Going Hunting? Or are you just out to kill! - Page 8

Fishing Reports Banner

Posts 71 through 80 for Going Hunting? Or are you just out to kill!

     

New? - Register Here!

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Fishing Blogs     |     Find a Fishing Partner     |     My Fishing Pals Home     |     To The Top - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  
Going Hunting? Or are you just out to kill! - - - 144 messages. Showing 71 through 80. Go to page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15 
Bobber Down
Moderator
Joined 10/03/2005
Posts:3021

Bobber Down's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 71 Posted: 11:58 AM 09/28/07 (CST)
10-4 ooo smiley Oh by the way I have thought about this one and to answer the question I'm just out to kill. J/K wink smiley


MyFishingPals

Gotta Run

SurfsUp
Junior Member
Joined 08/06/2007
Posts:82

SurfsUp's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 72 Posted: 08:33 AM 10/01/07 (CST)
Well I gave it a week. NOT ONE hunter answered the question in message 52. I must take it that you can not defend your hunting by this reasoning any longer. The point is conceeded to the animal rights side. Funny...the more truth that comes out and the less pure "opinion" there is the fewer legs the pro hunting community has to stand on.

JUST IN CASE there is even one hunter who wished to propose a defense of the huntings ONLY valid argument(imho) I will one last time repost the question....

"I must admit to being a bit astonished. I asked a very specific question in MESSAGE 52 about the funding dollars gleaned from sporting and hunting use taxes. I also gave a viably alternative way to get those dollars. THE REASON FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION IN MESSAGE 52 IS THAT THE HUNTING COMMUNITY SAYS THIS IS ONE OF, IF NOT THE, MOST IMPORTANT REASONS HUNTING SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

I ask again, is there ANYONE in the hunting community that has a well thought or reasoned reply as to why the funding proposals for habitat retention and species reintroduction should not be changed away from hunting use fees and taxes to my ideas expressed there?

If there is no one in the hunting community at all that can give us some rational thought on that I suppose we will consider the point conceeded to the animal right position. This astounds me because it is the single strongest..and potentially ONLY valid point the hunting side of the issue has. And yet NOT ONE person has been able to voice a reason to continue it.

If in fact it is not a valid reason then perhaps we are getting closer to really seeing WHY folks hunt.. if not for the benefit to wildlife.

Please, reread message 52. I again say ....Please..some of you who deeply hold to hunting rights explain why habitat purchases and species reintroductions and stockings should not be funded this way...unless it really is a need to kill that drives a guy to hunt and not these reasons that are being used as a cover for the truth.

If no one in the hunting community can give voice to any well thought out and common sense reasons...then any unbiased observer must consider the point conceeded to the animal rights side".

Me thinks that hunters right groups have been all blow and no go on this point. We see that in evidence once again in this thread. AMAZING...the single biggest bullet in the hunters debate gun AND NOT ONE person can actually defend it when put on the spot to. Does it salve your conscience to deceive yourself and pretend it is a legitimate reason? Or do you go to "highly controlled" sites that don't allow you to have a viewpoint examined to see if it is legitimate or not. Quite cowardly if true. Stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts under discussion......wow.....just simply amazing.

Get the Board,

SurfsUp

Just in case you can't find it I will pot the original qustion again in the following post
SurfsUp
Junior Member
Joined 08/06/2007
Posts:82

SurfsUp's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 73 Posted: 08:43 AM 10/01/07 (CST)
Here is the original question from post 52....

Johns article stated, " Everyone benefits from the excise taxes that hunters voluntarily pay on guns, ammunition and outdoor equipment". and also, "These dollars have been used to purchase millions of acres of public lands". as well as , "Hunters and fishermen fund nearly 75% of the annual income for all 50 state conservation agencies. Through license fees and excise taxes on arms and gear, sportsmen contribute $200 million per year for wildlife conservation. (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)

I agree with these statements. They are self evident facts.

John and Backwoodsboy15,
You bring an important idea out that I think we would agree upon. The inflow of dollars from taxes levied on outdoor gear (guns, shells, etc.) has been a major componet in wildlife land retention and wildlife species reintroduction. I am in agreement that those dollars are critical...I just think it is not being handled properly or fairly. Please allow me to explain before you shut me out, close your mind, and start formulating a defense..just honestly hear this part out....

Those are tax dollars from sporting goods that largely fund these endeavors. That is a self evident fact. No disagreement from me.

Habitat destuction means the need to purchase lands to keep habitat secure.. that means lots of cash. Reintroduction and expansion of species ranges means lots of cash as well. My thought is this...if hunting/trapping were banned it would result in a massive shortfall of tax dollars as this is largely funded by the relatively small number of participants. I feel the same amount of revenue should and could be brought in through the general tax system. In effect everyones personal income taxes would rise some to make the monies available..but those of you who hunt would actually see a REDUCTION to your total taxes paid per year as there would be no taxes on the outdoor gear as the needs were now spread out to all citizens. This would encourage many more folks to take an interest in preserving, restoring, and learning about the things they are funding. Nature observation, birding, hiking, fishing, mountain biking, canoeing and kayaking, etc. would see a massive boom. The tax dollars should actually INCREASE allowing for the retention of larger land purchases and habitat chunks for nature reserves that all folks could access and enjoy. It is a win/win...less taxes for those most actively involved in using the outdoors, a larger chunk of overall available funds to pay for habitat purchases, restoration, and species reintroductions... unless you feel the compulsion to kill. I agree with the monetary need...there is just a much better way to do it... if folks will release the need in their hearts to kill in order to prove something to themselves or others.

If you are honest I think you can see that the monies to pay for these things are readily available from other sources than the purchasing of items that enable the hunt and kill.

The financial funding of projects argument is the strongest one the hunting community has in my opinion. However, if my prescription above were followed there would be more money for those projects at a lower overall tax rate for those actually using the outdoors. In light of that this line of thought seems to fall short on the hunting side. In all honesy...since the monies can come from elsewhere then there is no reason to continue that reason as a justification for yourself except to sooth a conscience is there?

Please..some of you who deeply hold to hunting rights explain why habitats should not be funded this way...unless it really is a need to kill that drives a guy and not these reasons that are being used as a cover for the truth.


Well hunting community... point now conceded to the animal rights side?????
Adam McDermott
New User
Joined 04/10/2007
Posts:29

Adam McDermott's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 74 Posted: 12:39 AM 10/02/07 (CST)
.
SurfsUp
Junior Member
Joined 08/06/2007
Posts:82

SurfsUp's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 75 Posted: 04:33 PM 10/02/07 (CST)
Hey Adam,

It is nice if someone will truly discuss just the issues. In response to your post.... You state...

1. " I have some questions for you". I will be glad to answer any and all of them just as soon as you answer the one I asked. In fact it appears you totally dodged it. In fact no one has (or can) post an answer to the question I posed.This is astounding to me as the hunting community has long trumpeted this as perhaps the primary reason hunting should be allowed. Please be courteous enough to answer my question in the 2 posts above yours and I will reciprocate on every question you post.

2.You ask, " Are we suppose to sell our deer hunting land since we spent thousands of dollors on just to deer hunt?". Again, I have a very specific and usable answer if you will simpy answer my questions. It is considered rude to answer a question with a question.

3. You ask, "Is our car insurance suppose to go up because the deer vs. car accidents will skyrocket? Do you or I want to be cruisin down the highway and hit a deer going 70 in a car or motorcycle?". This is of course a valid concern you voice. Again, answer my question and I have a very practical and usable solution to your question.

4 You state, " i dont care how much money or TIME I spends on hunting, it is what I like to do and will continue to do". This is perhaps the most honest statement any hunter has made. You do not care what it costs in time or money...IT IS WHAT YOU LIKE TO DO..that is the nugget of truth we are looking at. At least you have been honest about it. It is not about the cost,it's not about time spent with family, making memories,getting your own food, or anything else. You can do those WITHOUT hunting. The only thing that makes hunting different is the possibility and potential of making a kill. You state you like to do that...you like to hunt and have the potential of making a kill. I am glad to at least see you are honest about it....few are.

As I stated, I would be glad to engage in healthy discussion...and if you would be decent enough to answer the question I asked first then I have usable and practical solutions to all the issues you raised. Some of those issues you raise are quit valid and deserve a well thought out answer.

Get The Board,

SurfsUp
mallard1662
Advanced Member
Joined 03/18/2007
Posts:199

mallard1662's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 76 Posted: 06:37 PM 10/02/07 (CST)
The question i want answered is....how can you justify killing a chicken by eating thier eggs?



Mallard smile smiley smile smiley smile smiley



mallard1662
Advanced Member
Joined 03/18/2007
Posts:199

mallard1662's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 77 Posted: 06:39 PM 10/02/07 (CST)
And BD ...I posted something that I thought twice about and decided to delete it is all! crazy smiley



SurfsUp
Junior Member
Joined 08/06/2007
Posts:82

SurfsUp's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 78 Posted: 06:50 PM 10/02/07 (CST)
Mallard,

Well once again we have someone asking a question but failing to answer the one asked... smirk smiley never an answer....but since yours does not require any thought or creative ideas I will indulge an answer. In fact all your question requires to answer is to have taken 7th grade Biology.

An egg is not actually a small chicken unless the hen was bred and the egg fertilized. When you do not keep roosters then the eggs are never fertilized and therefore there never is a chicken formed. I'm sure you understand that with only an egg, and no sperm to fertilize it, there is never an actual chicken to kill.

Now Mallard, I have gone the second mile for you by answering a question for you when you dodged mine and did not answer it. Do you have any real ideas for my question...or only questions that deal with 7th grade biology?

Get The Board,

SurfsUp
Adam McDermott
New User
Joined 04/10/2007
Posts:29

Adam McDermott's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 79 Posted: 10:58 PM 10/02/07 (CST)
.
SurfsUp
Junior Member
Joined 08/06/2007
Posts:82

SurfsUp's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 80 Posted: 08:41 AM 10/03/07 (CST)
Adam McDermott,
Well.....lets try this again. You state.....

1. "Since I am a dumb person who kills animals come out and ask your question in one sentence so I can understand it". Well I did ask it in one sentence. But if you didn't see it please reread message 73, It is 7 posts before this one. That is basically an article that gives information and an idea concerning funding of wildlife habitat and species reintroductions. Please actually read the proposal so you are actually informed on the issue. In the next to last sentence at the bottom of the post for message 73 you will find this question written,.... "Please..some of you who deeply hold to hunting rights explain why habitats should not be funded this way".... That is the one sentence question you asked for.

By the way..I did not say you were dumb and in no way insinuated that. If you reread my post you will find I was quite respectful to you. However, it is dumb to have and voice strong opinions on issues such as the right to kill animals when you are not doing any real research or soul searching to see which side of the coin has a stronger reason and argument. If you have not done due diligence in research then perhaps you should not have an opinion as to animal or hunting rights yet.

2. "Why dont you finish answering my questions first". Well I gave you some reasons. First of all it is incredibly rude to answer a question with a question. Normally that means the person has no answer and is just trying to change the subject or focus onto someone else. You have answered my question with a question. You may not have had the benefit of growing up in a home where common decency and manners were taught...and if that is the case then here is a chance for you to learn and grow as a person. If you were taught decency and manners as a child then please let them go to use in your posts. At this point I also have no belief you will answer my question even if I were to answer yours first...it appears that you would still ignore mine. That is another lack of manners issue.

By the way...if you read my post I pledged to answer all your questions with a practical and usable answer.

3. You state, "I could care less about the politic side, as long as I can hunt so be it"..... exactly...in your own word you say that as long as you can go have a chance to make the kill...that is all you really care about. Keep not caring about the politics of it... that is why animal rights is kicking hunters rights groups all over the country now. What will you do when there is no deer hunting allowed? That IS the politic my friend.

4. You state, "cause we are all dumb rednecks who enjoy killing things!". Out of the mouth of babes.....I never called you a redneck. You may see yourself that way and hang that around yourself...but I did not (and will not) engage in that form of childish name calling.

I did as you asked and gave you the one sentence question. Please read message 73 to understand the proposal and then the question is this......" "Please..some of you who deeply hold to hunting rights explain why habitats should not be funded this way".

I will then be glad to give usable, practical solutions to all your questions. Some of your questions are quit valid. Just be mannerly and decent enough to respond to my question as it was asked first and treat me the way you would want to be treated.

Get The Board,

SurfsUp
Going Hunting? Or are you just out to kill! - - - 144 messages. Showing 71 through 80. Go to page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15 
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  

New? - Register Here

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Top of This Forum     |     My Fishing Pals Home
Members Browsing
the Forums:
Users Online:-1
Guests Online:42
Total Online: 41


Terms and Conditions