Texas Bans Remote Hunting

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:V3Z5e.3183$go4.2696@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...

> One of my friends killed a bear with a bow a couple of years ago.

He has my respect.

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:32:48 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:

>>
>> I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be
>> infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable.
>
>
> Oh, and by the way,
>
> Now that you've "beaked off",
>
> Why don't you give us your neutral and open minded views, on, say,
>
> Denying semi-mobile handicapped people the accessibility to state and
>federal funded game hunting?

I missed that part in the original post, but as I responded to Dennis
on this, fine by me as long as all hunters who use the remote deal are
prepared to acknowledge that they are disabled, just like the folks
who use disabled parking spaces. They should be entitled to a break.

> Or the ecologically detrimental effects of game herd overpopulation?
>
Nothing wrong with culling or controlling rampant population expansion
when it threatens the ecology. And it shouldn't be limited to the dumb
animals only. As long as they don't ask me to do the killing. It would
spoil my day.

JF

I've learned that life is tough, but I'm tougher.
But I've also learned that under everyone's hard
shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 22:55:49 GMT, "Lee Bell"
<leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:

>"JOF" wrote
>
>> I don't hunt period, so I suppose in that sense you could say I have a
>> problem with hunting of any kind.
>
>I have a problem with the fact that you presume that your choice not to hunt
>should lead to a problem with hunting in general.

I meant a problem of the personal kind. I can't bring myself to want
to hunt. In a society of killers that makes me the outsider.
>
>> It's not that I'm against hunting in> principle, just that I guess I had
>> enough killing when I worked a few
>> summers in a slaughterhouse killing pigs, cattle and sheep because the
>> idea of killing for sport holds no appeal for me.
>
>Fair enough. I'm not overly in love with it either. I do enjoy hunting,
>but I don't do a lot of killing.

I like the camera kind now.

>> Kind of unmanly I know, but it's just the way it is.

>I find no meaninful relationship between manly and hunting.

Tell that to the hunters.

>> Seems to me that using a remotely operated killing device isn't very
>> sporting. . .
>
>For Texas, it's probably more sporting that going there yourself. Last time
>I drove through the area, there were Bucks in the median of the highway. If
>you were there, you could kill a deer. If you're not there, you have to
>wait for a deer to come into the area controled by your weapon. It's
>probably not a lot harder, but it's a little harder.

>Let's also remember that the remote hunting makes it possible for those that
>can't get out into the woods to enjoy some of what you or I might, if we
>both enjoyed hunting. You had your turn killing, why not let the wheelchair
>bound have their turn?

I hadn't realized this was what it was all about. I'm not against some
breaks for the disabled. They should be cut some slack if they're
willing to try to assimilate themselves into the mainstream. Now that
I've said it, it sounds condescending. It's not meant to be. I say it
with all sincerity. But my first reaction to this remotely controlled
weapons sytem idea for hunting game is the same as I feel about
able-bodied folks who use the handicapped parking spaces.

>> I'd like to see some of our great white hunter types go up against a
>> Kodiak, or even a little
>> bitty Grizzly, mano a mano, or even armed with knives.
>
>Do you also think that the way to stop a speeding vehicle is by sticking
>your foot out Flintstone style? You use the right tool for the right job.
>The bears you describe were born with weapons. I wasn't. I was born with a
>mind that allowed me to even the score and even gain the advantage.

It's not the use of modern technology. Heaven knows I'm no Luddite
myself. It's the idea that some folks use all this nifty high tech,
high powered gear to kill an unarmed critter safely from a distance
when it has no chance to fight back, and then crow about their great
victory, their "bravery", like they actually did something worthy of
note. The folks who kill for food don't usually gloat, they just eat.
But I suppose some credit has to be given to those who carry their
heavy guns a long way through the bush and wait for hours in the cold
and damp. I'd rather just see the wild critters in their natural
habitat. I have no overwhelming need to see them dead, particularly by
my hand.

>> Methinks many of our fine camo-bedecked hunters' cojones would shrivel to
>> peas and
>> their feet would be blistered from the pace they set scootin' in
>> retreat. But that's another story.
>
>One of my friends killed a bear with a bow a couple of years ago.
>
Good for him. Was his motivation worthy?

JF


I've learned that life is tough, but I'm tougher.
But I've also learned that under everyone's hard
shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved.

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:aoog51pc3aaf3odh67dqngph3fb6ggggdq@4ax.com...

> I meant a problem of the personal kind. I can't bring myself to want
> to hunt. In a society of killers that makes me the outsider.

There goes that faux intellectual "third person" thing.

You are a member of the society you deride, and all humans are killers,
including and especially you.

Apathy kills.

Inability to take on an enemy kills.

Talking shit kills.

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:aoog51pc3aaf3odh67dqngph3fb6ggggdq@4ax.com...

> I meant a problem of the personal kind. I can't bring myself to want
> to hunt. In a society of killers that makes me the outsider.

More of your aloof pretense.

You're a killer, John.

Able to take life with your bare hands.

With extreme prejudice.

Just like me.

It's your basic nature.

Everybody's basic nature.

--
One million Marines cannot seize Tarawa in a thousand years.
Admiral Keiji Shibasaki, 4 days before his death.

"Dennis (Icarus)" wrote in message
news:92ffe$4257f1a2$45010e17$20325@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Take a quick peek at the 10th amendment. Something about "powers not
> enumerated are reserved to the ststes, or to the people".

Yeah, the concepts of States Rights... Kind of got disproved with the War of
Northern Aggression...

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_2I5e.92$jL6.1728@news.uswest.net...
> You are taking the cheap shots from the cheap seats.
>
> Using a computer. All you anonymous and shit slinging liars use the
> computer
> for cover.
>
> You wouldn't run your suck, and sling your slimy innuendo to him or me,
> but
> you'll do it from behind a monitor.

Dude, I've been hanging out in this group for about 5 years now, I think
Doug knows who the hell I am. For that matter, you should know who the
hell I am also.

Chris

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 20:42:25 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Buzcutt454@aol.com> wrote:


> I caught the armed game thing, but thought we were referring to rational
>discourse.
>
This is rec.scuba

> The "cowards hunt remotely" clearly came out that all hunters were
>cowards, an obsevation based on your lack of experience and thin skin.
>
> I really didn't count that as much of an argument, either.

I try to ignore the telling blows too. That's the joy of warring with
words only. They seldom tend to be debilitating.

>> I can't help it. I'm a superior pontificator.
>
> Smugly superior pontificator.

Yes.

>> > You've certainly, if semi-cleverly, cast specific aspersions on the
>> >hunting crowd (while claiming to be open minded)
>>
>> Then I made my point.
>
> Which I cleverly parried.

Refusing to acknowledge something is, I suppose, a form of parrying.
Again, the advantage of warring with words only. The recipient of a
telling blow often doesn't realize they've been mortally wounded.

>> > Then make one.
>> >
>> > You haven't yet.
>>
>> I said I was open to one. There seems to be a paucity here, or maybe
>> it's simply that there are none. That would be embarrassing for us
>> all, wouldn't it?
>
> Not me.
>
> You've made several indefendable statements, so far indicting yourself,
>and your uncle the Great White Hunter.

I don't know that he ever characterized himself as a great white
hunter, but I often heard him imply, with Canuck-like humility, that
he was an excellent shot.

Which statements are "undefendable"? I'm a tad curious about that one.

> Me personally, I think the idea of internet hunting is preposterous.

Depends on what you're hunting I suppose. Or do you mean remotely
controlled weapon use? If so, then there's another thing upon which we
agree. 8)

JF

I've learned that life is tough, but I'm tougher.
But I've also learned that under everyone's hard
shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:14:33 GMT, "Grumman-581" <grumman###@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"Dennis (Icarus)" wrote in message
>news:92ffe$4257f1a2$45010e17$20325@KNOLOGY.NET. ..
>> Take a quick peek at the 10th amendment. Something about "powers not
>> enumerated are reserved to the ststes, or to the people".
>
>Yeah, the concepts of States Rights... Kind of got disproved with the War of
>Northern Aggression...
>
>
Well the current administration just pointed up what they think about
States rights

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:18:11 GMT, "Chris" <chrpai@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:_2I5e.92$jL6.1728@news.uswest.net...
>> You are taking the cheap shots from the cheap seats.
>>
>> Using a computer. All you anonymous and shit slinging liars use the
>> computer
>> for cover.
>>
>> You wouldn't run your suck, and sling your slimy innuendo to him or me,
>> but
>> you'll do it from behind a monitor.
>
>Dude, I've been hanging out in this group for about 5 years now, I think
>Doug knows who the hell I am. For that matter, you should know who the
>hell I am also.
>
>Chris
>
>
Don't worry about it Chris just got his meds confused again