Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Strap *this* to the back of your cat.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                               

Fair Game Hunting

Rise up my brother elk against your oppressors
  (+5, -7)
(+5, -7)
  [vote for,
against]

I've watched enough silly hunting shows to learn that there is nothing really endearing about blasting a deers guts out with a hunting rifle. I don't mind "living off the land" and hunting for only what you eat, but blasting a deer for the size of its antlers isn't my idea of fun.

My idea of fun would be arm Deer, Elk, or even Raccoons with weapons. It wouldn't be that hard to mount firmpoints on a deers antlers to mount twin-linked SMG's or hardpoint a light mortar onto a mooses back. Sure it would be really hard to teach Moose to use Heavy support weapons, but training a deer to fire off duel SMG's should be easy enough. The only problem would be a method of firing. Ideally it would have to be something easy like a harness bit it could chew on to fire. Unfortunately that could cause problems if the deer went to chew on some yummy moss.

Heck even foxes would benefit. Being able to drop small claymore mines would be ideal for stopping that pack of dogs cold.

Raccoons could be taught to work as sappers and plant satchel demo charges.

Either way it would be WAY more interesting to watch those hunting channels when the hunters get wiped out by burst fire. Hunting would be so much more challenging.

ie. [cue - Billy Bob's huntin' Channel] (Whispering in the woods) "Alright, Bobby Joe's off to the left, and we have just sighted a beauuuty. A 4 year old male off in the brush. Bobby Joe's going to flush'em out so I can get a better look and shot at 'em" "BILLY! He's ARMED!" (Camera man ducks as the Elk charges, spraying 9mm burst fire at their makeshift blind) "Medic! Bobby Joe's down!" Billy yells as he hits the grass... [cut - Commercial]

Rolo, Oct 15 2002

Deer Avenger 4 http://www.deeravenger3.com/da4.php
My elf has played this a few times - fun [thumbwax, Oct 16 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]

Killer Kangaroos http://www.intellig...elko.shtml/database
Baked - sort of. [egbert, Oct 16 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]

The Raccoons are coming ....... http://news.bbc.co..../europe/2336797.stm
Strange but true ... [8th of 7, Oct 21 2002, last modified Oct 17 2004]

Well http://www.cnn.com/...hootings/index.html
some nutcase seems to think hunting people is the way to go. If someone's shooting from cover with a high powered hunting rifle and scope, there ain't too much "fair" in it, whatever species you are. [Nick@Nite, Oct 17 2004]

[link]






       So you'd rather kill human beings (lets say, your best firend), than a random animal that you know nothing about?
[ sctld ], Oct 15 2002
  

       Yes actually. People hunt and shoot at each other all the time. Knowing "nothing" about an animal doesn't give an excuse to blast it for fun.   

       If the deer actually "liked" the *sport* of hunting and being shot at, then it would be all fair.   

       The deer would be doing the shooting back anyhow. I'm sure the deer could legally prove it was "self-defence under duress."   

       Consider it a level playing field.
Rolo, Oct 15 2002
  

       Do you knwo why people hunt? Three reasons (and two usually apply to most situations): Sport, Food, and Control.   

       Why shouldn't farmers enjoy themselves when they are controlling foxes that go around eating their chickens, and destroying their crops? Farmers crops are farmers money. If you give the fox a gun/explosive you are basically condoneing theft.   

       The reason hunters have keep the antlers for points is because you can't eat the antlers. You can try boiling them, frying them, roasting them, but they're antlers. You can't use them.
[ sctld ], Oct 15 2002
  

       sctld: The original idea was the improvement of hunting shows, and fox hunts.   

       Keep in mind there is a difference between survival instincts of a fox and the human terms of property theft. Furthermore you mentioned "enjoy" in an attempt to control. Hunting for control purposes shouldn't be anywhere near "enjoyable". That just leads to excess. Which is why there are animals that are endangered.
Rolo, Oct 15 2002
  

       Croissant for //Sure it would be really hard to teach Moose to use Heavy support weapons...//
calum, Oct 15 2002
  

       DUCK! season
half, Oct 15 2002
  

       I beg to differ. You lay a line of traps, every animal that passes that line will die a slow and agonising death. You have a hunt once a month, it may or may not be successful, you may or may not kill a fox. But inthe undereds of years of fox hunting, the species is yet to become anywhere near extinct. Animals that are extinct are extinct because (as you say) they are hunted to the eccess for no reason but sport. Fox hunting has two reasons (sport and control), and frankly i don't see anything wrong with getting some enjoyment, exercise, andfun out of soemthing whose alternative is a slow and painful death by starvation and a metal razor claw grabbing at your ankle.
[ sctld ], Oct 15 2002
  

       [ sctld ], are you counting city foxes as part of the whole set "foxes" or are you refering only to the "rural foxes" subset of "foxes" when making your claims about fox population?
calum, Oct 15 2002
  

       calum: Though technically, all a moose would have to do is carry the mortar. If it had a ground crew of say three or four raccoons then it could have a steady supply of mortar rounds, with a highly adaptive and trained crew.   

       As an additional note. Deer or elk probably would not be able to mount any heavy like a .30 cal.   

       Half: Ducks would be another matter though. It would be fairly impossible to fend off against a 12 gauge scatter shot. I have yet to find a solution to make duck hunting "fair".
Rolo, Oct 15 2002
  

       sctld, you also forgot dispersion as one of the primary (forgotten) reasons for (rural) foxhunting.
yamahito, Oct 15 2002
  

       //ground crew of say three or four raccoons//   

       I love that line.
krelnik, Oct 15 2002
  

       I must say I find the timing of this a bit disturbing. The link that [nick@] posted is very real to most of us here, and very frightning. I know it usually does nothing but start gun control battles, but I for one would like less death and killing talk for a spell, and less mention of arming anyone and/or anything.
blissmiss, Oct 15 2002
  

       heyuck sctld is roit, oive unted all ve darn foxes from moi farrm, it is foin to see deir eads blown orff, and de dogs tear em to liddle peices. heyuck. har har stoopid darn foxes.
Gulherme, Oct 16 2002
  

       Oh my !   

       First, Bambi has to kick Ronno's ass
thumbwax, Oct 16 2002
  

       blissmiss: I agree with you.
rabbit, Oct 16 2002
  

       people who think that killing animals for sport is fun/ funny really make me quite sad for the whole human race, its well documented that kids that harm small animals are the ones that grow up to do commit murders rapes ect. people need to have some respect for life.
Gulherme, Oct 16 2002
  

       Gulherme, I see, and to a certain extent agree with, the point you are trying to make, but I think it's important to understand that people who hunt animals in order to protect their own livestock are _not always_ the same people who //harm small animals //. When I was younger I helped my grandfather trap and kill mink and foxes on his croft, as they were killing his hens. In the same way, he would shoot hoodie crows, which used to peck the eyes out of his newborn lambs and kill them. I agree that it may be difficult to defend killing animals "for fun", but just because I killed mink as a child does not mean that I now have the desire to murder or rape another human being, or even to kill another animal.
salachair, Oct 16 2002
  

       [half]: RABBIT season!
Jinbish, Oct 16 2002
  

       "The right of the citizenry to arm bears ... shall not be infringed ?"   

       [salachair} ditto. From a young age, I spent many hours on the neighbouring farm - with the farmer's blessing - hunting rabbits, pigeons, rats and other vermin, for the pot (where practical - not much meat on squirrels) but essentially for control purposes, first with air guns, then graduating to firearms when I was old enough to hold a certificate. This was a perfectly normal activity in a rural area and was not only tolerated, but condoned and actively encouraged.   

       Children who "harm" i.e. torture pets are indeed displaying markers for disturbed/sociaopathic behavior and are doubtless in need of proper diagnosis and help. This is radically different from the behavour of children who may have very positive relationships with domestic and domesticated animals, but still hunt and kill wild vermin.   

       I have never killed animals purely for sport and would not do so now. I've shot reared game birds, but I've taken them home and eaten them. As long as they are killed cleanly, my opinion is that this is actually less hypocritical in some ways that eating a battery-reared chicken; a reared bird has at least had the freedom to live in a natural environment; to them, humans are just another predator.   

       To address the idea - Raccoons probably have both the dexterity and intellect necessary to load and fire an SMG. But the logical extension of this is that they will promptly migrate into urban environments and start delaing crack and running hookers. Do you want our city street corners blighted by pot-smoking, armed raccoons ? How would you feel if a family of raccoons moved into the apartment next door and kept you awake night playing rap music ? What about gangs of armed ducklings raoming our city parks, mugging old ladies for their bread ? Come on, [Rolo], show a bit of social responsibility. What we want is humans to behave like the cutesy animals in Disney films, not the other way round.
8th of 7, Oct 16 2002
  

       I've also only ever hunted for food. But, with my current understanding, I would support the hunt fully. People on the hunt are normally rural folk with a far better understanding of animal life and death than most of the people who are "anti." If you were to suggest to any of them that they were animal abusers, I would imagine that they would be most hurt and upset; most such people I know are very fond of the many pets and working animals they own, and many take on abandoned animals from nearby shelters.   

       The main reason I support (fox) hunting in particular is, in fact, animal cruelty. My brother is an expert marksman: he was, until recently, working for DEFRA (Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs in UK) and was registered as such. He has shot many foxes in areas where there is no hunt, as pest control for the farmers. And, as good a shot as he is (and he's bloody good), despite there being many more clean kills, there have been many messy kills. Being taken down by a dog (which is about three times the size of the fox) breaks the animal's neck immediately. It suffers less than animals being killed in many slaughterhouses. If this form of hunting was banned, then foxes would be killed by bad shots, farmers with shotguns, and wire traps. All of these *are* cruel, often leaving the fox living, with one leg shot or gnawed off, bleeding to death.   

       My point: I respect your opinions, but please garner and understand all the facts before basing foolish accusations upon them.
yamahito, Oct 16 2002
  

       [yama] My own (mild) objection to fox hunting is that it isn't very efficient. Four dozen dogs, thirty horsepersons and their attendant steeds, all those horse boxes, etc. and they kill about two foxes per outing. On a good day.   

       I have from time to time shot foxes for local farmers, using a .303 with a night sight. It's the only method I know that's reasonably quick. Shotguns are NOT suitable for the humane dispatch of foxes. Even with a 2 3/4 shell loaded with heavy shot, the maximum effective range (for a clean kill) is about 20 metres. Try getting within about 20 metres of a wild fox. The method is then reduced to firing at longer ranges to cripple the animal, then chase it, reloading and firing again as you close the range. I've had to do this once and I would never, ever do it again - it took three shots to kill the animal (one from my companion, and the two follow-ups from me). However, since the ownership of rifles is quite restricted in the UK, as is 12g solid shot (Brenneke slugs and the like), the only weapon available to farmers is the conventional shotgun, and they do what they can with what they've got.   

       Law or no law, farmers WILL kill foxes any way they can. So, more poisoned carcases, killing birds of prey by accident ?   

       Or you can gas them. Roll up, roll up, all you anti-hunt protestors, get you tins of Zyklon-B here !   

       Part of the problem is that (in the UK) we're becoming a VERY segregated Urban/Rural society. But that's a different issue.
8th of 7, Oct 16 2002
  

       Is it, though? A bigger issue, certainly, but at the root of this one.   

       In reply to your (very reasonable) objection: the number of foxes killed is only one indicator of success: as I mentioned earlier, another good reason for hunting is the dispersion of the animals, often meaning that less need to be killed at all. Besides, I'd rather keep an inefficient solution than encourage a cruel (not to mention equally inefficient, for the most part) one.   

       Also, I'd personally be willing to acknowledge the enjoyment of the participants as grounds for "success," even though it's a past-time that doesn't particularly appeal to me personally..
yamahito, Oct 16 2002
  

       I'm not at all against the purpose of hunting, more the mindset of the people who participate in it, if your hunting for food great, if your keeping pests in controll great, if your going for a day out with the kids to blast some innocent creatures then its pretty f#@!ed, farmers here shoot our endangered wedge tailed eagles because... well I dont even know why they shoot them, because they are morons I guess. Our other pests are possums, the farmers shoot them because they get into their crops, the reason there is so many possums is because the thylacine was hunted to extinction wich was their main predetor. In a balenced ecosystem there is no pests, its only when its tampered with that we get one dominant speices. Once the wedge tail is gone then there will be an explosion in the rabbit population and then the farmers will be whinging about that, they are always whinging about somthing.
Gulherme, Oct 17 2002
  

       // only when its tampered with that we get one dominant speices // = Homo Sapiens. And there, your Honour, the case for the Prosecution rests.   

       // farmers .... are always whinging about somthing //   

       That's pretty much the definition of a farmer in these parts.
8th of 7, Oct 17 2002
  

       Well I guess its high time I commented on things...   

       Bravo to all for the comments. I'm quite amused at all the bickering, moral flag waving, and off topic conversation on fox control and whining farmers. Its just all a prime example of how a simple half baked idea can get out of hand.   

       Regardless, kudos to all of you for your comments and opinions.   

       However my idea still stands. A hunting show that would equalize the hunt by arming the prey would be really quite amusing, if not more fair. The hunter would be the hunted.   

       I still haven't been given any ideas as to how to have a firing device for the elk. Or for that matter, if Moose could possibly mount heavy rockets...
Rolo, Oct 17 2002
  

       [Rolo], interactive TV, viewers firing the weapons for the animals?   

       [Jinbish], no I mean "DUCK! That wabbit has a gun!"
half, Oct 17 2002
  

       I think Rolo has a brilliant idea here... although I'm not sure if you could really train animals to use weapons... you never know, though.   

       Really, though, Rolo, I thnk you're being a bit foolish to say that it'd be ok to hunt people but not to hunt animals. I mean, I don't think people would like being hunted any more than animals would.   

       And the only thing that I can see wrong with hunting is the fact that the animal has very little chance, given modern technology. Arm the animals, the problem's gone, and, heck, then I'd hunt! That might at least be fun.   

       Now as for another sub-idea to Rolo's, based on what's shown up here so far...   

       Rolo says, "If the deer actually "liked" the *sport* of hunting and being shot at, then it would be all fair." That being so, it stands to reason that if *people* actually liked being shot at, it'd be fair to have people hunt people (in a controlled scenario, of course). So I propose that we on this thread start a company where people pay us, say $100,000 to go to an island in the Pacific for one week and hunt other like-minded people. Weapons are free with the price of admission, and you have our extra-large and extra-deadly collection of old, new, large, small, technological, medieval, and even alien (when we meet aliens, that is) weapons to choose from. Arm yourself any way you like, bring any equipment you like, and have fun! Survivors are automatically entered in our yearly drawing with a grand prize of $10,000,000! Second prize is a fully equipped nuclear submarine, courtesy of the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party.   

       So, what do you think? :)
jodakim, Oct 17 2002
  

       This is really quite stupid.   

       a) The concept of 'fair' doesn't apply to hunting.
b) If you insist that it should, the solution is to take away the hunter's gun. That makes all parties even.
c) Halk-baked in much better form in B. Kliban's "Two Guys Fooling Around with the Moon". Scene - Hunter standing with game warden, looking at dead rabbit on the ground. Beside the rabbit, a large pistol. Hunter: "It was either him or me."
waugsqueke, Oct 17 2002
  

       I don't know if they still do it, but down in the Everglades they used to chase down deer that had their trails on the high dry grass that snakes throughout the 'Glades, like the dikes in rice paddies, though barely perceptible to humans. Using airboats, the driver would tail the deer, pull as close as possible, and then a hunter would jump off the front of the boat, grab the deer by the neck and wrestle it down, similar to steer wrestling. Using a knife, they would then dispatch the deer.
ty6, Oct 18 2002
  

       It is a rarely mentioned footnote to each of the last two annecdotes that in both cases the deer were deaf.
jurist, Oct 18 2002
  

       I think that spearfishing for sharks would right sporting. Stalking is one of the primary motives for hunting, a lot of people think the pulling of the trigger is the big kick, but it's being 'in the hunt' that puts people in the element. American Indians used to have special moccasins for silent stalking, it was a prized skill to be able walk to through the forrest soundlessly, one that took years to acquire. I love these guys who bag their buck in the first hour of the season, park the car, couple hundred yards in they blast something, and toss it on the roof of their car.
ty6, Oct 18 2002
  

       Actually, deer are very docile - unless provoked(!) <Cue>When Animals Attack</Cue>Very easy to walk up to one
thumbwax, Oct 18 2002
  

       Link: Urban Raccoons. Obviusly, they've read this idea.   

       Are you pleased with what you've started, Rolo ? Are you proud ? Are you happy, now ? Forgive them, O Lord .........   

       // crept up carefully on a buck Fallow deer and killed it... with a knife //   

       Lucky for the deer that he was SAS. The Royal Marines aren't quite that civilised, and besides the use of tools constitutes something of an intellectual challenge; more likely to have torn its throat out with their teeth.   

       NB: One of my best friends is a Royal Marine. I certainly wouldn't want him as an enemy .....
8th of 7, Oct 21 2002
  

       I certainly hope, for your own sake, that you are a vegan, UnaBubba. We wait for an answer.   

       I guess since your description didn't fit me, I am not a 'fuckwit', as you so elegantly put it.   

       And I apologize for misspelling your screen name in 'bullet control'.
zahc, Apr 10 2003
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle