🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

2 total messages Started by Steve Speer Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:43
fox questions
#1367
Author: Steve Speer
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:43
88 lines
4800 bytes
> / hpfcso:rec.hunting / jessie@iastate.edu (Brent Danielson) 

> >Are foxes primarily nocturnal? I've had one poking around my yard for
> >about a week (eating grapes). Yesterday it came into the yard when three
> >of my Irish Wolfhounds were out - which seemed pretty foolish. Rather
> >than risking the dogs getting bit by this small, sneaky creature (I
> >suspect it killed a number of my chickens earlier this year) - I shot
> >it. 
> 
> WHY?? WHY??  I don't know where you're at, 
> ... Shooting it was probably illegal as foxes are protected as furbearers
> in most states and you need licenses and such to kill them.
> 
> Wildlife are the property of the public.  They aren't yours to shoot
> as you damn well please.
  ... blah blah blah ... blah blah blah ...
> 
> Maybe a fox, maybe even THIS fox, got your chickens.  Who knows?  
> ... (let someone else shoot it) blah blah blah
> (rabies clinic) blah blah blah
> There is simply no excuse ... rant ... rave ...
> 
> Needless to say, I really resent this type of attitude.  I'm not a big
> believer in following every law every written, but they make a pretty
> good guideline I think.  If you want to hunt a fox, then by all means
> hunt one as allowed.  If you want to shoot one out the kitchen window
> because its sneaky, might - just might - have killed your precious
> chickens, or because it is not afraid of of your dog, then I'm for
> taking your guns away, as that sort of attitude endangers the rights
> of the rest of us to hunt, see wildlife, or whatever.  It is people
> that do this that give the animal rights folks everything they want in
> the way of examples.

And this sort of attitude really ticks me off.  You don't know where
this guy is at.  You don't know the species.  You don't know what
efforts he's made to protect his property from this predator.  You
don't know the legal status of what was done.  You have simply assumed
the worst in each of these questions and flamed away.  What you have
said and demonstrated as a thought process here reminds me very much
of the emotional non-thinking drivel that spews forth from the animal
rights crowd at every opportunity.  FYI, I hunt foxes on a regular
basis in Wyoming.  No license is needed (furbearer, small game or
otherwise) because they, along with such animals as jack rabbits,
coyotes and skunks, are classified as predatory and can be shot on
site, day or night, any weapon, with the aid of artificial light or
even electronic calls.  Sounds like a very different animal than the
one you are crying over.  Maybe your perspective is the one that needs
to be broadened.

> >I didn't skin it, but did save the tail. 
> 
> Wonderful..  Is that what you really wanted all along?

I usually take the whole pelt, but it depends on the time of year.
 
> >thanks...rich 
> 
> I'll quit now.  I'm sorry if I offended anyone because I sound rather
> harsh.  I tried to temper my comments at least a little, but I want to
> make very clear that I am very very very much against this kind of
> thing.

I'm not even sure what "kind of thing" it is you are so upset about.
So somebody shot something you wouldn't under circumstances you
wouldn't and it justifies in your mind taking away his guns and
publicly flaming him (regardless of the laws that may or may not
apply).  Sounds EXACTLY like the logic the anti's are using to me.

> I do not apologize if my perspective offends anyone.  

I'm far more amazed than I am offended.  For the record, this sort of
attack offered very little rational thought and a great deal of
emotional attack.  Aside from the fact that the moderator has far more
important miracles on his mind, I'm amazed this post got through.

If you really do think you have some things you would like this
person, or anyone else, to consider concerning shooting animals, I
suggest you ask yourself how you think the fellow you directed this
barrage at has reacted.  I seriously doubt his behavior will be
altered other than he might be more wary of seeking information
concerning his actions in the future.  Is that what you wanted to
accomplish?  I doubt it.  Perhaps your animal studies should have
included a psych. class along the way - or maybe your mother should
have spanked you when you were a rude little boy.
	 
> Brent J. Danielson

	-Steven Speer
Re: fox questions
#1374
Author: Chris Barnes
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:16
64 lines
3683 bytes
In article <1993Jan11.074310.20296@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
   ses@hpfcls.fc.hp.com (Steve Speer) writes:
 
>   Brent Danielson writes:
>> Needless to say, I really resent this type of attitude.
 
   ....rest of Brent's article deleted....
 
 
>
>And this sort of attitude really ticks me off.  You don't know where
>this guy is at.  You don't know the species.  You don't know what
>efforts he's made to protect his property from this predator.  You
>don't know the legal status of what was done.
 
Wrong!  We do know something about the original poster's motives.
We know that he lost some chickens, *possibly* to a fox.  We know that
he knows very little about foxes.  We know that he was more than willing
to kill any animal he suspected *might* have killed his chickens with-
out knowing the first thing about what he was killing.  To me, this
sounds like "Bubba-type killing" (ie.  Bubba doesn't care, he just
shoots).  And this is WRONG.  It's the same type of attitude that
inspires people to kill every snake or spider they see around their
house.  It inspires people to shoot eagles because they *might* kill
their sheep.  It inspires people to kill aligators because they can't
duck hunt in the swamp.  etc.  It inspires ignorance.  And because
of that, I agree with Brent.
 
 
>You have simply assumed
>the worst in each of these questions and flamed away.  What you have
>said and demonstrated as a thought process here reminds me very much
>of the emotional non-thinking drivel that spews forth from the animal
>rights crowd at every opportunity.  FYI, I hunt foxes on a regular
>basis in Wyoming.  No license is needed (furbearer, small game or
>otherwise) because they, along with such animals as jack rabbits,
>coyotes and skunks, are classified as predatory and can be shot on
>site, day or night, any weapon, with the aid of artificial light or
>even electronic calls.  Sounds like a very different animal than the
>one you are crying over.  Maybe your perspective is the one that needs
>to be broadened.
 
So just because they have arcahic laws in Wyoming, does that mean
they are right?  I think not.  Tell me, does the fact that it's a
preditor mean that it should be eliminated?  That sure sounds like
what you are arguing for.
 
 
>I'm far more amazed than I am offended.  For the record, this sort of
>attack offered very little rational thought and a great deal of
>emotional attack.  Aside from the fact that the moderator has far more
>important miracles on his mind, I'm amazed this post got through.
 
I believe this type of post BELONGS here, for the simple reason that
it brings up discussion of hunting ethics (which if you read the
charter - IS a valid topic for discussion in this group).  Just because
it's moderated, doesn't mean that articles and opinions you dislike
should have been eliminated.
 
      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |         Retriever Club.
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
(409) 845-4437 (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads