Lets poke the bear...

[flowerjohn]

Well putGW11. I used to be more willing to speak up about hunting in the big city. I got into it one day with a neighbour who termed hunting " anti spiritual " . Now im not the brightest guy in the world but i did find the comment both ignorant and insulting. I asked him how spiritual an experience it was to line up at no frills for mass produced and mass slaughtered chicken. Since those days i have really stopped sharing my views with people who are not like minded. I just dont see how you are going to enlighten anyone and many times you just end up defending yourself from unreasonable and ignorant points of view. Just my two cents. Cheers.

[Brampton Mike]

I'm a HUNTER always have been always will be! Harvest is a word to pacify the antis and I will NOT bow down to those IDIOTS...I do not harvest and animal i KILL an animal and what i KILL i eat! If the antis don't like it tough !

[sakimano]

I think the reality is that most people who are anti-hunting think hunters go out, find an animal and kill it for the thrill, not the meat. Then they cut the head off for a trophy leaving the carcass behind, and boast to their mates about the huge buck they 'took'. Or a wolf or a bear or a lion. Take your pick.

People who are against that type of behaviour aren't 'anti-hunting'...they are anti random killing. I'm in that camp. I don't get the point of just killing stuff. It seems borderline psychotic to me to fly to Africa just to kill an Apex predator or an elephant that nobody is going to eat. Apex predators, endangered or at risk species...seeing people kill them just to kill them is very hard to rationalize.

With that being said I have loads of friends who hunt for food, and I support that 100%. What's the difference between that and letting a farmer sell his cow to a meat processor who kills it , sells it to longo's and then someone buys it to make a steak? No difference. Conceptually. Reality is that it's a better life for the wild hunted animal.

Unfortunately most people think all hunters are in group 1. The 'I want to kill stuff because I like killing stuff' camp.

P. S. For the OP a +38 handicap would actually be insanely good. Impossible actually. Any '+' handicap is better than scratch

[welsh]

Unfortunately most people think all hunters are in group 1. The 'I want to kill stuff because I like killing stuff' camp.

In fact, a significant majority supports legal & regulated hunting (~80%).

[Mr.Boiler]

...P. S. For the OP a +38 handicap would actually be insanely good. Impossible actually. Any '+' handicap is better than scratch

And thus my point of not being a golfer. [emoji16]

[sakimano]

Makes sense. Majority of people are sensible.

I think the Gray area is where we define legal. Killing a timber wolf in Alberta is legal with a wolf tag. I'd love to see that end though because I think it makes no sense.

If enough people feel that way the definition of legal will evolve. Same goes for killing a lion etc. Should that be legal? I don't think so. Of course then we have to run down a slippery slope...who is the arbiter of what is right and wrong? Is a lion more valuable than a coyote?

Tough. I think apex predators and endangered species though...what's the point?

[GoldenLakePete]

When you tire of beating this topic to death..maybe we should start another one;

"Do you call it a Gun or a Rifle ? ....pick a side"

Definitely "Rifle"!

[Snowwalker]

When you tire of beating this topic to death..maybe we should start another one;

"Do you call it a Gun or a Rifle ? ....pick a side"

Depends what Said "IT" is....I can have a 12 gauge shot GUN and .72 CALIBRE RIFLE just by changing the tube on top. Same or different?

[Snowwalker]

Why are you taking about hunting to a non hunter. ? More navel gazing ?

Maybe she has a nice navel.....

[flowerjohn]

Maybe she has a nice navel.....

Yeah baby!! Lol!!!