We're adopting!

[limitles]

If you've seen that program you're one up on the rest of us as it is an audio program.

I goofed. Here is the program I "saw" about the reintroduction of woves to Yellowstone.



The "unwilling" statement was not meant to be literal. I'm not a new age Doolittle.
I simply meant that the decisions made by the other side, (people/governments) which allow weapons designed to increase the potential kill rate of a hunter, may make not bode well for those who can't vote. And why does the poor sportsman need an even greater advantage than that which is already available?

Because the conservation and hunting restriction laws we now have in the US keep hunters from critically endangering the overall well-being of game species. And most "sportsman" who use AR-15s or similar guns aren't using them to willy-nilly gun down Bambi and Kin in violation of bag limit. The rapid fire ease of such weapons more often used to put the smack down on "pest" species, such as coyotes and feral hogs. Speaking of which...

(Turn your delicate eyes away, Tine. Time to show the real utility of these types of weapons for "hunting".)

Warning! This is a video of feral hog hunting from a helicopter. And shows "kill" shots. If such things are disturbing to you, don't watch it. But it's a useful demo of why the semi-auto, low recoil, and high mag count of AR-15 type rifles are popular for hunting certain types of game.

I don't recall anyone saying these guns were illegal or that people who use them are in essence poaching. Hunting big game is an important part of some peoples lives and it is anything but easy. They have a level of respect, if you will, towards the game. Gun manufacturers are interested in selling guns and a selling point seems to be the salivating Rambo
That doesn't make these guns necessary or appropriate.

[Gordman]

If you've seen that program you're one up on the rest of us as it is an audio program.

I goofed. Here is the program I "saw" about the reintroduction of woves to Yellowstone.



The "unwilling" statement was not meant to be literal. I'm not a new age Doolittle.
I simply meant that the decisions made by the other side, (people/governments) which allow weapons designed to increase the potential kill rate of a hunter, may make not bode well for those who can't vote. And why does the poor sportsman need an even greater advantage than that which is already available?

Because the conservation and hunting restriction laws we now have in the US keep hunters from critically endangering the overall well-being of game species. And most "sportsman" who use AR-15s or similar guns aren't using them to willy-nilly gun down Bambi and Kin in violation of bag limit. The rapid fire ease of such weapons more often used to put the smack down on "pest" species, such as coyotes and feral hogs. Speaking of which...

(Turn your delicate eyes away, Tine. Time to show the real utility of these types of weapons for "hunting".)

Warning! This is a video of feral hog hunting from a helicopter. And shows "kill" shots. If such things are disturbing to you, don't watch it. But it's a useful demo of why the semi-auto, low recoil, and high mag count of AR-15 type rifles are popular for hunting certain types of game.

Serious question:

Are you mildly retarded or fully?


Give me some kind of an idea so I know what im working with here.


EDIT: i just realized the rest of my post got erased, I don't know why except probably this laptop mousepad. I'll finish commenting in a bit, I don't feel like rewriting everything now

[Baron Von Strucker]

Serious question:

Are you mildly retarded or fully?


Give me some kind of an idea so I know what im working with here.

some may ask you the same question... after reading this

:shutitdowngordo wrote:Yeah

Newborn African American twins

Was quite reluctant to post anything, but I decided what the heck. I'm excited!

Everything will be finalized very soon. I'll post other details once its appropriate.

I will probably post a picture, but I have to think about that one first for sure.

this and your hilarious 911 wife stuck for the night more than 10min from the nearest KFC thread

[Gordman]

some may ask you the same question... after reading this

:shutitdowngordo wrote:Yeah

Newborn African American twins

Was quite reluctant to post anything, but I decided what the heck. I'm excited!

Everything will be finalized very soon. I'll post other details once its appropriate.

I will probably post a picture, but I have to think about that one first for sure.

this and your hilarious 911 wife stuck for the night more than 10min from the nearest KFC thread

Are you drunk? because I can't make heads or tails out of whatever you're trying to get at

[adamantium]

LOL at hunting big game with an AR15, thats like playing golf with a hockey stick, rednecks ITT

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

LOL at hunting big game with an AR15, thats like playing golf with a hockey stick, rednecks ITT

Sick comparison dog. Every golfer would get a hole in one every hole if they allowed hockey sticks.

[nunbeater]

LOL at hunting big game with an AR15, thats like playing golf with a hockey stick, rednecks ITT

Sick comparison dog. Every golfer would get a hole in one every hole if they allowed hockey sticks.

[MumblesBadly]

Because the conservation and hunting restriction laws we now have in the US keep hunters from critically endangering the overall well-being of game species. And most "sportsman" who use AR-15s or similar guns aren't using them to willy-nilly gun down Bambi and Kin in violation of bag limit. The rapid fire ease of such weapons more often used to put the smack down on "pest" species, such as coyotes and feral hogs. Speaking of which...

(Turn your delicate eyes away, Tine. Time to show the real utility of these types of weapons for "hunting".)

Warning! This is a video of feral hog hunting from a helicopter. And shows "kill" shots. If such things are disturbing to you, don't watch it. But it's a useful demo of why the semi-auto, low recoil, and high mag count of AR-15 type rifles are popular for hunting certain types of game.

I don't recall anyone saying these guns were illegal or that people who use them are in essence poaching. Hunting big game is an important part of some peoples lives and it is anything but easy. They have a level of respect, if you will, towards the game. Gun manufacturers are interested in selling guns and a selling point seems to be the salivating Rambo
That doesn't make these guns necessary or appropriate.

I once knew a guy who hunted elk with a bow, never a firearm. He made the same summary comment about hunting with guns. He called such hunters "pussies" because using a rifle allowed them to make a kill shot from much farther away.

But in direct response to your comment...

Re necessity: If we did tasks with the minimal set of tools that were necessary, why would we need to use utensils to eat in most cases?



Re appropriate: What usually defines appropriate in human endeavors? Culture. But culture often changes when new technology is adopted to make it easier or more convenient to do a desired thing. At least it is among most people.



Re poaching: In some states, like Texas, the authorities treat certain wildlife as essentially pests, such as feral hogs, and allow unlimited killing of them by licensed hunters and/or landowners or their agents.

http://feralhogs.tamu.edu/files/2011...s-in-Texas.pdf

But the most useful tool for poachers isn't an AR-15 type rifle; It's a spotlight.

http://m.newson6.com/story.aspx?stor...7&catId=112042

[Hockey Guy]

I couldn't really envision this thread getting worse since it was probably the worst level in the history of these boards but then mumbles enters the fray & here we are.

[sonatine]

I couldn't really envision this thread getting worse since it was probably the worst level in the history of these boards but then mumbles enters the fray & here we are.

But its cool because Druff met him so now he gets to destroy any conversation he wants deliberately. That he does so every single time someone points out that hes incapable of interfacing with this community in an appropriate, constructive fashion is surely coincidence.

[limitles]

I don't recall anyone saying these guns were illegal or that people who use them are in essence poaching. Hunting big game is an important part of some peoples lives and it is anything but easy. They have a level of respect, if you will, towards the game. Gun manufacturers are interested in selling guns and a selling point seems to be the salivating Rambo
That doesn't make these guns necessary or appropriate.

I once knew a guy who hunted elk with a bow, never a firearm. He made the same summary comment about hunting with guns. He called such hunters "pussies" because using a rifle allowed them to make a kill shot from much farther away.

But in direct response to your comment...

Re necessity: If we did tasks with the minimal set of tools that were necessary, why would we need to use utensils to eat in most cases?


Re appropriate: What usually defines appropriate in human endeavors? Culture. But culture often changes when new technology is adopted to make it easier or more convenient to do a desired thing. At least it is among most people.


Re poaching: In some states, like Texas, the authorities treat certain wildlife as essentially pests, such as feral hogs, and allow unlimited killing of them by licensed hunters and/or landowners or their agents.

http://feralhogs.tamu.edu/files/2011...s-in-Texas.pdf

But the most useful tool for poachers isn't an AR-15 type rifle; It's a spotlight.

http://m.newson6.com/story.aspx?stor...7&catId=112042

Let's extrapolate your thinking. Hunters are within the law to set up blinds (tree forts for men) where "hunters" can sit and wait for an animal to wander by and more or less become the victim of a sniper. I'm not sure if this includes setting up bait to attract the game but that would only make it less palatable. If the goal is to make life easy for the hunter then why not allow the use of land mines? Not very sporting but much less effort for the predator. So t's important to establish what is sporting. Again fish in the barrel is a term we all understand.

[tommyt]

I once knew a guy who hunted elk with a bow, never a firearm. He made the same summary comment about hunting with guns. He called such hunters "pussies" because using a rifle allowed them to make a kill shot from much farther away.

But in direct response to your comment...

Re necessity: If we did tasks with the minimal set of tools that were necessary, why would we need to use utensils to eat in most cases?


Re appropriate: What usually defines appropriate in human endeavors? Culture. But culture often changes when new technology is adopted to make it easier or more convenient to do a desired thing. At least it is among most people.


Re poaching: In some states, like Texas, the authorities treat certain wildlife as essentially pests, such as feral hogs, and allow unlimited killing of them by licensed hunters and/or landowners or their agents.

http://feralhogs.tamu.edu/files/2011...s-in-Texas.pdf

But the most useful tool for poachers isn't an AR-15 type rifle; It's a spotlight.

http://m.newson6.com/story.aspx?stor...7&catId=112042

Let's extrapolate your thinking. Hunters are within the law to set up blinds (tree forts for men) where "hunters" can sit and wait for an animal to wander by and more or less become the victim of a sniper. I'm not sure if this includes setting up bait to attract the game but that would only make it less palatable. If the goal is to make life easy for the hunter then why not allow the use of land mines? Not very sporting but much less effort for the predator. So t's important to establish what is sporting. Again fish in the barrel is a term we all understand.

1. blinds are generally set on the ground and are more like a tent not a tree fort

2. tree stands are mostly used for bow hunters due to range restrictions.

3. for a blind or tree stand to be effective you have to first identify the movement patterns of the game you are hunting and place them accordingly.

4. generally you can't bait animals with food (legally), but you can use scent attractants such as doe piss and such


i think you have a big misconception of what the average hunter does. im not sure if it's because you've only seen shit on televison where there are rich assholes that pay around 10-15k per deer on a fenced in property.


Can we please get back on topic and talk more about these two lucky kids that are being adopted by someone.



oh...and stop being such a fucking pussy.

[limitles]

Let's extrapolate your thinking. Hunters are within the law to set up blinds (tree forts for men) where "hunters" can sit and wait for an animal to wander by and more or less become the victim of a sniper. I'm not sure if this includes setting up bait to attract the game but that would only make it less palatable. If the goal is to make life easy for the hunter then why not allow the use of land mines? Not very sporting but much less effort for the predator. So t's important to establish what is sporting. Again fish in the barrel is a term we all understand.

1. blinds are generally set on the ground and are more like a tent not a tree fort

2. tree stands are mostly used for bow hunters due to range restrictions.

3. for a blind or tree stand to be effective you have to first identify the movement patterns of the game you are hunting and place them accordingly.

4. generally you can't bait animals with food (legally), but you can use scent attractants such as doe piss and such


i think you have a big misconception of what the average hunter does. im not sure if it's because you've only seen shit on televison where there are rich assholes that pay around 10-15k per deer on a fenced in property.


Can we please get back on topic and talk more about these two lucky kids that are being adopted by someone.



oh...and stop being such a fucking pussy.

Thanks for the input. The detail regarding blinds is interesting but does not provide a strong case for them IMO. And I probably shouldn't have mentioned it as it is slightly off topic..
If I'm incorrect, that there is an issue among the hunting community with regard to 'evolved" hunting techniques, including advanced weapons, then say so.

[sonatine]

there needs to be a course correction in this thread narrative where the concept of 'harvesting' comes into play. if your goal is to harvest meat from the wild, i dont really see where being 'sporting' is part of the convo and i dont really see where its appropriate to regard it as some recreational activity.

people who kill for the rush, for trophies, or for some other entertainment value are mentally ill and should be openly regarded as such.

[tommyt]

1. blinds are generally set on the ground and are more like a tent not a tree fort

2. tree stands are mostly used for bow hunters due to range restrictions.

3. for a blind or tree stand to be effective you have to first identify the movement patterns of the game you are hunting and place them accordingly.

4. generally you can't bait animals with food (legally), but you can use scent attractants such as doe piss and such


i think you have a big misconception of what the average hunter does. im not sure if it's because you've only seen shit on televison where there are rich assholes that pay around 10-15k per deer on a fenced in property.


Can we please get back on topic and talk more about these two lucky kids that are being adopted by someone.



oh...and stop being such a fucking pussy.

Thanks for the input. The detail regarding blinds is interesting but does not provide a strong case for them IMO. And I probably shouldn't have mentioned it as it is slightly off topic..
If I'm incorrect, that there is an issue among the hunting community with regard to 'evolved" hunting techniques, including advanced weapons, then say so.

Well, two of the main reasons people use blinds is they are either lazy or physically incapable of using climbing tree stands or walking long distances on rough terrain. There are a lot of hunters that are just at a certain age where traditional hunting techniques are out of the question. My father for example used to be able to hunt like I do when i first started, but now he's almost 60 years old and cant walk up and down mountain sides without it being a serious health risk (falling and hurting himself, or having a heart attack). So, should he just give up what he had loved to do since he was a child? I think the answer to that is NO when there are products available to let him still enjoy his favorite pastime. He still calls in animals with deer grunt and rattlings. It is a pain in the ass though when we both harvest an animal and I end up dragging them both out of the woods and gutting them both.

As far as advanced weapons I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to scopes or rifles that are not the black power musket style? Believe it or not there are some pretty bad ass muzzle loader rifles that are just are accurate to a certain distance as center fire cartridge rifles. In my state there are specific season set for both.

Also, to the post sonatine made, I agree with you. It makes me sick that some people just kill animals for their heads. Every animal I have ever killed I have consumed and or given some to friends for them to enjoy as well. There is even programs so you can donate deer meat to families in need and homeless shelters to help provide food for them.

[tommyt]

Well, I kind of lied. The only animal I kill for absolutely no reason other than to exterminate them is coyotes. There is an open season no limit on them and I know a guy that will give me $20 a pop for them. I think he skins them and sells the pelts to people.

[limitles]

Thanks for the input. The detail regarding blinds is interesting but does not provide a strong case for them IMO. And I probably shouldn't have mentioned it as it is slightly off topic..
If I'm incorrect, that there is an issue among the hunting community with regard to 'evolved" hunting techniques, including advanced weapons, then say so.

Well, two of the main reasons people use blinds is they are either lazy or physically incapable of using climbing tree stands or walking long distances on rough terrain. There are a lot of hunters that are just at a certain age where traditional hunting techniques are out of the question. My father for example used to be able to hunt like I do when i first started, but now he's almost 60 years old and cant walk up and down mountain sides without it being a serious health risk (falling and hurting himself, or having a heart attack). So, should he just give up what he had loved to do since he was a child? I think the answer to that is NO when there are products available to let him still enjoy his favorite pastime. He still calls in animals with deer grunt and rattlings. It is a pain in the ass though when we both harvest an animal and I end up dragging them both out of the woods and gutting them both.

As far as advanced weapons I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to scopes or rifles that are not the black power musket style? Believe it or not there are some pretty bad ass muzzle loader rifles that are just are accurate to a certain distance as center fire cartridge rifles. In my state there are specific season set for both.

Also, to the post sonatine made, I agree with you. It makes me sick that some people just kill animals for their heads. Every animal I have ever killed I have consumed and or given some to friends for them to enjoy as well. There is even programs so you can donate deer meat to families in need and homeless shelters to help provide food for them.

"As far as advanced weapons I'm not sure what you mean"

Try reading the previous posts ya mentalist!

[MumblesBadly]

Bump with a meme that might be appropriate for some members.