore the hunter can use a pistol to put it out of its misery instead of not being able to find it and so it dies slowly, painfully. So I think using ballistic type ammo is by far more ethical and human than traditional hunting methods.
2) You brought up accuracy. In the days of the Revolution the military had smoothbore muskets. These things were very inaccurate. But when you had lines of soldiers marching towards each other you did not have to hit the guy you were aiming at. It was just as well to hit one of the two guys on his left or the two guys on his right. By the civil war our guns had something called rifling (hence the term rifling) which made their shots much more accurate. However, these guns required that each shot's powder and ball be loaded by hand which meant that (even though powder charges were pre-made) there was some variation between loads...which effected accuracy. This lead to the invention of the cartridge which reduced this variation.
The accuracy of the military rifle probably reached its zenith between the 1870s and World War II when most armies used bolt action rifles. These remain the most accurate rifles out there because they are most efficient in terms of energy as well as stable. Automatic firearms provide the shooter with other advantages bolt action rifles do not have...but at the cost of accuracy.
3) Re-read my post. I was not saying anything about bladed weapons being used for hunting. Instead, you made a comment about 'risk' being part of hunting. I was merely pointing out that this is an absurb argument, and only makes you sound like you do not know anything about hunting. I was making my point by comparing your argument to those guys who come in here and say you do not any type of gun for home/self-defense. Your re-buttal does nothing to help your case...it is if anything a weak attempt at manipulating what I was saying into another line of argument. One that fails utterly.
At 2/22/13 01:16 PM, Saen wrote:
It is certainly not a dead issue in Connecticut and many other states, but I am absolutely disgusted and through talking about it any further with you guys.
But on the federal issue, it is probably not going to go anywhere. Furthermore, why are you absolutely disgusted? At this point I have provided you with links that show you that LCMs are not causing the type of carnage that you think they are.
Also, I share the same goal as you: preventing needless deaths due to gun violence. The only difference is I'm looking at this from the perspective of what options are:
A) What options are realistic?
B) What options are effective.
At this point all the science points to is dealing with the magazine issue will not solve any problems and what effect it would have would be trivial compared to the effects of mobilizing the same money and manpower in other directions.
... The point of a gun control debate is to reduce violence and killings, the vast majority of which are caused by guns.
Yes it is. But here's the thing, I've shown repeatedly that your solutions to gun violence are based upon erroneous assumptions. Therefore, while guns are used in those killings...they are not the root cause of those killings. I have shown you multiple reasons why further gun control would be counter-productive and largely ineffective.
I have also shown you policy suggestions that would have a far greater impact on reducing gun violence...but would suffer from further gun control policies that would divert money, resources, and manpower into other agencies (predominately law enforcement). And yet all you retort with is retrenchment in your false assumptions.
Here is an opinion of mine which I'm sure you'll fine interesting. One method I'm in favor for reducing gun violence is much harsher legal punishment for gun-related crimes. For example, a person murders someone else in cold blood, so shooting someone over an x-box, $20, drugs, etc. is put in prison FOR LIFE, period.
We have already tried these things and there is some evidence of their effectiveness. But, these are limited. For example, in the case of gang shootings (which are a HUGE portion of killings) there is a culture of non-cooperation with police which reduces the effectiveness of the police to solve the murders.
Instead of spending the money on punitive measures hoping they will be a deterent...why not spend money on programs that will actually tackle the causes of gun violence...instead of symptomatic media sensationalism?