AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Why PETA will always be a joke to me

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering a lot of the people living in Idaho (neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc.), I'd say they need MORE cougars to cull the cretinous humanoids. :) If only we could train carnivores to be politically knowledgeable about the food they eat. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jupiter551
So if he killed the mountain lion to turn it's fur into a coat, teeth into a necklace, bones into some sort of tools like the indians did a couple hundred years ago and meat into some mountain lion burgers it'd be okay but since it was just for fun it's barbaric and hideous? I'm just confused and trying to get my head around what the difference is in all of this. It just makes me think of Dolphin free tuna- oh good those beautiful majestic creatures aren't being harmed, but the tuna? Fuck tuna!
 
Yeah I know, the idea of a guy who kills animals for sportbeing inappropriate to sit on a board that decides which and how many animals should be killed for sport is just so hard to get one's head around.

Equally, it's a difficult concept to see the difference between hunting subsistence and just doing it because you feel like killing some poor animal.
 
I just want to say, I trust those who are passionate about something to make decisions about how it should be done more than people who know nothing about, or have any passion for it.

I won't trust a burger chef who has never eaten a burger.
Being a hunter does not make you a blood blind rage monster who loses all sense of right and wrong.

California is heavily populated by humans and the mountain lion population is suffering because of that. Our cities are replacing theirs. Conservation is based on healthy population control, not whether or not that animal is pretty.

Idaho on the other hand (I used to live there) has a very small human population (not all neo nazis, white supremacists, by a long shot) that is not affecting the natural habitat nearly as much as majority of the U.S but because supermarkets have eliminated their only natural predators the population has in fact gotten out of control. Hunting seasons and tags are based on balance, not sport.

This has been blown out of proportion because people were bored. In my life growing up in Oregon I never knew a single forestry/wildlife official who was not also passionate about the sport themselves. It really only makes sense, otherwise you have inexperienced, uneducated people making decisions about something they know nothing about.
 
Wait...to be qualified to decide which animals are endangered or not you need to kill them for laughs on your days off?
 
JoleneJolene said:
I just want to say, I trust those who are passionate about something to make decisions about how it should be done more than people who know nothing about, or have any passion for it.

I won't trust a burger chef who has never eaten a burger.
Being a hunter does not make you a blood blind rage monster who loses all sense of right and wrong.

California is heavily populated by humans and the mountain lion population is suffering because of that. Our cities are replacing theirs. Conservation is based on healthy population control, not whether or not that animal is pretty.

Idaho on the other hand (I used to live there) has a very small human population (not all neo nazis, white supremacists, by a long shot) that is not affecting the natural habitat nearly as much as majority of the U.S but because supermarkets have eliminated their only natural predators the population has in fact gotten out of control. Hunting seasons and tags are based on balance, not sport.

This has been blown out of proportion because people were bored. In my life growing up in Oregon I never knew a single forestry/wildlife official who was not also passionate about the sport themselves. It really only makes sense, otherwise you have inexperienced, uneducated people making decisions about something they know nothing about.
I agree with a lot of what you say--I never meant that most Idahoans, e.g., were neo-nazis. There are too many though...ONE is one too many. lol But mainly I was making a joke, not trying to offend Idahoans in general. :) As far as "experts" on wildlife, why do they have to be hunters? Wildlife photographers and field biologists aren't allowed expertise?

It kind of reminds me of a conversation I had some years ago. I had mentioned which species lose their antlers seasonally and which keep them year around (roughy, browsers vs grazers) and a lady at the table asked, "are you a hunter?" "No," I said, "but why do you ask?" She went on to imply that only hunters have knowledge of nature. Um, no. Anyone can buy a gun and go out and shoot up wildlife, knowledge of nature is not required. Conversely, I won't say all hunters are barbaric imbeciles either. :D. A lot of hunters just love the outdoors and if they don't "get their kill" they're still happy for the experience.

Other than population control, I'd love to see more hunters turn in their guns for cameras. But that's just me. Keep in mind also that the need for "controlling wildlife" is due to humans taking over habitat. Cougars, deer, antelope, moose, elk, wolverine and so many others did just fine before we evolved into the scene. Nature controls and balances all by herself, sans outside interference.
 
I get what Jolene is saying, probably because I was thinking the same thing. He is both passionate about his job and knowledgeable about it, his job is not that he is out to save every living creature in every forest and preserve all wildlife everywhere. It's population control, in California there is much more people than there is wildlife so they are going to be much more strict on laws to preserve any species and hunting where as in Idaho where over population of an animal can occur there is going to be less laws preventing of such. Had he actually gone out in his own state then I could see where there is an argument, but he didnt so I believe it's an over reaction during a slow news week.

PETA to me are like those TRUTH anti-cigarette ads that every time I see them I am that much closer to picking up a cigarette just to spite them just like I am closer to buying a fur jacket to wear every day even during the summer just to spite PETA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Jupiter551 said:
LadyLuna said:
Do we know he did this purely for fun?
It was on a ranch where they raise animals to be hunted - they charge big money for this sort of "adventure".
LadyLuna said:
I don't see a problem with him enjoying the act of hunting another creature.
Yeah, because his enjoyment of killing something is more important than its right to life. You really think human enjoyment is worth more than animal life? That's really sick.

Way to twist my words. I never said that. Also, please don't use the words "right to life". A being only has as much right to life as it's willing and able to fight for. That is natural order. Someone else might fight for the other being's life, that's also part of natural order, but that doesn't give the being any more right to life than it had previously.

Male cats will eat kittens. Birds will push other birds babies out of a nest to take it. While I agree that hunting isn't done without purpose in the animal world, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be done without purpose if you took all their reasons to hunt away. A cat who is perfectly fed, and totally neutered, will still hunt for pleasure. Humans are hunters. It's in our blood. In some, the instinct is higher than others. I see no problem with them releasing that instinct in proper channels, and taking pleasure out of satisfying their instinct when it's done in a proper manner.

In this case, I think you missed the rest of the paragraph. So I probably repeated some stuff that was said in the paragraph you took that sentence from. I urge anyone thinking of responding to this or Jupiter's post to please read my original post and see the context in which that sentence was said. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nordling
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with saying that "hunting is in our blood," in other words "instinct." I don't think we yet KNOW how much of human behavior, if any, in instinctual. We do know that the "higher" in complexity creatures on the tree of life are, the less they rely on instinct and the more they have need of training from parents, peers and experience. Domestic cats, no matter how well fed, do seem to have a "need" to satisfy a hunting instinct, although this varies a lot by individual. Humans, I believe, have a stronger desire to hunt if their parents loved hunting, less so because of any alleged "predatory gene."

Oh, and BTW, I agree with most of the sentiments in this thread about PETA. Those fine folks have lost their ever-loving minds. I am all for treating animals "ethically" but first let's define what that means.
 
Jupiter551 said:
Wait...to be qualified to decide which animals are endangered or not you need to kill them for laughs on your days off?

Yeah, that's exactly what it takes for a wildlife management degree. :roll:

Humans didn't get to the top of the food chain by eating broccoli! We are, by nature, hunters and gatherers. Some people may prefer to think meat magically appears in the grocery store, while others prefer to participate directly and practice self-reliance. Hunters are some of the best conservationists you will ever find.

There wouldn’t be nearly as many vast tracts of publicly owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or generally wander about on if regulated hunting did not exist. Funds generated by license fees and federal excise taxes on outdoor gear pay for these lands by an overwhelming margin. In fact, these monies dwarf all other sources combined — including the nearly nonexistent contributions of animal rights organizations. That means outdoor sportsmen are overwhelmingly the largest source of conservation funding in the United States

These figures are a bit dated, but here are some of the numbers, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and other public sources:

** $746 million — Annual amount of money spent by hunters in the United States on licenses and public land access fees alone. Sportsmen’s licensing revenues account for more than half of all funding for state natural resource agencies

** $300 million — Additional monies contributed to wildlife conservation every year by the more than 10,000 private hunting-advocate organizations, like the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

** $4.2 billion — Amount of money sportsmen have contributed to conservation through a 10% federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and gear since the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act established the tax. Millions of acres of public-use land has been purchased, preserved, and maintained with this money.

From an ecological point of view, here’s what all this translates into– The needs of wild animals — especially endangered and threatened species — are immeasurably better served by the millions of acres of well-maintained, patrolled habitat that hunters’ dollars are paying for than the lies and propaganda dished out by animal rights groups. In fact, their efforts are among the most destructive forces facing wildlife of all types today…

Why? Because if the animal rights crowd got its way and hunting were outlawed, there’d be no money for the preservation and expansion of the habitat that houses not only game species, but the endangered, threatened, and recovering species as well. Like it or not, and believe it or not, sportsmen’s dollars are in large part what has made possible the wildly successful re-establishment of the wild turkey, black bear, bison, elk, and the bald eagle. Yes, it was vast tracts of public, protected land and plenty of dollars for reintroduction efforts that made these miracles of conservation a reality — not to mention the 20-fold increase in the number of wild elk, the 133-fold increase in the wild turkey flock, and the roughly 70-fold increase in the national whitetail deer herd over the last century.

If sport hunting and/or sport fishing were outlawed (animal rights groups are gunning for them both), many of these species would dwindle once again — because sooner or later, the government would no doubt pony up a lot of these lands for development. They’d have to; who else would pay for their upkeep and regulation? The animal rights crowd?

Uh, no.

In case you’re wondering how much money animal rights groups devote to habitat preservation and the welfare of wild species, take a gander at PETA’s financials. Straight from its Web site, PETA’s prodigious revenue of over $37 million bought:

** 2,700 media interviews

** 703 organized demonstrations

** Nearly 11,000 mentions in print

** Coverage on at least seven major TV networks

** 150,000 “vegetarian starter kits” disseminated to the public

** Enough “educational materials” for 235,000 teachers and 11,000,000 students…

But not a single acre of land for wildlife preservation — not even for endangered species!

Hmmm. Seems that PETA and friends just don’t realize that what critters of every stripe need more than billboards, picket lines, ad campaigns, and celebrity advocates are places to live and thrive. Without the immense revenue of hunting-related dollars, these lands simply would not exist. That’s a hard pill for them to swallow. And as if it isn’t bad enough that animal rights groups — for all their high-profile anti-hunting bluster — don’t seem to pay for ANY true wildlife conservation efforts, they also spend a good deal of their time and resources obfuscating the truth about where conservation money does come from

http://dailyreckoning.com/right-to-hunt ... al-rights/
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
LadyLuna said:
A being only has as much right to life as it's willing and able to fight for. That is natural order. Someone else might fight for the other being's life, that's also part of natural order, but that doesn't give the being any more right to life than it had previously.
What? Why bring "natural order" into any of this - the guy has a high powered rifle (probably with a huge scope), the animal is on a "hunting reserve" - there is nothing natural or primal about any of this.

I'm not intending to twist your words but...have I misinterpreted this? You appear to be saying that any being (say, a newborn baby?) only has as much right as it can keep - so you think a newborn baby has no right to protection from some guy walking up and dashing its head against a wall? Or did I misunderstand you? It appears you're saying if there were no laws against it, there's nothing wrong with that. You also state it as a fact...but it isn't, it's your opinion - ethics and as your founding fathers might say "inalienable rights" have been a subject debated in philosophy for thousands of years.
LadyLuna said:
Humans are hunters. It's in our blood. In some, the instinct is higher than others. I see no problem with them releasing that instinct in proper channels, and taking pleasure out of satisfying their instinct when it's done in a proper manner.
Define "in our blood". Instinct is higher in some? Or empathy with other creatures is lower? And is this all it comes back to? After thousands of years, ethics, philosophy, literature, charity all go out the window for a few people who choose to harm others (people or animals, it's amazing how similar serial killers behave compared to hunters) because they consider their desires more important than the welfare of others.

There's nothing noble or manly about killing something because you have a "drive to hunt", if that even exists outside sociopaths. I think it's nobler by far to *resist* baser instincts that harm others. The world in general would be a much fucking nicer place if people could resist their urges to do harm instead of indulge in them. No murder, theft, rape, pedophilia...how many other crimes can you think of that are caused by people giving into desires and "instincts"?

There's nothing natural about hunting animals with a rifle, so arguments about humans being hunters and having some animalistic desire to kill are just...yeah whatever.
 
The greatest weapon of man is his mind, the mind that invented the gun to use as a tool to kill animals that otherwise would be far too large and dangerous to kill much like the spear was invented thousands of years ago. Or are you saying hunting should only be allowed if it was hand to paw combat?

My favorite part though is your association with hunting to vial crimes it's really an intelligent tactic. hunters have the same mindset as rapists getting orgasmic pleasure having power over something they feel weaker than they. The world would be so much better if people wouldn't hunt deer or bash babies heads against the wall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
SweepTheLeg said:
The greatest weapon of man is his mind, the mind that invented the gun to use as a tool to kill animals that otherwise would be far too large and dangerous to kill much like the spear was invented thousands of years ago. Or are you saying hunting should only be allowed if it was hand to paw combat?

My favorite part though is your association with hunting to vial crimes it's really an intelligent tactic. hunters have the same mindset as rapists getting orgasmic pleasure having power over something they feel weaker than they. The world would be so much better if people wouldn't hunt deer or bash babies heads against the wall.

I was responding to her assertion that nothing has a right to life and it's okay for people to give into their instincts. You made a good point about power though.

Btw men didn't invent guns to kill animals, they invented them to kill each other.
 
In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by certain codes of conduct... the written law, and the unwritten law of morality. The hypocrisy of some of these animal rights activists amuses me. If for some reason, those animal rights activists were stranded on a deserted island or otherwise forced to be self-reliant, you better believe they would hunt and kill to survive if they had the knowledge and wherewithal to do so, it's in our nature. Anyone that says otherwise is out of touch with reality. The desire to hunt for our own food is different for everyone. City folk have no idea what it means to be in touch with nature or how it feels to put food on the table from field to platter. As I've said before, hunters are some of the best conservationists you will ever find because they are far more in touch with nature than the average couch potato that buys their meat from the local grocer.
 
City Folks > out of touch with nature > hunters > in touch with reality

I see. So just to be clear, are you saying that MOST hunters live in the wilderness year around? Or on rural farms?

90% of the hunters I've known in my life WERE city dwellers. And, not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that HUNTING is the only valid form of outdoor activity. Hikers, backpackers, nature photographers, nature journalists, etc.... all are invalid unless they splatter blood around on the moss?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jupiter551
Nordling said:
City Folks > out of touch with nature > hunters > in touch with reality

I see. So just to be clear, are you saying that MOST hunters live in the wilderness year around? Or on rural farms?

90% of the hunters I've known in my life WERE city dwellers. And, not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that HUNTING is the only valid form of outdoor activity. Hikers, backpackers, nature photographers, nature journalists, etc.... all are invalid unless they splatter blood around on the moss?

Typical BS reply trying to spin words I did not say. :roll:
 
Bocefish said:
In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by certain codes of conduct... the written law, and the unwritten law of morality. The hypocrisy of some of these animal rights activists amuses me. If for some reason, those animal rights activists were stranded on a deserted island or otherwise forced to be self-reliant, you better believe they would hunt and kill to survive if they had the knowledge and wherewithal to do so, it's in our nature. Anyone that says otherwise is out of touch with reality. The desire to hunt for our own food is different for everyone. City folk have no idea what it means to be in touch with nature or how it feels to put food on the table from field to platter. As I've said before, hunters are some of the best conservationists you will ever find because they are far more in touch with nature than the average couch potato that buys their meat from the local grocer.

No one is saying otherwise, this has NEVER been a discussion about survival and it stopped being about PETA when you linked that article several pages back. Sure people who believe in animal rights would (some of them) kill animals to survive - that isn't a hunting imperative it's a survival one. Just because you put someone in a situation where they will kill an animal for necessity doesnt mean it's okay to kill one for recreation, nor does it invalidate arguments for animal rights.

We were discussing hunting for recreation, specifically a guy who went to a hunting lodge in idaho on his vacation to shoot a mountain lion. Where, in there is there anything about survival or necessity?

Hunting is in our nature? Really? Then why do we have none of the biological adaptations that every other hunting creature on the planet has? We have comparitively poor eye sight, poor sense of smell, no claws, no talons, no giant fangs, no venom...in fact you'd be hard pressed to nominate any creature who, in terms of evolution and adaptation appears less likely to be a natural hunter. Brain doesn't count - it wasn't developed for hunting but tool use and communication, and nor would its use conflict with more obviously hunting oriented adaptations - a venomous stinger for example.

And yeah, my grandpa was a farmer his entire life, grew stonefruit and apples to make a living for over 50 years - but I guess he'd be out of touch with nature and had no grasp on reality because he didn't kill animals for fun.

Steve Irwin too was never a hunter, even though he was an environmentalist, dealt with animals daily, founded a zoo and several large conservation areas...clearly he had no idea about land and conservation though because he wasn't a hunter.
 
Which part of the following is unclear?


Humans didn't get to the top of the food chain by eating broccoli! We are, by nature, hunters and gatherers. Some people may prefer to think meat magically appears in the grocery store, while others prefer to participate directly and practice self-reliance. Hunters are some of the best conservationists you will ever find.
 
Bocefish said:
Nordling said:
City Folks > out of touch with nature > hunters > in touch with reality

I see. So just to be clear, are you saying that MOST hunters live in the wilderness year around? Or on rural farms?

90% of the hunters I've known in my life WERE city dwellers. And, not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that HUNTING is the only valid form of outdoor activity. Hikers, backpackers, nature photographers, nature journalists, etc.... all are invalid unless they splatter blood around on the moss?

Typical BS reply trying to spin words I did not say. :roll:
Typical response--even when it was CLEAR that I was ASKING what you were REALLY saying. All any of us can do is read your words. If you mean something else, please give us a Captain Midnight Magic Decoder Ring.
 
Bocefish said:
Which part of the following is unclear?


Humans didn't get to the top of the food chain by eating broccoli! We are, by nature, hunters and gatherers. Some people may prefer to think meat magically appears in the grocery store, while others prefer to participate directly and practice self-reliance. Hunters are some of the best conservationists you will ever find.
Not so much unclear as simply incorrect. Squirrels are "hunter gatherers by nature." That's where we get the phrase "squirrel away."

Humans are generalists; adaptive creatures. Some tribal groups were vegetarian, some tending more toward carnivorous behavior; most were a mixture, but neither is their "nature." Their nature is getting by with what's available.
 
I'm not saying it's okay for a man to bash a baby's brain against a wall.

But when the flu can kill a baby, where is it's right to life? Oh, right, it doesn't actually have one. No, what it has is the defender of it's life, it's mother. What the baby has is the right to attempt to live.

Please note: I DO NOT SUPPORT KILLING BABIES. I do not support killing just to kill. I *do* support enjoying doing things that must be done. Sometimes, a kill must be made.

So again, do we know that this was just a joy-kill? Or was it a "hey, you're a good hunter, why don't you get rid of this problem for us" with this problem being a mountain lion that has developed a taste for man, pet, or livestock?

The article linked doesn't tell us that. All it tells us is that he killed something and had his picture taken with the kill. I don't see any reason to get upset over that. Especially because it was done legally, and the target was something that is currently overpopulated in the area in which it was targeted.
 
In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by certain codes of conduct... the written law, and the unwritten law of morality. The hypocrisy of some of these animal rights activists amuses me. If for some reason, those animal rights activists were stranded on a deserted island or otherwise forced to be self-reliant, you better believe they would hunt and kill to survive if they had the knowledge and wherewithal to do so, it's in our nature. Anyone that says otherwise is out of touch with reality. The desire to hunt for our own food is different for everyone. City folk have no idea what it means to be in touch with nature or how it feels to put food on the table from field to platter. As I've said before, hunters are some of the best conservationists you will ever find because they are far more in touch with nature than the average couch potato that buys their meat from the local grocer.

I see. So just to be clear, are you saying that MOST hunters live in the wilderness year around? Or on rural farms?
 
Can hunting endangered animals save the species?

I found this 60 minutes story to be quite good, and apropos to the the continuing argument. I am not a hunter and would never want to hunt. The people I know that enjoy hunting are probably more interested in conservation than the conservationists. Why? The incentives are higher for the hunters, they want to continue what they enjoy doing. :twocents-02cents:
 
LadyLuna said:
So again, do we know that this was just a joy-kill? Or was it a "hey, you're a good hunter, why don't you get rid of this problem for us" with this problem being a mountain lion that has developed a taste for man, pet, or livestock?

The article linked doesn't tell us that. All it tells us is that he killed something and had his picture taken with the kill. I don't see any reason to get upset over that. Especially because it was done legally, and the target was something that is currently overpopulated in the area in which it was targeted.
You might have missed it but I responded the first time you asked, that it was killed on his vacation at a hunting lodge. People pay to go there to hunt, they have animals there that are for hunting.

This is the place he went:
http://www.flyingbranch.com/
Welcome to The Flying B Ranch, North America's most versatile Orvis Endorsed outdoor hunting and fishing lodge. Nestled in North Central Idaho's Lawyer Creek Canyon, the 5000 acre ranch lies just outside Kamiah, ID with exclusive permits to outfit in 740,000 acres of the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests of North Central Idaho. Whether you are looking for a group retreat or that customized trip-of-a-lifetime, join us for the ultimate outdoor and wilderness adventures.

The sound a hound dog makes when running on the scent of a Lion is an experience that cannot be put into words. For those who desire a unique and fun-filled hunting experience, we offer fully-guided (2 guides per hunter) Mountain Lion hunts out of our luxurious 14,000 sq ft lodge during the months of December through March.

Nothing in the outdoors compares to the superior disdain in the eyes of a Mountain Lion as his gaze catches yours. Every discerning outdoorsman should meet that look, and we are the best in the business at providing you with that opportunity. Using hound dogs, snowmobiles and snowshoes, we guide you into elk and deer wintering grounds in search of a fresh kill or lion track. From here is when the chase begins and we all hope it ends at the tree!

Here's one of the guests with his ...uhh...wife? Granddaughter? Prostitute? Anyone want to bet he drives a sports car?
Iaz2y.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Bocefish said:
In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by certain codes of conduct... the written law, and the unwritten law of morality. The hypocrisy of some of these animal rights activists amuses me. If for some reason, those animal rights activists were stranded on a deserted island or otherwise forced to be self-reliant, you better believe they would hunt and kill to survive if they had the knowledge and wherewithal to do so, it's in our nature. Anyone that says otherwise is out of touch with reality. The desire to hunt for our own food is different for everyone. City folk have no idea what it means to be in touch with nature or how it feels to put food on the table from field to platter. As I've said before, hunters are some of the best conservationists you will ever find because they are far more in touch with nature than the average couch potato that buys their meat from the local grocer.

I see. So just to be clear, are you saying that MOST hunters live in the wilderness year around? Or on rural farms?
Jesus. Try reading what you've written?

"...City folk have no idea what it means to be in touch with nature..."

Sounds like a comment from an old comic book. "Those city slickers..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jupiter551
Nordling said:
Bocefish said:
In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by certain codes of conduct... the written law, and the unwritten law of morality. The hypocrisy of some of these animal rights activists amuses me. If for some reason, those animal rights activists were stranded on a deserted island or otherwise forced to be self-reliant, you better believe they would hunt and kill to survive if they had the knowledge and wherewithal to do so, it's in our nature. Anyone that says otherwise is out of touch with reality. The desire to hunt for our own food is different for everyone. City folk have no idea what it means to be in touch with nature or how it feels to put food on the table from field to platter. As I've said before, hunters are some of the best conservationists you will ever find because they are far more in touch with nature than the average couch potato that buys their meat from the local grocer.

I see. So just to be clear, are you saying that MOST hunters live in the wilderness year around? Or on rural farms?
Jesus. Try reading what you've written?

"...City folk have no idea what it means to be in touch with nature..."

Sounds like a comment from an old comic book. "Those city slickers..."

Presumptuous, myopic people are some of my least favorite and I'll just leave it at that.
 
I have no hate for people with common eyesight ailments. :D

I admit though, that I'm not fond of pretentious people who talk in code.
 
Nothing says "in touch with nature" like blowing away a puma that wasn't even aware it was being hunted, at a hunting resort, and then getting your photo taken with it while your arm is around your trophy wife.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nordling
Jupiter551 said:
Nothing says "in touch with nature" like blowing away a puma that wasn't even aware it was being hunted, at a hunting resort, and then getting your photo taken with it while your arm is around your trophy wife.

Ignorance has no boundaries compared to the above statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.