Drone-Assisted Hunting To Be Illegal In Alaska

garymortimer (1882326) writes in with news about rules for hunting with drones in Alaska. "At its March 14-18 meeting in Anchorage, the seven-member Alaska Board of Game approved a measure to prohibit hunters from spotting game with such aircraft, often called drones. While the practice does not appear to be widespread, Alaska Wildlife Troopers said the technology is becoming cheaper, easier to use and incorporates better video relay to the user on the ground. A drone system allowing a hunter or helper to locate game now costs only about $1,000, said Capt. Bernard Chastain, operations commander for the Wildlife Troopers. Because of advances in the technology and cheaper prices, it is inevitable hunters seeking an advantage would, for example, try to use a drone to fly above trees or other obstacles and look for a moose or bear to shoot, he said."

Comments

Bans Drones not Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they trying to protect?

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[bored_engineer]

Probably less affluent hunters. Using aircraft (or FPV drones) would allow wealthy hunters to potentially lock out subsistence hunters who have little to no income, or perhaps for whom this is an important cultural activity, rather than a fun trip for the weekend.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the fees and licenses and cost of ammo, it is infeasible to hunt for subsistence in this era.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[DarkOx]

its also because hunting is supposed to be a 'sport'. Hunters constantly are getting access to better and better technology, the Moose, and deer not so much. They playing field is already plenty slanted.

Over hunting can ruin things for everyone, even non hunters. There is a legitimate social interest in NOT allowing hunters to become more effective.

In some ways hunting on public game lands is like an MMO. Some people might like to use cheat codes, to avoid the grind of tracking and stalking or sitting and waiting, potentially spending all weekend and coming home without a prize, etc. If you let some people do this though it would ruin the 'game' for everyone.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[spire3661]

Their effectiveness is mostly irrelevant when we impose limits on how much they can kill. Drones dont change that.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[invictusvoyd]

Might as well arm the drone with a sidewinder and forget about a chores of hunting . Oh also infrared signatures .. We don't want any other to get hurt now do we?

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

So how did the natives do it? Oh yeah, bow and arrow, traps, running down the animal. You know, things that require effort.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[pr0fessor]

Hunters that don't obey the bag limit could do some serious damage, but if they are not obeying the bag limit what's to say they obey any other laws, however spotting a drone would be a red flag if it's outlawed.

My father taught me how to hunt, fish, dress/clean, cook, and light a fire without matches. All of these are valuable skills, hopefully I'm never in a situation that requires me to rely on them.

A magnifying glass is good addition to an emergency kit.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[LetterRip]

This is probably to benefit hunting guides. With a drone, the need for a guide is greatly reduced, and there are lots of Alaskans who make money off of being hunting guides and related services.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[SydShamino]

They do if the same guide company can host more hunters per day, each with his or her own bag limit. With the odds of finding more game greatly increased, they can bring out more hunters and still have most leave satisfied with a chance to shoot their gun a few times at something living.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[nospam007]

"With all the fees and licenses and cost of ammo, it is infeasible to hunt for subsistence in this era."

Those who need to hunt for subsistence don't bother with fees and licenses.
As for the ammo, they are re-loaders.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[SydShamino]

Or, if limits are fixed per species rather than per hunter, then the drones make it easier to run through the numbers faster and ensure everyone who gets a permit gets a kill. They'd have to reduce the limits to have the same effective kill rate, and that would hurt tourism - equally bad when the goal is to preserve the status quo.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[davester666]

Well, obviously the moose and deer have to evolve faster.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[chihowa]

The take limits are based on past seasons and surveys. Not every hunt is successful and not every hunter takes 100% of their limit (especially not all in the first couple of trips). If drone-assisted hunting eliminates (or decreases) unsuccessful hunts or allows all hunters to take their limit on the first trip, then the limits may not be adequately well defined and there could be damage to the game populations.

Hunting access in general is operated from a "default deny" perspective with regard to time of access and technology allowed. It's perfectly normal to expect drone assistance to be disallowed before it is studied and specifically allowed. (If it ever is... "perfectly normal" doesn't mean "not debatable".)

Re: Bans Drones not Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably just trying to make it "fair" to hunt. You can catch all the fish in a lake with some TNT, I'm guessing this is along the same lines. Hunters would have 10x as many kills.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[AK Marc]

If everyone who went got their limit, there'd be nothing left. The limit is to prevent people from taking enough do that a few could cause a problem.

Bear baiting is illegal, and hunting on the same day as you flew was already illegal, it looks like they are just expanding "flew" to include viewing areal surveillance. It's not a big change in law, just generalizing and existing law slightly.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Algae_94]

Stick to things you know about. It takes a few dollars worth of ammo to take down an animal. Subsistence hunters in Alaska pay no fees, and the animals they hunt are large (think moose, caribou, bear, etc.) and are well worth a few bucks in ammo.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Oligonicella]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Educate yourself.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hunt drones, you insensitive clods, I know what they are trying to protect.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[CanHasDIY]

It takes a few dollars worth of ammo to take down an animal.

What on earth are you hunting for/with?

I mean, OK, if we're talkin' bears, I can see having to pump a few rounds into the SOB to take it down.

But if you're using "a few dollars worth of ammo" to take out, say, a deer or other mid size to small game... you're doin' it wrong. That, or ammo is insanely expensive where you hail from.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

its also because hunting is supposed to be a 'sport'.

And that is exactly the point. Using high-tech "aids" is very unsportsmanlike as well as giving an unfair advantage to the wealthy. Using drones to locate prey isn't much different than using GPS controlled dogs for example (which has been outlawed in at least two states). If you are going to use dogs to hunt, then slog through the forest with them, don't sit back at the pickup truck swilling beer with your hunting buddies waiting for the GPS to go off (I believe it was several incidents of intoxicated hunters using GPS dogs that turned the vote in Oregon).

And what kind of REAL sportsman would walk up to a caged tiger or bear and shoot it point-blank like they do in Texas. That is NOT hunting.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[meglon]

You haven't been keeping up on the current insanity/stupidity driven ammo market. Common game rounds are running $1+ per, if you can find it... and that here in the lower US. As for the "that, or ammo is insanely expensive where you hail from," we're talking about Alaska.... no need to guess.

http://www.avcp.org/apps/Agend...

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Darinbob]

Hunting is a sport, since it is no longer necessary for survival. And to be a sport there must be rules otherwise it is nothing more than bloodlust. So banning drones is similar to bnning steroids in baseball. Man versus animal, preferrably with a lower tech weapon rather than full automatic rifles, RPGs, bunker busters, or orbital lasers.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Darinbob]

There are limits but there are also assumptions that many hunters will not reach the limit.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[CanHasDIY]

You haven't been keeping up on the current insanity/stupidity driven ammo market.

Haven't I? My in-laws run a chain of gun shops.

Which probably has something to do with the fact that I know about most ammo buying rushes before they happen, and can get in on the ground floor, before prices jump too much :)

FWIW, though, .270 Winchester isn't a popular "buy-out" round, like .223 or 9mm. Even when the other shelves are pretty much bare, I can still find plenty of deer ammo on the cheap.

As for the "that, or ammo is insanely expensive where you hail from," we're talking about Alaska.... no need to guess.

Fair enough. Hey, what are the regulations on interstate sale of privately owned ammo? I could make a mint...

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Agent0013]

If you always killed something, it wouldn't be called hunting, it would be called killing.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Algae_94]

I was going with a worst case scenario where a hunter takes more than one shot to get a large animal with an estimate of about $1 a round. My point being that it is very much cost effective to hunt wild game for meat.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[meglon]

Which is nice, but we're also not talking about the knee-jerk, hoard everything mental cases that bought into "the big bad government is coming" bullshit hysteria of the past 5 years.... we're talking hunters. I don't think you hunt moose with a 223, and while i can't find rules about pistols off hand, a 9mm would not be advisable... which is a big understatement; minimum effective would be a 44+. F&G has a page of info/suggestions (for rifle):

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/ind...

For a subsistence hunter, you want a weapon that will bring in food... not a toy that gives you a hard-on when you talk about it at the local bar.

No clue on the regs for transporting ammo, but i think you'd find the bigger problem the actual cost of transporting, although obviously someone is doing it... but it might not be the goldmine you think or more people would be doing it as hunting has been part of the Alaskan lifestyle for pretty much ever.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Educate yourself.

We're discussing Alaska.

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[linuxiac]

Game trail cams are already available for $59.95 at WallyWorld... IF we do not cull the herds, the animals end up in residential neighborhoods, and a 1200 pound Moose, or 600 pound bear are NOT wsomething you want your wife to meet in the street! Or, in the yard! (I hope YOU take out the garbage!) I hunt hog, among all varmint species, the most destructive, across 39 states! Each sow can birth up to 3 litters a year! They multiply like rabbits, but, just three or four can destroy the lawns of 20 homes in one day of feeding!!! They compete with game species for resources. Wild pigs destroy forests, farms, pastures! And, they can spread disease! Don't hit a 200 pound pig with your car or truck, for, just as with deer, moose, bear, gators, the vehicle is totaled! Hunters provide over $14 BILLION each year, of income and profit to outfitters, manufacturers, guides, hotels, taxidermists, restaurants, garages, gas stations, and the travel industry! We also provide food to a HUGE number of public institutions in all 50 states, Indian Nations, and, the 12 territories! When you try to limit hunting, weaponry, resources, you are directly influencing how much it will cost YOU in higher taxation, for all the programs and services you enjoy, that are paid for by the hunting community! Just think of the taxes collected in the sales of $1,000.00 drones! Think of our searches and discoveries of new species (10 new land species in the past three years!)... If you know someone in any institution, or government agency, who dines in their cafeteria, know that some of their protein is from the wild! If you can read this, thank a teacher! Read it in English? Thank a Veteran! If you are reading this, while eating wild game sausage, thank the hunting community! FWIW, I shoot only 70 to 125 year old rifles, open sights, at up to 700 meters, with ammo that was sealed in tins during the 1940's! Hey, I am giving as much slack as I can, to the wild things, in proper conservation management!

Re:Bans Drones not Guns.

[jwhitener]

Using planes to spot game is already illegal in Alaska (not sporting). Pretty sure they just extended the same philosophy to drones.

Redefine hunting.

[Ranbot]

Because at some point you can't call this "hunting" anymore. Good for Alaska.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Real men bow hunt, firearms are for lazy assholes.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Viol8]

For a truly fair fight it would be no weapons at all. Then lets see how tough these rednecks are when they try and wrestle an 800lb bear.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? I don't see why people shouldn't use every technology available to them to give themselves an advantage.
Are we going to make laws that say that technology can never advance again and we will all just stay in the twentieth century?
In many cases hunting is done to control animal populations so the population doesn't explode.
Why does hunting have to be difficult?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[oodaloop]

Why would using a camera in the sky be defined as hunting all of a sudden? Or did you assume there was a gun on it?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Ranbot]

Or did you assume there was a gun on it?

Nope, I read the article just fine and didn't assume anything. We don't let hunters use automatic rifles. Many states out-law "spot-lighting" of deer for good reason. We don't let fisherman use electro-shock or dynamite to catch fish. There are reasons to limit technology in hunting for the purpose of sport and to give the animals a chance.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[pushing-robot]

In fact it is still 'hunting', even if you start using Reaper drones and Hellfire missiles. Your mistake is the romantic, disturbing, and false notion that 'hunting' is meant to be fair to both parties.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[TheCarp]

Actually, I think there are a few legitimate questions here.

Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy. So there is reason to not make it as efficient as possible. In fact, the worst case scenario for most hunters would be that it become so efficient that the people with the nicest toys end the season before they have a chance to do any hunting.

Hunters already have plenty of advantage over their prey.

I mean I generally agree when it comes to straight up problem solving but, when entertainment and sport is part of the process efficient technology is sometimes counterproductive to other goals.

I could download a bot to play video games for me too. Perhaps it could more efficiently gaurd the bomb in counter strike than I could, thus solving that problem, and leaving me to go do other things.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know the answer to that. Don't most "hunters" just hide in their "blind" up a tree and shoot with a long range rifle and scope?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such an odd time that video games form a parallel. The use of drones for this purpose ruins a hunt. They aren't hunting, they are following directions. The use of drones to find / track prey ruins the hunter / prey dynamic, were it would be like going into a game with a hack. I will state that I have no issue with such things done on a private reserve made for hunting, such as those that stock birds to be shot. Those are already not about hunting. I do take issue with using drones to hunt wildlife. I take issue with shooting from helicopters and trains or other vehicles when hunting. Transportation to get out there, there is no problem with that.

This is just one step away from having automated guns on drone to hunt for you. Where is the fun in that? Where is the risk / reward dynamic? Where is the effort of physical labor and skills that gives the refreshing feeling after the hunt is over?

Some hunting may be done for population control, but they aren't having any issues with it to make it any easier. At worst, they may lengthen the hunting season. Why isn't there a jellyfish hunting season?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see you live in a place where you and your kids had to deal with bears/cougars/poisonous snakes and all the other animals we killed to make space for humans to live.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CastrTroy]

There's always questions around this about "how much restriction is too much restriction?". There's places that don't allow barbs on fishing hooks. Also, hunting isn't just a sport, for many it's also a source of food. Fishing can be a sport because you can do catch and release. Most other forms of hunting I'm aware of aim to kill the animal. So while they may be "sport", there's very real consequences for the animals in question. As long as there are limits on how many animals you're allowed to kill in a season, should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you enjoy killing things, you are a psychopath.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[ColdWetDog]

Not for bear or moose. You could do it, but it's not common - as opposed to deer. The latter often use the same trails day in and day out so parking yourself in one place that you know the animals traverse is a good strategy. Bear wander all over the place. Moose are sort of in the middle.

In Alaska, the big 'purisim' issue is black bear baiting. That's still legal - and blatant cheating IMHO. As would be using drones. In most western states it is illegal to use aircraft to spot game within 24 - 72 hours of the hunt (depends on the state). This would be just like that only easier to do. You can buy one of these for a couple of hours of air time.

That said, you'd have to have a pretty powerful drone to have the kind of range needed to be useful. Well within technological limits and getting closer to being easily affordable. Remember, bear hunting clients spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a brown bear. Perfectly insane, but that's human nature. Bear guides might want to use this sort of thing for an extra edge - you don't want your client to go home empty handed.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[jythie]

I think we passed that point a long time ago. I imagine it will not be all that long till people start arming drones so they do not even have to go sit in the cold.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Ranbot]

I sort of answered this in another post below, but there are plenty of reasons to limit technology in hunting for the purpose of sport and to give the animals a chance. If herd populations warrant additional culling and more technology is needed then fine, but I think that should be on a case-by-case basis. I won't pretend to know anything about the health of Alaska's game herds (I live in PA), but I would guess the herds there are in a much more natural balance than other more populated states and giving hunters extra advantage isn't really in the interest of the herds. If anything, with tech like this I would expect more "trophy-hunters" who are just going after the biggest and strongest of the animals... not culling of the weak/sick animals as should happen naturally.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[gnick]

Why? I don't see why people shouldn't use every technology available to them to give themselves an advantage.
Are we going to make laws that say that technology can never advance again and we will all just stay in the twentieth century?

Kind of... It's not like spotlights were just invented last week, but they're still regulated for hunting. So is the time of year you can hunt different species, how many you can kill, and what kind of weaponry/traps/bait can be used. This isn't new - It's just evolving slowly to maintain some sense of balance. If we could just set up turrets, everyone with a license would be bagging their limit every day.

For a while...

Re:Redefine hunting.

[thunrida]

Monty Python said it nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Redefine hunting.

[drinkypoo]

for many it's also a source of food. [...] should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

This right here (given the elesion) is precisely what I wanted to say. Sure, maybe even most hunters are out for yuks. But if there's limits, who gives a shit how sporting it is? As a comment addressed to the general population, worry about your own food, which was probably mistreated all the way to your plate, and not about the animal that the hunter did his damndest to drop with one shot.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

In many cases hunting is done to control animal populations so the population doesn't explode.

No, in many cases that is the excuse. The reason is still enjoyment.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[slapout]

"Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy."

People also do it to eat.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you enjoy killing things, you are a psychopath.

I would enjoy seeing the common deer hunted to near-extinction in North America. I mean I really don't have much love for a creature so damned stupid, it says "hmm is that a large, heavy, fast moving object moving along a predictable course (the road)? hmm. I think I better jump out in front of it, yeah that'll be great!"

Ever hit one with your car? At highway speed with no warning whatsoever? Yeah. Kill 'em all. I never understood the restrictions placed on hunting a creature that no longer has any natural predators. Seriously deer numbered in the hundreds of thousands in America before, back when there were wolves and such. Ranchers and farmers killed off the wolves. Now there are many millions of deer. Hunt them down, says I. The gov't should not restrict how many you can bag.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never hit one, however I totally get what you're saying since I need to drive nearly 90 minutes on a small two-lanes road with forest on both sides to get to another town.

The moose has a new natural predator, it's ticks. The moose population is being eradicated by tick infestation because of climate change. Maybe they'll jump to deers too.

 

Re:Redefine hunting.

[bored_engineer]

. . .have a pretty powerful drone to have the kind of range. . .

I live outside Fairbanks, AK. In the outdoor section of the local paper late last fall, was an unconfirmed mention that "a friend" of the editor was using a fixed-wing drone and FPV setup to locate moose. I don't recall any mention of success.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[The Grim Reefer]

If you enjoy killing things, you are a psychopath.

Bullshit! While there probably are psychopaths who hunt. They are in the minority. Granted, I'd rather they hunt deer, squirrels, or what ever rather than humans.

I used to hunt, but haven't in decades. But there is something nice about getting away from everyday life and being surrounded by nature. There's the satisfaction of eating something that you had to work for. I think the same can be said for gardening too. There's also the argument that it's healthier to eat wild deer than hormone, antibiotic, growth enhanced meat.

That being said. I think having a high powered rifle with a high powered scope is more than enough advantage. Using drones is ridiculous.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading that comments, I realize that most of you get your meat that was grown at the grocery store, huh?

Lots of misinformed, liberals in here. Its embarrassing.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[GodfatherofSoul]

Dude, have you ever tried hunting? Depending on the animal you're going after hunting with a rifle is no guarantee either and slogging around through forests or grasslands all day is no picnic.

And bow hunting can be just as lazy. Dumping bait on the ground then getting into a tree stand waiting for all the critters thinking they've found a free lunch?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[shadowrat]

As long as there are limits on how many animals you're allowed to kill in a season, should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

That was my first thought too. I suspect that the limits are based on a reasonable expectation of how many animals people are going to kill while walking around and just looking for them unassisted. When the DNR gives out permits to kill 500 moose, it's probably done with the assumption that only 45% of those hunters will succeed. Now, if it was suddenly way easier for the hunters to find the moose, the DNR might have severely overestimated how many permits they could safely give out. It's easier to simply ban the use of drones for scouting out game than to recalibrate your culling numbers with data based on how drones affect success.

It's also probably in the state's interest to keep hunting reasonably difficult. if they start giving out only half the number of permits because people are just going to kill 2x as many moose with their technology, suddenly, there aren't as many reasons for tourists to come in for that activity.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[bobbied]

Hunting as a sport using advanced technology? Um, nope. Maybe for food or population control, but for sport? No, I don't think so.

I'm good with hunting for sport, but where's the thrill in killing that big buck using a spotlight to get him to stand still? For sport hunting, you need to get out and tromp around the woods and actually engage in the sport. You don't break out the night vision goggles and set up feeding/salt stations to draw animals in, you go out and find them Now for population control or food, the gloves come off in my mind. Let's be efficient in these cases. Culling herds and eating the kills is even better.

So if this law prevents the outfitters/guides from "cheating" on the sport part for their customers, I'm good with banning drones. But if it keeps folks from being more efficient in gathering food, I'm not so sure.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[nitehawk214]

Hunting for "sport".

Why is it against the rules to take a cab to skip over the boring middle part of a marathon?
Why is it against the rules to use a golf cart on the PGA tour?
Why can't we use a snowmobile during cross-country skiing races?

If all you care about is getting the kill without any effort at all... go to a butcher's shop.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[ColdWetDog]

I'm sure it's going to happen - after all Alaskans are famous for using any advantage over the natural environment that they can get away with. It is telling that one of the most popular bumper stickers just says "Cut, Kill, Dig, Drill".

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? I don't see why people shouldn't use every technology available to them to give themselves an advantage.

To paraphrase a Chuck Norris joke: because it's called "hunting" and not "killing". Just like it's called "fishing" and not "catching". :)

Why does hunting have to be difficult?

What kind of satisfaction does one actually get in the activity if there is no difficulty in it? Why not just go to the supermarket?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, supermarket meat probably had a worse time while alive then some animal that was killed by a competent hunter. I will say however, to discourage folks just saying they hunt for food where really pathological bloodlust would be a better label: you MUST eat whatever you shoot.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[FunkyLich]

You can always go hunting for the next can of meat at the nearest super or mini market. You can even fill an entire truck of them and reduce the effort to just a single trip. Not to mention the spices from India, fish from Madagascar and Japanese caviar.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[O('_')O_Bush]

Bow hunting is for unethical assholes. Humane hunters and those that respect wildlife use firearms.

No matter how good of a bow hunter you are or how good your aim is, simple fact is that an arrow travels at a third the speed of sound, meaning game can both see and hear your shot long before the arrow arrives. Every bow hunting season, forums are slammed by bow hunters that take a heart shot, the buck digs off at first sound, and the arrow ends up in its gut because it had time to travel the foot and a half or so to turn a good shot into an ethical hunter's worst nightmare.

Rifles do not have that problem. Bullet arrives too soon after first flash for game to react ( usually traveling 10x faster than an arrow ).

Anyways, as for drones, I don't mind so much that it allows hunters to find game, as infrared does a similar job. The problem I have is that it allows a hunter to know about game that is far away or hidden, encouraging long-distance shots (as soon as distanced game becomes visible), and thereby decreasing the chance of a clean kill.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bow hunting is for unethical assholes. Humane hunters and those that respect wildlife use firearms.

That's why good bow hunters like us pack a hammer to put them out of their misery. I tend to travel lightly, so all I keep is a 12oz ball peen hammer, but after a good five-ten minutes the animal is out of their misery. Quick and painless.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Barsteward]

real men hunt bare handed and unarmed and there are none of them in the world. they are scared so they use guns to shoot from a distance

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Barsteward]

and they also do it to have a rug on the floor and stuffed head on the wall to brag about it

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Barsteward]

hunting with weapons is not a sport, its an uneven battle of slaughter with 99% of the advantage weighted on the human side.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Real men bow hunt, firearms are for lazy assholes.

I'd like to see you try bow hunting for mountain goat... I'd bring my own food though.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[spire3661]

Who the fuck is interested in a 'fair fight'? There is no such thing as a 'fair fight' in nature. I am interested in putting food in my family's belly/surviving, not the sport of it. I might be able to physically match an 800lb bear, but i can use tools. On long timelines, a bear is no match for even the weakest humans because of this. We are monsters.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[spire3661]

First of all, if the State agreed with you, there wouldnt be bow season at all, which lasts longer than gun season.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CWCheese]

Would this not apply also to sonar fish finders that seamen use to hunt for fish? That's quite the unfair advantage too. They'd have to retitle "Deadliest Catch" to "Mostly Futile Trolling".

Re:Redefine hunting.

[BitZtream]

My $600 drone has a range of about 30km, and its a Quad, the most inefficient type. You aren't going to travel on foot further than my cheap drone can survey for you.

Top it off, a (quality) drone based on a sailplane design could go as low as $400-500 and add an order of magnitude to flight time/range. Hit up HobbyKing if you don't care about quality and maybe loosing it and you're talking a couple hundred bucks by using the Chinese rip off copies.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[spire3661]

There is nothing shameful about humans using tools to hunt game. Its part of who we are. If guns were handed down from aliens, you would have a better point.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[spire3661]

Because some humans have this stupid idea that we should fight 'fair' and not use the very things (tools) that make us the utter masters of this planet.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[BitZtream]

slogging around through forests or grasslands all day is no picnic.

Then one can safely argue that you picked the wrong hobby, didn't you?

I used to go bow hunting with my father just to slog around in the woods with him, rarely did I actually get a kill (No depth perception is a bitch with a bow, rifle not such a problem).

If you don't like slogging around in the woods, as someone else posted, perhaps you should just go hunting at the local supermarket.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Ardyvee]

Five, ten minutes seems like an eternity for me, one who does not hunt.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[BitZtream]

Then there haven't been any real men for 150-200k years, because thats how long we know we've been using tools to kill, possibly even longer.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Bartles]

How does a hammer help you chase down a gut shot deer?

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you can dispatch a wounded 12-point buck with your 12-ounce hammer? I'd pay a dollar to watch that on pay-per-view.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

tick infestation because of climate change.

Right, because ticks can't survive a cold winter, and that's why there weren't any ticks in the northeastern US until now, right?

STFU, you fucking leftard moron.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[bobbied]

hunting with weapons is not a sport, its an uneven battle of slaughter with 99% of the advantage weighted on the human side.

Haven't been on a *real* big game trophy hunt, have you. Trust me, it's a sport. Even with modern hunting weapons (GPS, long distance rifles, scopes etc), it's not easy, nor is it a foregone conclusion that a hunter will come back with the trophy desired. It takes effort, time, skill and luck (Not to mention money for the right guides and getting to the right locations). I assure you, it's NOT a slaughter with 99% advantage to humans. Many hunters go home empty handed. (Both without a trophy and a lighter wallet).

Hunting for food, IS more of a slaughter, and should be, but it's not 99% assured. Getting a deer tag, is not going to put a deer in the freezer for you, you still have to go out and find one, shoot it, dress it and get it home. But raising farm animals for food is 100% slaughter and we do that ALL the time.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[BitZtream]

You do realize that a deer can easily kill a person, right? Hand to Hand combat with a moose or deer buck would be less fair than shooting one with a gun. They have every advantage over you in an unarmed contest. EVERY advantage.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CanHasDIY]

Real men bow hunt, firearms are for lazy assholes.

What, no atlatl?

Pussy.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CanHasDIY]

You can always go hunting for the next can of meat at the nearest super or mini market.

Yea, but have you seen the kind of animals they use for supermarket meat? The conditions those animals live in? Go watch a PETA video, man, you won't touch mass-market meat for a month, I promise.

Besides, I've never been to a supermarket that serves venison.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bow hunting is for unethical assholes.

Agreed.

Humane hunters and those that respect wildlife use firearms.

Complete and utter bullshit. Hunting with firearms is for unethical assholes...

Humane hunters shoot wildlife with a camera. Weapons are carried only to be used in self defence.

If some wildlife is getting overpopulated, then that population needs to be culled. There are several ways of going about this, mostly depending on the size and lifestyle of the wildlife in question. However, none of the effective methods would count as "hunting".

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Real men don't hunt animals
Real men hunt other men
The mightiest men of them all hunt with merely their words and minds.

You take your spears or guns or whatever and hunt in the wilderness

I'll take my money and hunt in Wall Street and DC.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[hypergreatthing]

Bow hunting is for people who want to practice archery in a practical way.
Boo fucking hoo it hurts the animals. It gives out basic survival skills that even in this day and age are important to know.
For whatever reason if humanity gets knocked back into the stone age who is going to survive? The hunter who knows how to craft their own bows/arrows and use them or the one who only ethically kills with a gun?
Stop imposing your own set of morals and ethics on everyone else. There's reasons why people practice this form of hunting for a hundred thousand years. The human race would of gone extinct if they sat around thinking of a way to survive while also making sure it was painless.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Solandri]

Your mistake is the romantic, disturbing, and false notion that 'hunting' is meant to be fair to both parties.

Where do people get this strange, disturbing, and false notion that hunting is supposed to be fair?

Hunting is a game of probability. Drop your typical burger-eating city dweller in the woods with a rifle (or bow if you prefer) and they have practically zero chance of finding anything to kill worth eating. Study and learn the behavior of your prey and that probability increases. Learn how to avoid alerting the prey to your presence and that probability increases more. If you properly maintain your equipment and practice with it, the probability increases even more. That's what hunting is about - self improvement, discipline, and preparation. The quarry you gain at the end (if you're lucky) is just your prize for all that work.

Because it's a probability game, the game is most fun if the probability for success is low (but not too low so as to be a frustrating waste of time). That's where improvements in probability make the biggest difference. If knowing what a twig broken by a passing deer looks like improves my chances of success by 5%, that makes a huge difference if my pre-existing chances were 10%. Not that big a difference if they were 50%. Likewise, the game becomes pointless as the probability gets close to 100%. That's why pre-rigged shoots (where a farm-raised "wild" animal is released in the target area for you to kill), using drones, and throwing sticks of dynamite into a lake are frowned upon - they defeat the whole point. Yes you could just walk up to the dart board and insert all the darts into the bulls eye. Or just reveal every questionable square in Minefield. But that defeats the whole point - making the process challenging enough so as to reward self-improvement, discipline, and preparation.

It was never about fairness. The only people who think that it was are folks who get their meat from a grocery store and have no idea what goes into producing it. The animals they eat were born in captivity, lived in captivity, and were slaughtered in captivity. I don't hunt, but I do fish. The animals I eat were born free, lived free to do whatever they wanted, and were captive only in the last minute or so of their lives just before they were captured and slaughtered (which incidentally is how 99% of animals die even if they're not killed by a hunter or fisherman). Yet somehow I'm the bad guy?

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

And enjoyment is wrong and needs to be quashed out.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Longpig makes the best bacon.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bow hunting is for unethical assholes. Humane hunters and those that respect wildlife use firearms.

Eating meat is for unethical assholes.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere in his message did he "impose" his own set or morals and ethics on everyone else.
He simply stated his opinion, to which you replied with a different opinion.
If you want him to stop (like you say you do), that is you imposing your set of morals on him.

Also, you're equating a bow hunter with a survivalist... A lot of those bows people hut with are not the kind a survivalist would use.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[FunkyLich]

A completely agree with it. My comment was more to stress the "picnic" part, aka being efficient in the hunt. I was assuming a hunt more to the pleasure in hunting rather than efficiency in providing food. If the later is the case, the same limits about the quantity of hunted game would apply.
I apologize for the confusion in that case.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Jason Levine]

I have no problem with someone thinking of hunting as a sport on two conditions:

1) They eat everything they kill. No shooting a bear, ripping out a few teeth as a trophy and leaving the rest there to rot. If you're going to shoot something, be prepared to eat it.

2) You need to track it down yourself. No climbing a ladder to a cozy "tree shooting range" and having someone push a deer into your line of sight.

I'll append these with a disclaimer that I don't hunt myself. Partly because I'm not sure I could abide by my own rules. Also, given my horrid aim and tendency to be a klutz, it's probably better that way for everyone involved.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[newcastlejon]

There's reasons why people practice this form of hunting for a hundred thousand years.

Because they hadn't invented guns yet. Give a subsistence hunter a choice between a bow and a rifle with free ammo and see what they choose. Even back when people were hunting with bits of flint on the end of sticks they cared about reducing the suffering of what they killed; that's to say nothing of wanting a more reliable means to bring down one's next meal.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Spiked_Three]

There are 2 steps to what is called 'hunting' here.

There is the hunting part, then there is the killing part.

As other have pointed out the killing part is no different from raising a cow to be killed for food, and it happens millions of times every day, totally accepted and part of human life.

Then there is the hunting part. You do not have to kill, that is a separate event. In non-fatal hunting lies the 'sport'. And like all sports, you can play with no props (wrestling), you can play with a ball (football/soccer), you can play with a ball and a bat (baseball), or you can even play with a 8 cylinder gasoline powered engine (nascar). What friggin law of sports says tossing in a good drone causes it to no longer be a sport?

What alaska is doing, is forcing their view of what the sport should look like on their population. A typical big government liberal agenda.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Rhacman]

My brother and I use hammers for ranged attacks all the time. It's a clean kill in one hit if they don't have any power-ups.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's ethical about hunting?

You can hunt for food, because you have no money, or live in a medieval society.
You can hunt because you're a park ranger and need to do some population control.
You can hunt because the wolves or whatever beasties live nearby start going through your trash creating dangerous situations.

Hunting for sport ... WHAT THE FUCK is ethical about that? Regardless of weapon, bow, crossbow, shotgun or .50cal, does it really matter? It's dead, no kissing then tossing back in the river.
You killed Bambi!

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CanHasDIY]

and they also do it to have a rug on the floor and stuffed head on the wall to brag about it

Fringe benefit.

Besides what would you rather they do? Leave all that useable material in a pile on the forest floor to rot? Seems kinda wasteful.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[mjwalshe]

err wouldn't the shock take the animal down modern compound bows with hunting heads hit very hard

Re:Redefine hunting.

[__aarzwb9394]

When the activity is no longer necessary, then it's a pastime. Where your goal is to inflict suffering.

It's justifiable if you will eat what you kill, other than that you are a sadist using survivalist fantasies to justify your cruelty.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[rgbscan]

Please don't support HobbyKing. Aside from the ethics of them selling chinese knockoffs and second-shift runs of everything in R/C, most of it is junk. I've had three speedos come DOA, a LiPo pack puff in 3 uses, and a charger that showed up unable to charge 1s packs even though it was advertised as being capable of doing so. In only one case did I get a refund, and that was a 7 week adventure involving a Paypal dispute. DIY it yourself with a Arduino based setup or something if you want to keep costs down, but don't sell your soul to the R/C junk cartel.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Im sure you have a wall of bow hunted trophy heads to prove your manliness.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as there are limits on how many animals you're allowed to kill in a season, should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

That was my first thought too. I suspect that the limits are based on a reasonable expectation of how many animals people are going to kill while walking around and just looking for them unassisted. When the DNR gives out permits to kill 500 moose, it's probably done with the assumption that only 45% of those hunters will succeed. Now, if it was suddenly way easier for the hunters to find the moose, the DNR might have severely overestimated how many permits they could safely give out. It's easier to simply ban the use of drones for scouting out game than to recalibrate your culling numbers with data based on how drones affect success.

It's also probably in the state's interest to keep hunting reasonably difficult. if they start giving out only half the number of permits because people are just going to kill 2x as many moose with their technology, suddenly, there aren't as many reasons for tourists to come in for that activity.

In other words there is a reason one is not allowed to hunt caribou from helicopters using AR-15s, that reason being that some things are simply repugnant to any human being with a functioning moral compass.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[chihowa]

There's also the argument that it's healthier to eat wild deer than hormone, antibiotic, growth enhanced meat.

I'd argue that if you're going to eat meat, it's also more ethical to kill and eat animals who've lived free in the wild than encourage people to keep animals penned up in cages being pumped full antibiotics and hormones.

That being said. I think having a high powered rifle with a high powered scope is more than enough advantage. Using drones is ridiculous.

Technological advantages come in two different classes wrt hunting...

The first, which covers a high powered rifle and scope, is about increasing the likelihood of a clean, ethical kill. Using primitive technology, like bows (or muskets!), is more likely to leave maimed or horribly injured animals or leave you to have to track and kill an animal after a long time of suffering. That's not cool.

The second, which covers drones and baiting, is about increasing the likelihood of encountering an animal to kill. If you're hunting in order to not starve I can see the argument, but otherwise you're cheating and another creature is paying for that with its life. Where's the sport in that? (Along that line of thinking, the Predator was a fucking loser.)

Re: Redefine hunting.

[hypergreatthing]

citation needed

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fishing can be a sport because you can do catch and release

I really don't give a fuck about killing animals, but isn't catch-and-release fishing just animal torture for entertainment?

Re: Redefine hunting.

[fuzznutz]

Even back when people were hunting with bits of flint on the end of sticks they cared about reducing the suffering of what they killed [...]

Citation?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[AK Marc]

Nope. They may do it for more dietary variety, but nobody does it because the other option is "not eat" (nobody being under 0.01%, yes, I'm sure there are some survival nuts that refuse any and all assistance and programs and refuse to work or use money that live in the woods and live off sustenance, but only a handfull, and usually do so because of a mental illness).

Re: Redefine hunting.

[hypergreatthing]

His first sentence states that
"Bow hunting is for unethical assholes."
That is applying his own morals and ethics determining that a group of hunters are unethical and assholes. He doesn't say this is an opinion, he/she states this as fact.

Since he set this statement in place. I stated that he was imposing his own beliefs and making a judgement on a whole swath of people because of what they do. Important to note: Not why they do it.

Recurve and composite bows are a natural evolution of a traditional. I don't really get what you're trying to say.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Oligonicella]

That last was overboard. Remember too we are also *the* species that will, with great frequency, go out of its way to help another species., both individually and in toto. Enough so, that other non-domestic species are known to come to humans for aid on occasion. We are a conundrum to ourselves and everyone else.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[LoRdTAW]

I'm not a hunter and even I can see the simple logic which you have missed. Simply put, hunting with a bow is much harder than with a rifle. You have to get closer and be much, much more stealthy. You can rifle hunt with a scope and take down prey from 200 meters or more. With a bow you have to be close, probably under 50 meters. You also have to take aim, draw, and release without spooking the animal. Olympic archery is what, 70 meters? And that is on a range where you can be as noisy and full of movement as you want.

So they limit the rifle hunters to a smaller window as they can potentially harm the game population to a point where they are now over hunting. The bow hunters aren't a threat to the game populations as they take in far less prey.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bow hunting is for people who want to practice archery in a practical way.

Try Field Archery, no need for animals.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Oligonicella]

Whitetails may average one-fifty or so, but they're tough. I've seen one slammed by a car and thrown into the air only to find its balance before landing and stumbling off. Don't know if it survived, but that looked harder than a bow shot.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Oligonicella]

The leopard is scared of death and injury as well, so it uses stealth and ambush to catch it's smaller prey by surprise. Lions use numbers. Eagles use swoop and clutch. Chimps and monkeys will throw things and flail with sticks. On and on. Only morons aren't scared when it comes to facing lethal violence, online gaming notwithstanding.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only morons aren't scared when it comes to facing lethal violence, online gaming notwithstanding.

There is zero lethal violence in online gaming. Unfortunately, I still cannot strangle people over the Internet.

Trash talking and cyberbully a different kind of violence.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Algae_94]

I'd love to see this hammer approach of yours with a gut shot moose or bear. How about a mountain sheep, are you seriously going to beat it's head in? They do that to each other with no effect.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Ranbot]

There are 2 steps to what is called 'hunting' here...There is the hunting part, then there is the killing part...As other have pointed out the killing part is no different from raising a cow to be killed for food, and it happens millions of times every day, totally accepted and part of human life...Then there is the hunting part. You do not have to kill, that is a separate event. In non-fatal hunting lies the 'sport'. And like all sports, you can play with no props (wrestling), you can play with a ball (football/soccer), you can play with a ball and a bat (baseball), or you can even play with a 8 cylinder gasoline powered engine (nascar).

I'm totally with you to here. You're right. The non-fatal hunt is the sport.

What friggin law of sports says tossing in a good drone causes it to no longer be a sport?

One could find the animal with a drone and basically walk directly to the target's location and shoot. If you want to walk/run/ski and then shoot, there are several real Olympic sports for those activities, but none of them are called hunting.

What alaska is doing, is forcing their view of what the sport should look like on their population. A typical big government liberal agenda.

Or they are protecting the sport from being ruined by a minority of people, who really just want to shoot animals, and skip the hunting part (i.e. the "sport" part). I'm sure when portable spot-lights hit the market we had the same discussions, and most states decided spot-lighting deer shouldn't be allowed.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[newcastlejon]

There's ample evidence for animal worship by palaeolithic humans. I was specifically thinking of the Celts, but it doesn't seem that far of a stretch for me to assume that humans in general would try to treat their prey well. Humane slaughter formed quite a large part of abrahamic religions still practiced today, but even the oldest branches of those don't stretch back quite as far as flint as far as I know.

If that's not good enough a citation then fine, you win. Now I'm curious how you can justify the ethics of bow hunting just for mere target practice in case civilisation somehow comes to an end. You might as well argue that soldiers should have to practice with longbows in case their guns all decide to fall apart at exactly the same moment.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Smauler]

Besides, I've never been to a supermarket that serves venison.

They don't have venison in the US? Every supermarket has venison in the UK, even the cheapest ones like Lidl and Aldi. They don't have a big selection, though.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[chuckugly]

I've bought a a lot from them and it's all been fine, so I guess we have to have a difference of opinion on this.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[mobby_6kl]

Bow sounds like a pussy weapon. It's spears or nothing!

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CanHasDIY]

Besides, I've never been to a supermarket that serves venison.

They don't have venison in the US? Every supermarket has venison in the UK, even the cheapest ones like Lidl and Aldi. They don't have a big selection, though.

Not at your typical, mass-market grocery store. At least, not at any of the ones around here, can't speak for other areas of the country. In the US, "meat," at least in supermarket terms, equals beef/chicken/pork. Occasionally you'll see oddities like bison or ostrich, but it's rare and typically prohibitively expensive.

I've seen venison a few times at the storefronts for some of the local farms and slaughterhouses, although it's typically a seasonal affair; I'd rather spend $12 on a tag, $10 on fuel, $1 on a round of .270 Winchester, and go shoot one of my own, rather than spend $6.99/lb at some boutique market.

Conservation is a big part of the culture around these parts.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[TubeSteak]

When the DNR gives out permits to kill 500 moose, it's probably done with the assumption that only 45% of those hunters will succeed.

If the DNR gives out permits to kill 500, it's because they want to cull 500 moose from the herd.
Hunting season ends early if the number of permitted animals are killed sooner than expected.
If the season ends and all the permitted animals aren't killed, most DNRs will increase quotas for the next year.

Some states have ongoing problems where there aren't enough hunters to kill the number of [animal] that the DNR feels is necessary to bring a population under control.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick kill equals low risk to the hunters. Wounded animals are dangerous, the more the closer the hunter is from the pray. Surgery was not readily available for a stone age hunter.
  On the subject of drones, a hunter using them gives up the joy of developing skills of tracing and reading the terrain and the weather. Modern hunting for leisure should be all about the social aspects and upholding the skill and traditions. Poaching is a different matter.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyways, as for drones, I don't mind so much that it allows hunters to find game, as infrared does a similar job.

Then why not take the next logical step and allow hunting from helicopter?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[gtall]

I like the idea of redefining hunting. My definition would be we divide the hunters into two groups, like teams. The first team we'll call the Meat Eaters. The second team we'll call the Meat. Both sides get to use anything they like (drones, rocket propelled grenades, 50 cal. machine guns...Americans have the right to bear arms). We have 4 seasons a year where both sides get to go at each other with everything they have. It will be allowed to stake your kill on your 4 wheel drive's hood just to show how manly you are.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck yes this just made my week. Classic /.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CanHasDIY]

Who the fuck is interested in a 'fair fight'?

In this circumstance?

Luddites.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[CanHasDIY]

So they limit the rifle hunters to a smaller window as they can potentially harm the game population to a point where they are now over hunting. The bow hunters aren't a threat to the game populations as they take in far less prey.

Takes are metered by way of permitting. If someone is taking more game than they are legally permitted to, they are poaching, regardless of what hunting method they use.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CanHasDIY]

When the activity is no longer necessary, then it's a pastime. Where your goal is to inflict suffering.

Actually, the goal is to achieve the kill without causing undue suffering. Which is why you often have a hard time finding an open spot at the shooting range in the weeks leading up to deer season: all the hunters are out sighting in their rifles, to ensure an accurate shot.

If my goal was to inflict suffering, I'd just go buy a pound of factory-farm produced beef.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[fuzznutz]

Now I'm curious how you can justify the ethics of bow hunting just for mere target practice in case civilisation somehow comes to an end.

I made no such assertion and I am therefore not in a position nor ethically required to justify anything. You, however, did make an assertion that humans who hunted with flint were concerned with the suffering of their prey. I merely asked for proof. Besides some nebulous hand waving regarding paleolithic art and ancient Jewish ritualistic sacrifice, you've offered no proof citation, as I expected. You have offered nothing to provide any proof that suffering avoidance was at any point involved or sought after in any method of flint arrow or flint spear hunting.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as there are limits on how many animals you're allowed to kill in a season, should it really matter how you went about tracking and killing said animal?

That was my first thought too. I suspect that the limits are based on a reasonable expectation of how many animals people are going to kill while walking around and just looking for them unassisted. When the DNR gives out permits to kill 500 moose, it's probably done with the assumption that only 45% of those hunters will succeed. Now, if it was suddenly way easier for the hunters to find the moose, the DNR might have severely overestimated how many permits they could safely give out.

Exactly. And with fewer permits, the price will climb. Then only the rich will be allowed to hunt.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[sosume]

Yeah, better kill the ones that have a good life in nature as well, these animals must sure be darn tasty.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

DIY it yourself [...]

"Do-it-yourself it yourself?" Well, OK Kinderhook, can you recommend a good IRC relay chat channel where I can get some advice before I hit up the ol' ATM teller machine for some USD States dollars?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[cffrost]

Remember too we are also *the* species that will, with great frequency, go out of its way to help another species., both individually and in toto. Enough so, that other non-domestic species are known to come to humans for aid on occasion.

I'm aware of one example of this behavior — a dolphin entangled in fish net was filmed swimming to some human divers to receive assistance in being freed — which I learned of from a recent BBC documentary on animal intelligence. Can you share any other examples, either specific incidents or group behaviors you're aware of, or which other wild animals (besides dolphins) have approached humans in order to receive aid?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Barsteward]

that would be fair fight then, hand to antler without weapons

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Barsteward]

oh bollox, just because you can't track the animal doesn't make it a fair fight. If you use a weapon, its not a fair fight. if someone is hunting solely for food, then i'm more or less okay with it if the person cannot afford to shop. i just can't stand the pillocks trying to justify trophy hunting as a fair fight or a sport, its just for red neck bragging rights to hunt for anything other than for food or a controlled culling

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Barsteward]

let it live?

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Barsteward]

they all kill to eat, not for fun or sport

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Coop]

The reaction-time problem for bows or guns can only be solved by the individual ethics of the hunter. I'm sorry for hunters that botch the job, regardless of the type of equipment used. Patience matters. A poor sense of respect for the environment has degraded many fishing sites too. A substitution of technology for patience, skill, and a knowledge (and therefore respect) of game is the hallmark of the shallow hunter. This loss of depth (reverence?) is the hunter's loss, not just the prey's.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe next time you're in a hospital in extreme pain, the doctor should wait five to ten minutes before giving you that anaesthetic...

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson disagrees with you...

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Anonymous Coward]

woosh

Re:Redefine hunting.

[bobbied]

Full disclosure.. I don't hunt as an adult, but I was raised in a family which did.

IMHO There is nothing wrong with hunting for sport despite your feelings otherwise. Trophy hunting has ethical guidelines, and as long as folks stay within the traditional rules, I'm fine with it. Be responsible and have fun.

Just because *you* don't think it is a sport, or something you would be interested in trying, doesn't mean others don't find it worth while and rewarding. So you can drop the city slicker attitude about hunting and firearms and be willing to let others pursue happiness as they see fit. You might even try it once in your life, who knows, you might enjoy yourself... Naw, who am I kidding, stay home, you'd just be complaining about the food and lack of running water, making so much noise that nobody would have a good time...

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CanHasDIY]

Yeah, better kill the ones that have a good life in nature as well, these animals must sure be darn tasty.

Well, if the hippies at Whole Foods aren't complete liars, "free-range" animals are tastier than their restrictively caged counterparts.

Weird that some people balk about hunting, but don't think twice about what those labels at the grocery store really mean.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[painandgreed]

Besides, I've never been to a supermarket that serves venison.

They don't have venison in the US? Every supermarket has venison in the UK, even the cheapest ones like Lidl and Aldi. They don't have a big selection, though.

He's probably never looked for it. It is pretty rare but can be found. If they have venison, it will probably be one item, frozen, next to the frozen duck, rabbit, and less used cow organs in the bottom of the freezer section. Asian markets will probably carry it as well as exotic meat markets. Otherwise, most of the US will probably just ask for some from the part of the family that hunts when they want it.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[AK Marc]

Nope. In Alaska, hunting is required to have some fairness. Bear baiting is illegal. Hunting from the air is illegal (but culling from the air is legal, as it isn't hunting). And trapping isn't hunting.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Stuarticus]

Actually going for a walk in the forest or grassland and eating lunch is pretty much the definition of "picnic".

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Stuarticus]

Maybe because our history of wild animal conservation is pretty poor. Relevant xkcd http://xkcd.com/1338/.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Stuarticus]

If guns were handed down from aliens

From the point of view of the hunted they might as well be.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[linuxiac]

No racoon, squirrel (especially squirrel BRAINS! YUMMY!), Fox, Wolve, bear, wild hog! Gotta go get it myself! With my milsurp World War 1 rifle and 70 year old ammo!

Re: Redefine hunting.

[linuxiac]

Around here, there are a bunch of men who ONLY hunt wild boars with bowie knives... they jump out of trees and sever their spine. Of course, wild boars have 4 razor sharp tusks, which means the wild boars have four 5 inch long knives versus the single one of the human... Is that fair enough for you? I even make it more even... I am disabled by 9 termainal diseases, am pushing 70 years, have had a quad bypass, only have 50% infraction index, and can't run... So, I feel it is fair to bring my bolt action 1891 M91 Mosin Nagant rifle, with bayonet, and 5 rounds of ammo... Yes, I also carry my 10" blade Bowie Knife... But, I can't climb a tree, so...

Re:Redefine hunting.

[CanHasDIY]

You realize a large portion of our 'poor history of wild animal conservation' is a direct result of factory farming, right?

The Bureau of Land Management wild horse slaughters being famous examples - tens of thousands of wild horses driven from public lands and slaughtered or sold, because cattle barons insist they need the space for their livestock.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[Stuarticus]

You realize a large portion of our 'poor history of wild animal conservation' is a direct result of factory farming, right?

Absolutely wrong, it's our tendency to kill and eat them. Hence the complete lack of megafauna. No doubt you'll be telling me next whale numbers are going down because we need the space for fisheries.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[spire3661]

Its no different than an otter using a rock to smash a clam open.

Re:Redefine hunting.

[jwhitener]

I also wonder if artificially bypassing an animal's natural defenses (smell, sight, etc.) would eventually lead to a weaker herd overall. If we bypass survival of the fittest, and can take out all the older, wiser, big antler game using drones, we essentially are cutting the best traits out of that population and messing up natural selection.

Re: Redefine hunting.

[jwhitener]

Anyways, as for drones, I don't mind so much that it allows hunters to find game

But it would also allow hunters to selectively pick out trophy game. I would guess that the older, wiser, stronger herd leaders would be quickly picked off each season. That might seriously mess up the entire natural selection/survival of the fittest mechanism and leave a herd much weaker to predators over time. Not to mention mess up the breeding and social mechanisms of a herd. Every year the head male is killed...

Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Viol8]

How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport? And now drones? FFS , why not just nuke the whole fucking forest then Billy Bob Smalldick can claim he's killed everything and act the hero to all the toothless hags that inhabit the trailers in the area!

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for that comment, we're only issuing you a bowie knife for your next hunting expedition. Good luck making and stringing your bow and fletching your arrows out in the wilderness. Say hello to mama grizzly for me.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be real fun at parties.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport?

Yea know, most hunters like myself hunt for food. I don't see a difference between using a rifle to put dinner on my family's plate or a cow that has been raised in a pen for its life only to be ground up, mixed with horse meat, processed in a plant with similar cleanliness to an auto garage, then sold to the customer via a dollar menu.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your attempt at trolling is only funny because you assume that everyone goes on hunting "expeditions". Such redneck thinking is hilarious.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[pushing-robot]

How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport?

That's because by the original rules the deer got the rifles every alternate week. Ever since we changed things around I've boycotted the sport.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[GodfatherofSoul]

Because unlike your latest Call of Duty download, hunting doesn't consist of moving a mouse until the crosshairs are over the head. It's an entire process.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Viol8]

Oh great "its a process"! Well thats ok then. Obviously pointless killing for sport is entirely justified if you can draw up some action points and create a flowchart in powerpoint!

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport? And now drones? FFS , why not just nuke the whole fucking forest then Billy Bob Smalldick can claim he's killed everything and act the hero to all the toothless hags that inhabit the trailers in the area!

Because NASCAR is a sport. Therefore, by the transitive law of sportiness...

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have mistaken slashdot.org for peta.org, you whining, histrionic twit.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Wrath0fb0b]

How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport? And now drones? FFS , why not just nuke the whole fucking forest then Billy Bob Smalldick can claim he's killed everything and act the hero to all the toothless hags that inhabit the trailers in the area!

Well we killed off all the damned wolves so now we have to control the herbivore population or they will boom/bust and starve to death -- a fate much worse than being shot.

Anyway, it's an enjoyable activity and actually rather zen given that you often spend hours perched away with nothing but your thoughts ...

Re: Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're just reinforcing GP's point. It's a process, not some fiddling around in Powerpoint. You seriously need to push away that keyboard and mouse and get out.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[multimediavt]

Because unlike your latest Call of Duty download, hunting doesn't consist of moving a mouse until the crosshairs are over the head. It's an entire process.

Yeah, bad anaolgy/false equivalency. Hunting requires several things, license, gun, ammo, tree stand, location scouting and the ability to sit on your ass for several hours at a time. Yeah, real strenuous "sport". It's not a sport, sorry. It's one of two things: a for-food necessity or a conservation act. To call it a sport is a joke. Hell, most people don't even hike to scout anymore, they use four wheelers, so again, where's the "sport" activity that would qualify hunting? I have been around hunting and hunters all my life. My uncles and cousins all hunt deer and turkey and a lot of my friends and acquaintances hunt. Most of them are athletic but hunting is not how they work out nor would they categorize hunting as a sport (see above). If you're not hunting for food then you are participating in a leisure activity or game--not a sport. That's why it's called "game hunting". Sport fishing is another one of those iffy classifications. I don't have to be in shape to fish either. Sports usually have a physical fitness requirement. Hunting, not so much. If you're breathing and can pull a trigger, you're good.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Tarlus]

As a responsible outdoorsman I will not attempt to sway your beliefs nor argue about pointlessness or justification, but yes, it is a far more involved process than simply pointing a gun and pulling the trigger. If you have ever attempted to hit a target the size of a paper plate from hundreds of yards using a rifle, you would understand that it requires a great deal of practice, fine-tuning, muscle control and serious consideration of your target and surroundings. Factors such as wind and trajectory have to be considered. Unless you can guarantee 100% that your shot will take the animal then and there, you have no business pulling the trigger. (Regretfully, not all outdoorsmen emphasize ethical and responsible hunting, though all who I associate with do.)

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Whorhay]

Decimating predator populations is part of it. In many parts of the country though the much bigger problem is that we have created perfect habitat for animals like White Tailed Deer. Where I grew up much of the state was forrested prior to european settlement. Now though about the only land that isn't cleared and used for farming is state parks and very hilly terrain. The farmland provides an ideal habitat for the White Tailed Deer population. There are huge fields that are used to grow grains and other foods much of the year. And seperating the fields from each other are typically fencelines that have long since become over grown by trees and low shrubs. This means the Deer have all the food they could ever want during the growing seasons and plenty of shelter when they need it. Honestly if we had enough wolves to keep the deer population in control without human intervention there would be justifiable calls to cull the wolves.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[CanHasDIY]

If you're not hunting for food then you are participating in a leisure activity or game--not a sport. That's why it's called "game hunting".

A minor point - it's called "game" hunting because that's what you're hunting: wild game.

The term has nothing to do with the rationale of the individual hunter.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Algae_94]

How is shooting something from hundreds of feet away with a high powered rifle any kind of sport? And now drones? FFS , why not just nuke the whole fucking forest then Billy Bob Smalldick can claim he's killed everything and act the hero to all the toothless hags that inhabit the trailers in the area!

This article is about Alaska, not the hills of Appalachia. There are no trailers in the area full of toothless hags. There are areas with no human settlements within days on foot. If you want to know what the sport is with shooting an animal from hundreds of feet away, just imagine what you would do with a 1000 pound moose carcass in the middle of no where. Here's a hint, you aren't going to be carrying it out on your back, and every hour you spend with that carcass is an hour closer a hungry brown bear is to jumping out of the brush at you. Not exactly the same as killing Bambi and tossing it on the roof of your car.

Re:Whats the poing of hunting as a sport?

[Algae_94]

You've made a logical fallacy. Hunting != pointless killing. Many people have clear benefits from hunting in the form of food for their family. Unless of course you are a Vegan, then you clearly think that people in Alaska can clearly grow enough tasty veggies to feed themselves through months of harsh winter and you would be wrong.

No!

[schneidafunk]

But what else are my drones good for?

Re:No!

[bobbied]

Spying on the neighbor's dog?

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

But what else are my drones good for?

Rocketing weddings and funerals in the Middle East? There seem to be fewer restrictions on that than there are on using drones for hunting in Alaska. Not that I wish to take any cheap shots at Alaskans I applaud the sensibility of their hunting legislation but it still makes you think.

What about hunting FOR Drones?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be more sporting...

Re:What about hunting FOR Drones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you mean like in Tennessee, where they've passed a law to make it illegal to use drones on people hunting legally?

Certain hunters took that to mean they can now shoot down any drones they see.

Just waiting for one of them to piss off the DEA, FBI, or other federal agency by doing that.

Re:What about hunting FOR Drones?

[Anonymous Coward]

GOOD! Fuck the FBI, NSA, DEA etc for spying on the American people,

The more drones citizens shoot down, the better...

Re:What about hunting FOR Drones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for those citizens who find themselves sitting in federal prison.

Hunting is not for the poor

[Lodlaiden]

I can still do a flyby in a brush plane.

Re:Hunting is not for the poor

[ColdWetDog]

Not just before the hunt. In most western states that is specifically illegal. Timing varies, usually between 24 and 72 hours. Yes, it happens but most commercial bush pilots won't do it because they can get into trouble. So it's harder to do than if it were legal. Planes are easy to identify (those nice large numbers on the side). Lots of paperwork and other forensic clues. Not the smartest of ideas.

Re:Hunting is not for the poor

[bobbied]

Dude... A bush plane? You are LOW class. What about a helicopter?

Re:Hunting is not for the poor

[BitZtream]

Not within 72-48 hours of when you intend to go hunting in most every state in the US, including Alaska.

It is most certainly illegal to use planes for spotting in most places.

Fine!

[DaMattster]

Then law enforcement using drones should be illegal too.

Re:Fine!

[Viol8]

Right, because obviously some inbred inadequate halfwit blowing out the brains of some forest animal minding its own business is an identical situation to the police trying to catch a criminal.

Not.

Re:Fine!

[Jmc23]

ah, you sound like one of those civilized types that prefers his animals to live shitty lives with no freedoms and then nicely packaged up for others to feast on. Strangely, exactly the same way a civilized person lives and dies.

Re:Fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a really strange non sequitur. Could you please explain?

Re:Fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, They call those killings "police work". Refering to it as "hunting" would be crass.

Re:Fine!

[shadowrat]

Then law enforcement using drones should be illegal too.

yeah! and while we're just trying to get some pork passed with this bill lifeguards shouldn't be allowed to warn swimmers of sharks and my construction company gets a $5 million grant!

Re:Fine!

[Viol8]

I have no problem with hunting if its to eat. When was the last time thought "Mmmm, how about boiled bear for dinner?". Most hunters kill for the sake of it. They're just borderline psychopaths and would probably kill a human for a laugh if they could get away with it.

Re:Fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

GP:

Not.

Parent:

ah, you sound like Borat that prefers his countrymen to live shitty lives with no freedoms and then stalks Pamela Anderson. Strangely, exactly the same way a civilized person lives and dies.

I am disturb.

Re:Fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

[unsibstansiated generalization intentisfies]

Re:Fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

"awwwww da powuh widdle innocent FOWIST CWEETURZ" Go hug an innocent grizzly fuckface

Re:Fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd eat bear, why not? Probably better then most other meat you obtain in a supermarket anyway

Re:Fine!

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Boiled? Do you usually boil your meat?

Your biases are getting the best of you, and you come across as an ignorant cheerleader for PETA. Refrain from making general statements about overly broad segments of the population, lest you be mistaken for a bigot.

Bear hunting is not as popular as deer hunting. Deer meat is commonly eaten, and farmed deer meat can be purchased at many supermarkets nationwide. Perhaps you're only familiar with the big three meats that you can get at fast food restaurants, but you may be surprised to learn that the human race has a long history of enjoying a wide variety of meats. I won't get into bears and furs so as to avoid having your head explode.

There are those among us that would argue that eating farmed meat is less ethical than eating hunted meat. Think about that the next time you're talking trash about hunting while munching on your Big Mac.

Re:Fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

They should just have to wait 24 to 72 hours after spotting a person from air to commence hunting them.

Re:Fine!

[Algae_94]

I have no problem with hunting if its to eat. When was the last time thought "Mmmm, how about boiled bear for dinner?". Most hunters kill for the sake of it. They're just borderline psychopaths and would probably kill a human for a laugh if they could get away with it.

This is complete bullshit. You have no idea what any statistics on hunters and their use of the game they get are. Cite something if you think otherwise, but these sort of generalizations make people not want to talk to you about a subject.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear uses drone to hunt YOU (BearCav close air support)

Bah

[grub]

Real men drone hunt in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

Fair is fair

[Anonymous Coward]

I say, lets arm the moose and bear so they can fire back!

Re:Fair is fair

[rossdee]

Citizens should have the right to arm bears

Re:Fair is fair

[Jason Levine]

Moose with fricken' lasers attached to their heads?

Re:Fair is fair

[jwhitener]

YEEHAW!

Sadistic

[sjbe]

Just because you call it game doesn't make it a sport. I really do not understand the appeal of killing animals for fun. To get a meal? Sure. To deal with a pest? Makes sense. To protect yourself? No problem even though it rarely happens. For environmental stewardship? Great. But just for fun? With high powered rifles and drones? That makes that person a sadistic asshole. We're already WAY too good at killing things. If you are out to kill things for "fun" then make it a level playing field and do it with nothing more than a knife.

Someone who would use a drone to hunt is like someone who plays a game with "god mode" enabled. They're completely missing the point. The point isn't to kill the animal at any cost. Someone who can afford a drone isn't doing it for their next meal. They're just killing to get their rocks off. Pity we aren't more evolved than that.

Re:Sadistic

[ArcadeMan]

I think killing things "for fun" is something psychopaths do.

Re:Sadistic

[CanHasDIY]

Just because you call it game doesn't make it a sport. I really do not understand the appeal of killing animals for fun

Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters? Same concept, only with sport hunting you get a meatspace trophy to hang on the wall, as opposed to some sort of digital achievement.

Not that I agree with the practice (much the opposite), but I do understand it.

As for "hunting with drones," I also see a legitimate use case: scouting. Being able to establish migratory and feeding habits without having to hike through miles of wilderness and spend weeks camping along deer trails would be a real boon to those of us who like to hunt (for food), but work real jobs and thus do not have the time necessary to establish said patterns.

Re:Sadistic

[hippo]

It's not a level playing filed if you carry a knife. Vladimir Putin strangles them with his bare hands and Chuck Norris just kills them with a single punch.

Re:Sadistic

[jythie]

Which is kinda the disturbing part since it speaks to hunters seeing animals as equivalent to those digital representations, no life before the player enters the scene, doesn't feel pain, exists for their amusement.

Which is why, even though it sounds a bit hyperbolic, 'psychopath' is really not that far off. Granted the disorder is only really defined in terms of not having empathy for other humans, history has shown we have a rather sliding scale about what counts as 'like us' and what does not, and all that really varies is where the disconnect is.

Re:Sadistic

[belatucadros3918]

"Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters? Same concept," You...you might want to get that checked.

Re:Sadistic

[CanHasDIY]

Which is kinda the disturbing part since it speaks to hunters seeing animals as equivalent to those digital representations, no life before the player enters the scene, doesn't feel pain, exists for their amusement.

Oh please.

See, this is the other reason* why the hunting community ignores you "environmentalists," - the hyperbole. I mean, really, calling a person a 'psychopath' because they hunt for food, rather than wait for someone else to kill it for them? Childish narcissism doesn't even begin to describe it.

Re:Sadistic

[misexistentialist]

I think most hunters eat what they kill. Few need to though, which is why it's more of a "sport" similar to how it's called "gardening" not "farming". Is spending the weekend hiking in the woods using some skills to get meat really more sadistic than sitting on the couch watching TV and eating the wings of a dozen factory farmed birds?

Re:Sadistic

[jythie]

We are specifically talking about people who hunt for fun, for the social experience and the enjoyment of tracking down and killing something. Even if they collect the meat and eat it, it is still generally a hobby activity where the primary gain is pleasure, not calories. So this means not just the mental gymnastics necessary to believe animals do not have awareness or feel pain, but taking the additional steps of going through expensive social actives and choosing to go and kill them for fun.

Re:Sadistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you call it game doesn't make it a sport.

Just because you call it sport doesn't mean it has to be a game, dumbfuck. Ever use a dictionary?

I really do not understand the appeal of killing animals for fun. To get a meal? Sure. To deal with a pest? Makes sense. To protect yourself? No problem even though it rarely happens. For environmental stewardship? Great. But just for fun? With high powered rifles and drones? That makes that person a sadistic asshole. We're already WAY too good at killing things. If you are out to kill things for "fun" then make it a level playing field and do it with nothing more than a knife.

Someone who would use a drone to hunt is like someone who plays a game with "god mode" enabled. They're completely missing the point. The point isn't to kill the animal at any cost. Someone who can afford a drone isn't doing it for their next meal. They're just killing to get their rocks off. Pity we aren't more evolved than that.

You don't understand it, therefore, nobody should be allowed to do it? You fucking asshole. Did you ever think that some of us prefer natural meat, instead of that hormone injected shit that people like you but at a supermarket? You really should know what your'e talking about before you go spouting off, otherwise you look like an ignorant douche.

Re:Sadistic

[sjbe]

As for "hunting with drones," I also see a legitimate use case: scouting. Being able to establish migratory and feeding habits without having to hike through miles of wilderness and spend weeks camping along deer trails would be a real boon to those of us who like to hunt (for food), but work real jobs and thus do not have the time necessary to establish said patterns.

That is not a "legitimate use case". That is an excuse. If you have a real job they you are not hunting for food. You are hunting for amusement. If you are hunting for amusement then you do not need to scout out migratory patterns or feeding habits. Your survival does not depend on your efficiency as a hunter. If you want to go out and hunt then fine but there is no requirement that you actually bag an animal. You already have a rifle so I see no reason to give you additional advantages that you do not need.

Re:Sadistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful...really? Your missing the bigger picture completely. Big game hunting in Alaska ( and many other states and provinces) is BIG business. 10-20k for a 5-7 day guided hunt is pretty common. The early adopters would more than likely be the guiding companies whose reputation is built on hunting successes. Having a scout that is able to identify that a big ram/bull moose/elk/bear or whatever is near or that an even bigger take is just around the corner so ignore the one in front of you would be invaluable as far as a guiding service would see it. $1000 would be a trivial investment for enormous benefit.

Re:Sadistic

[CanHasDIY]

Go find someone else to bother, PETA terrorist.

Re:Sadistic

[CanHasDIY]

We are specifically talking about people who hunt for fun, for the social experience and the enjoyment of tracking down and killing something.

No, you're personally attacking people who engage in a certain activity because you, for whatever reason, have subjectively decided that no one has a legitimate need to engage in said activity, and thus anyone who does is [insert favorite ad hominem here].

Talk about mental gymnastics - you ever eat a cheeseburger from a commercial outfit? Do you have any idea where that meat came from, or how the cow it was made out of lived before having it's neck cut so it bleeds out onto the slaugherhouse floor, in full view of all the other cattle? Yet here you are, judging me, because I occasionally take the time and effort to gather a bit of my own (meat that cannot be bought in a store), meanwhile as engaging in conservation efforts.

Or do you think letting hundreds of thousands of animals die of starvation and disease is a better idea than actively culling a handful every year? Because that would be kind of ironic.

Re:Sadistic

[sjbe]

See, this is the other reason* why the hunting community ignores you "environmentalists

The hunting community actually tries to fancy themselves as environmentalists. (see Ducks Unlimited) They like to pretend that the money they spend on hunting licenses actually is something more than subsidizing stocking populations of prey species so they can hunt and fish the following year. Furthermore you are confusing environmentalists with animal rights activists. Some people are both but they are not the same thing. Since hunters (like I'm guessing yourself) apparently cannot comprehend why what they are doing is cruel it's not really surprising that they ignore someone who rightly points out that their chosen form of amusement is both a barbaric form of amusement and unnecessary.

I mean, really, calling a person a 'psychopath' because they hunt for food, rather than wait for someone else to kill it for them?

Nobody in the US hunts because they are doing so for food. They have all the food they need from other sources. They are hunting almost exclusively for entertainment. If you want to kill animals for food, go work on a farm. Work in a slaughterhouse. I raise chickens myself. The "we're hunting for food" explanation is nothing more than a disingenuous justification. If you like to kill animals because it gives you a thrill then own that opinion. Don't think for a moment that the rest of us are so stupid that we cannot understand what is going on. There are several perfectly legitimate reasons to hunt but most of it is done purely for amusement.

Re:Sadistic

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of level playing field is it when the human can have a knife?

Re:Sadistic

[hypergreatthing]

Because it's practice.
Because even sport killers usually sell the carcases to someone who can skin it/make food out of it.
Drones won't shoot, they're used to scout.
What exactly is a low powered file?

What exactly is wrong about practicing survival skills? I think you're assuming that people do this for pleasure, but maybe it's just practice. There are a lot of scenarios that having some time practicing survival skills can be a matter of life and death. But you went ahead and assumed that it's just for fun. Good for you.

Re:Sadistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back and read the original "Sadistic" message.
The topic was specifically about people who hunt for pleasure... not for "a legitimate need".

Mental Gymnastics... or just plain ignoring the words the other person is saying.

Re:Sadistic

[multimediavt]

Pity some of us haven't evolved more than that.

FTFY

Re:Sadistic

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you don't have anything bad to say about serial killers, because if you do, I will smack you with your very own first paragraph.

Re:Sadistic

[Tarlus]

Hunting is not for everybody and not every person should be expected to understand the appeal. As a person who has hunted for most of his life, I will say that while I greatly enjoy the process of doing my research, learning the patterns of the animal, learning the lay of the land and practicing my skill set in such a way as to be undetectable when on the field. It is far more easily said than done and can be a tremendous challenge, depending on what it is you are trying to hunt. Most hunts you may not even find your quarry and you will wind up empty-handed.

All that said, I have never enjoyed nor will I ever enjoy killing things. But I do not waste them and I find it to be a far more ethical and healthy alternative to beef. It saddens me to say that not all people who hunt share my perspective, and there are some murderous sons-of-bitches who just like to kill things and create the negative stereotype you perceive, but please understand that does not describe the majority of us.

I wholeheartedly agree that the use of drones tips the scales unfairly and hope to see every other state government take queues from Alaska.

Re:Sadistic

[Anonymous Coward]

We are specifically talking about people who hunt for fun, for the social experience and the enjoyment of tracking down and killing something.

No, you're personally attacking people who engage in a certain activity because you, for whatever reason, have subjectively decided that no one has a legitimate need to engage in said activity, and thus anyone who does is [insert favorite ad hominem here].

A parent post:

Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters? Same concept, only with sport hunting you get a meatspace trophy to hang on the wall, as opposed to some sort of digital achievement.

The discussion was about hunters who do it solely for fun. The hunters who eat all the food they hunt or do it for other valid reasons are not part of this discussion.

Re:Sadistic

[CanHasDIY]

I hope you don't have anything bad to say about serial killers, because if you do, I will smack you with your very own first paragraph.

Ever hear the term 'false equivalence?'

Come back after you read the definition. Or don't, like I give a rat's arse what some eco-terrorist thinks.

Re:Sadistic

[Anonymous Coward]

"attacking people who engage in vandalism because you, for whatever reason, have subjectively decided that no one has a legitimate need to engage in said vandalism, and thus anyone who does is [insert favorite ad hominem here]."

Deriving pleasure from destroying something is one of the worst traits a person can have. Engaging in activities that revel in that trait is contemptible behavior.

"I kill animals for fun" is on par with "I smash mailboxes for fun"

Re:Sadistic

[Oligonicella]

"We are specifically talking about people who hunt for fun" I do not think that is anywhere near the percentage of hunters you think it is. Could you pull up some stats please?

Re:Sadistic

[Oligonicella]

Frankly, what's your point, other than dabbling in a little self-righteousness? We don't have the number of conservation agents it would take to cull deer in specific, but other species as well. We don't have the numbers of predators we used to and unless you want cougar, grizzly and wolf packs running through your yard, you require hunters to cull sufficient numbers of prey animals. Check out Missouri Conservation for in depth treatment of management problems and how hunters are used in the solutions.

Re:Sadistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey jackass... if you have a "real job" then you aren't hunting for food. If you want to hunt, fine. If you want to claim it is to keep the population down, fine. But to claim the hundred pounds of meat you get each year is only done for obtaining the food, BS. How much do you pay per pound of deer? License, gun, ammo, trip, deer lease, beer, food while on the hunt (good think you pack the ritz to keep from starving while you gut, clean, and cook your meal), the processing of the mean (because, no you didn't actually do it yourself), and so on. You could have bought a thousand pounds of hamburger for what you paid for that hundred of deer.

So keep hunting as that is your right. But let's not be a jackass and claim you are doing it for the food.

Re:Sadistic

[Algae_94]

You are specifically talking about the 'Great White Hunter' travelling the world bagging trophy animals where ever he can. Sure he's real, but he is a tiny tiny fraction of all the people that go hunting. Focusing on this sort of hunter to try and stain and discredit the activity of hunting is disingenuous. It also is clearly seen through by all the people that aren't on either extreme of the debate as a scare tactic.

Re:Sadistic

[Algae_94]

Nobody in the US hunts because they are doing so for food. They have all the food they need from other sources. They are hunting almost exclusively for entertainment. If you want to kill animals for food, go work on a farm. Work in a slaughterhouse. I raise chickens myself. The "we're hunting for food" explanation is nothing more than a disingenuous justification. If you like to kill animals because it gives you a thrill then own that opinion. Don't think for a moment that the rest of us are so stupid that we cannot understand what is going on. There are several perfectly legitimate reasons to hunt but most of it is done purely for amusement.

Why don't you go spend some time in some villages in Alaska like Bethel or Barrow and then tell me that they have all the food they need from other sources. Everything they consume is either flown or barged in at outrageously high prices, or they get it by hunting and fishing. There are no farms there. The growing season is extremely short and the Tundra doesn't support too much variety of plant life.

Then you can have an informed discussion about how much hunting is done by people that actually need to do it to live.

Re:Sadistic

[jythie]

Actually, I come from a family of hunters and have done so myself, and have known plenty of subsistence hunters who depend on game for feeding their families.

I am just more willing to look the implications in the face and take them seriously rather then pretending they are not there because they might make me feel bad if they have merit.

A lot of hunters are asshats

[Gothmolly]

In Maine it's legal to bait an area until bears come to it, then chase them up a tree with a pack of dogs, then walk up and shoot them out of the tree.

This pervasive mentality (shooting wolves from a helicopter) and now this new drone thing is what gives hunters a bad name.

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[CanHasDIY]

In Maine it's legal to bait an area until bears come to it, then chase them up a tree with a pack of dogs, then walk up and shoot them out of the tree.

Sounds more like trapping than hunting.

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[misexistentialist]

You're talking like there is a bear holocaust, but if the number of kills is restricted, it is irrelevant how easy they are. Less efficient methods can introduce more struggle and pain for the animal

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[sandytaru]

If I recall right, bear baiting is only legal in ME for 3-4 months in the fall as well.

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[devnulljapan]

And a lot of asshats are hunters. I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[blackiner]

Is that not how humans traditionally hunted bears? I keep seeing people deride all this hunting business as using too much technology or insight to trick the animals... but that is precisely what got us to the top of the food chain in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is that killing animals is a solved problem, so these people just self impose rules to make things more 'fun'. Their time would be better spent solving actually challenging problems, but oh well, everyone needs to find entertainment from some place...

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[rotor]

3 to 4 weeks - not months. And it will be on the ballot this fall to outlaw it. It's a trickier vote than you'd think too. On the surface, baiting seems like cheating to me as a bow and firearm hunter, but I have not hunted bear. I know that there is a population problem in Maine and there are public safety concerns as the move into more suburban and urban areas. I also know from my years in the woods (hunting, camping, hiking, etc) that they are very hard to spot. I've only seen a handful of bears in the woods and only one that I might have been able to get a shot off on if I'd been hunting for it. State Biologists are currently supporting the baited bear hunt as a way to control the population.

Back to the topic though, I certainly don't support drones for hunting. At least not for animals like moose. Here in Maine I've never known anyone who's had a moose tag and come back without one. Maybe in Alaska it's different, but they don't appear to be all that hard to hunt (though I've never had a moose tag myself).

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[BitZtream]

And they allow it due to a population control problem. Unless you want black bear roaming your towns and hamlets ... They have an abundance in that particular region.

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I used to live in Maine. I was once chased into my house. I'm guessing it was by a coyote, but it was very dark outside, so I wasn't able to see much more than a pair of eyes. It wasn't long before I bought myself a .243 rifle. Where I lived, there was no animal control office to call. There wasn't even a police department. This wasn't the 1920s, it was 2007.

Perhaps your only experience with wildlife was through a set of steel bars at the zoo. Then, I could understand your concern for these helpless teddy bears. However, an urbanite mindset doesn't really help you understand the legitimate concerns of people living in places barely touched by civilization.

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[Rich0]

Is that not how humans traditionally hunted bears? I keep seeing people deride all this hunting business as using too much technology or insight to trick the animals... but that is precisely what got us to the top of the food chain in the first place.

I think the point is that this isn't about food/etc.

If bears were a menace to society or there was a need to eat them, then it only makes sense to kill them in the most efficient manner possible. To the degree that it is safe the method should be humane.

If a lion were loose in the vicinity of a playground, the goal wouldn't be to make capturing/killing/etc it a challenge.

However, we don't need to eat bears, and in general they're not dangerous to people. If this is about "sport" then efficiency isn't really important, though safety should be. I'm not into hunting, so I won't comment on the morality of treating it as a sport, but if that really is your purpose, it doesn't make sense to shoot fish in a barrel.

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

In Maine, as well probab NH, and Vermont, hunters set out donuts for bears to eat, several weeks before hunting season opens to fatten them up. If you ask me, that's both funny and stupid, but thems the breaks in the game world. Then again, if you can rent a helicopter and are hunting wolves, you likely aren't part of the demographic that hunts animals for meat. Quite a few assholes in the hunting world. And yes. Removing the difficulty and challenge of hunting by technological mean, does give hunting in general a bad name.

IMHO, sport hunting should be outlawed in the US. Problem is, how would Game wardens verify. Becomes too invasive beyond hunter honesty. More people should be culling the problematic boar population anyways.

Re:A lot of hunters are asshats

[Ranbot]

At least not for animals like moose. Here in Maine I've never known anyone who's had a moose tag and come back without one. Maybe in Alaska it's different, but they don't appear to be all that hard to hunt (though I've never had a moose tag myself).

Yeah the only thing hard about hunting a moose is dragging that massive carcass out of the woods/swamp. A full-grown moose has no fear of a silly little hairless creature pointing a weird stick at them, then BOOM!

What's the point of it all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunting was never a fair contest between hunter and prey. And anyway, I am not overly familiar with Alaska, but wouldn't a drone be rather useless against everything but the very biggest animals (moose, deer, bear)? I always thought that Alaska was pretty much one big forest. And forests have trees. And trees block your view.

What's the difference

[JimMcc]

What's the difference between a hunter with a drone and a factory fishing vessel with spotter planes? Is it scale? money? Both models are using airborne technology to assist in the gathering of food. If we are going to ban aerial observation, than it should be for all applications and uses of it regardless of how monied the operator is.

Re:What's the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunting only works because there are only so many assholes who go out into the woods to shoot animals for fun... if say it was stupidly easy with you relatively detached from the process (send an autonomous drone out, and have it txtmsg you gps coordinates where you pickup the kill), then we wouldn't have any animals left!

Re:What's the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that the number of wild land animals aren't sufficient to feed everyone that wants to eat them. There aren't enough deer/moose/elk/etc. for that. Limiting the technology available to hunters helps prevent overpredation of these critters.

Hunting also serves a dual purpose: it produces food, and it provides recreation for the hunters. There are lots of folks who enjoy chasing game using old-fashioned methods. If we're going to limit the number of wild elk (say) that people eat, saying "You can use a helicopter and eat a wild elk if you win this lottery" is less preferable to "You can kill and eat a wild elk if you can do it with a rifle the old-fashioned way", since lots of people enjoy the latter -- even if they don't actually kill one.

This gets modified in a lot of situations based on the game/hunter ratio. In some places there are far more hunters than game, and they have to impose a lottery on top of technological limitations. In some places they impose more or less severe technological limitations, etc. All of this is to tune the amount of game killed while enabling as many people as possible to enjoy the forest (or desert, etc.) while doing so in a traditional way.

Re:What's the difference

[jythie]

Money. Hunting is 'non-profit', you do it for entertainment (or at minimal, the people who can afford a lobby do it for entertainment). Factory fishing is for-profit, thus anything they do that decreases the cost to consumers and increases their personal wealth is 'ethical'. Same applies to killing animals for purposes of protecting livestock or farmland, pretty much anything goes since wealth=better.

Re:What's the difference

[ColdWetDog]

Rules. It is simply a societal choice to limit the effectiveness of recreational hunters vs. commercial activities.

Re:What's the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

As if the sea isn't depleted to near extinction by overfishing.

Re:What's the difference

[Solandri]

What's the difference between a hunter with a drone and a factory fishing vessel with spotter planes? Is it scale? money? Both models are using airborne technology to assist in the gathering of food.

Alaska does a really good job managing its fisheries; probably the best in the world. Commercial fishing "season" is not just a "catch as much as you can" free-for-all. It starts on a specified date, each ship is allocated a certain tonnage it's allowed to catch, and they have until a certain date to catch it. The use of spotter planes (actually I'm not sure they use those in Alaska, but hypothetically) would allow a ship to meet its quota more quickly, thus minimizing cost and risk to the lives of those at sea.

If there were commercial hunting, then it'd be the same. Drones would make sense because it would make the activity safer and more cost-effective. However, "commercial hunting" turned into cattle ranching several thousand years ago. The only remaining forms of hunting are sustenance and recreational. While an argument for drones could be made for sustenance hunters (people living in remote areas who have to kill wild game for their food), it contradicts the rationale for recreational hunters who are presumably doing it for "the thrill of the hunt."

Re:What's the difference

[a-zarkon!]

Scale. Presumably even drone-assisted hunters are operating within quota and bag limits set to maintain healthy population. Factory fishing operations basically round up every fish in their path. If they catch off-species they'll dump the by catch back over the side (regardless of whether it's still alive). Same as if they end up over the quota - over the side it goes. Fishery "management" of the US East Coast has been pretty poorly implemented if the goal was the long term viability of the fishery. Hopefully it's not quite so awful in other places.

Re:What's the difference

[Savage-Rabbit]

What's the difference between a hunter with a drone and a factory fishing vessel with spotter planes? Is it scale? money? Both models are using airborne technology to assist in the gathering of food. If we are going to ban aerial observation, than it should be for all applications and uses of it regardless of how monied the operator is.

Actually using spotter planes for fishing (tuna for example) is forbidden in many places.

Re:What's the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference between a hunter with a drone and a factory fishing vessel with spotter planes?

The fishery is creating something of value to society: a can of tuna. Food hunters are in the same category. Sport hunters are just destroying something for their own amusement.

From my experiences with sport hunters, they appear to share the same mentality with kids who drive around smashing mailboxes.

Sarah Palin

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure she's upset with this ban. At lest she still can legally look out her window to see Russia.

Re:Sarah Palin

[ArcadeMan]

In Soviet Alaska, Windows look at YOU!*

* because Russian hackers installed spyware on your PC and spy on you via your webcam.

Re:Sarah Palin

[tsqr]

You seem to have Sarah Palin confused with Tina Fey. SP never said she could see Russia from her window, or her porch, or her back yard, or any other part of her property or of mainland Alaska. She said that Russia could be seen from an island that is part of Alaska, which is actually true.

Re:Sarah Palin

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you McConnelling.

My drone doesn't assist me.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does all the work. Finds a bear/moose, kills it, then flies it back to my house. The future is finally here.

Re:My drone doesn't assist me.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty big drone ... (I know, that's what she said ...)

Uh, It's not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Difficult to start with. AH, yes, it DOES require that you turn the TV off, shutdown the computer and... GASP... go outside. I'd continue, but I know I just lost %90 of you at this point.

LOLLERTROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming you and the original troll are qualified to comment on hunting, something you admit to everyone you know NOTHING about.

Nice try, TROLL

Perfectly good State Law and Rule Making

[nevermindme]

Kudos to Fish and Wildlife of Alaska. Drones are no different than shooting from a quad or using a helicopter or plane for wildlife spotting, It is fine to use that gear to scout the area the day before, but once sun rises the day of the hunt it is the one sport that for all practical purposes stuck in 1910 technology. It would be nice to have a regulation that you can search for a wounded animal with a drone as that is where a few hunters run out of steam, in the tracking or chase of elk or moose that didn't get hit with the hunters goal of a ethical mortal shot.

A drone in the back woods with 3 cans of bear repellant and 3 noisemakers would be a very ethical use of drones to keep bears and hunters apart. And we are fooling ourselves if we think illegal hunters and poachers wouldn't use a easy to fly drone to monitor police activity.

Bloodlust

[sjbe]

This pervasive mentality (shooting wolves from a helicopter) and now this new drone thing is what gives hunters a bad name.

Damn right. Even a high powered rifle with no other technology is a ridiculously one sided advantage when hunting. There are several perfectly practical reasons to go hunting that have nothing to do with entertainment. (food, pests, protection, environment) They even have the gall to call hunting a "sport" and euphemise their bloodlust by calling their kills "harvesting" as if it was no different than planting corn. I'm not quite sure how it is a "sport" if the other team doesn't know they are playing.

I don't have a problem with allowing hunting for practical reasons but most hunters I know (and I know lots of them) are pretty disingenuous about their motives for killing harmless animals. 99% of the time it is for no purpose other then their own amusement. I find that sort of mentality rather disturbing.

Re:Bloodlust

[sjbe]

I see the hunting supporters have some mod points to burn. Pathetic.

Re:Bloodlust

[Anonymous Coward]

This pervasive mentality (shooting wolves from a helicopter) and now this new drone thing is what gives hunters a bad name.

Damn right. Even a high powered rifle with no other technology is a ridiculously one sided advantage when hunting. There are several perfectly practical reasons to go hunting that have nothing to do with entertainment. (food, pests, protection, environment) They even have the gall to call hunting a "sport" and euphemise their bloodlust by calling their kills "harvesting" as if it was no different than planting corn. I'm not quite sure how it is a "sport" if the other team doesn't know they are playing.

I don't have a problem with allowing hunting for practical reasons but most hunters I know (and I know lots of them) are pretty disingenuous about their motives for killing harmless animals. 99% of the time it is for no purpose other then their own amusement. I find that sort of mentality rather disturbing.

Sorry, your biased opinion of hunting aside, it is called harvesting because left to their own devices, and with no other predators available, many hunted species would populate to the point of being unable to feed and then slowly dying of starvation killing off most, if not all, of entire herds. Hunting seasons are used to cull these herds of excess population and provide food and "sport" to humans. I am not disingenuous about my motives. I want to eat venison and until I can buy it at my local grocery or meat market I will continue to hunt. Yes, it is a harmless animal as is every chicken, hog, pig, and steer that we also kill daily in an even less sportsmanlike manner. I know many hunters who feel exactly as I do as well as others that do it only for pleasure. The fact remains that these animals must be culled one way or the other. It is more humane to hunt them than to allow them to overpopulate and slowly starve as well as deforest large areas causing even more animals to starve for lack of vegetation (I have seen this first hand)?

Why each hunter hunts is their own business but you should not lose sight of the overall reason why hunting is allowed in the first place. If you want healthy forests and healthy ecosystems the populations of certain species must be controlled. Why do you care why a particular hunter hunts? As long as the animal is killed as humanely as possible does it really matter? I hunt with both rifle and bow. Both are equally lethal and grant me an immense advantage while hunting. As long as I take my kill with as little prolonged suffering to that animal as possible why do you care why I do it?

On one hand you acknowledge the practical reasons for hunting and then immediately demonize those that hunt because they might enjoy it? I think you are being a little more than disingenuous with your opposition. You can't have it both ways. Either hunting is good for the health of the species or it isn't. If it is you need to get off your high horse and allow those that hunt for pleasure the benefit of the doubt and look at the long term benefits that hunting bring to both the species in particular and the ecosystem in general.

Re:Bloodlust

[BoberFett]

I don't hunt myself, but even I see the anti-hunters in this discussion for the fucking idiots they are.

Re:Bloodlust

[Savage-Rabbit]

This pervasive mentality (shooting wolves from a helicopter) and now this new drone thing is what gives hunters a bad name.

Damn right. Even a high powered rifle with no other technology is a ridiculously one sided advantage when hunting. There are several perfectly practical reasons to go hunting that have nothing to do with entertainment. (food, pests, protection, environment) They even have the gall to call hunting a "sport" and euphemise their bloodlust by calling their kills "harvesting" as if it was no different than planting corn. I'm not quite sure how it is a "sport" if the other team doesn't know they are playing.

I don't have a problem with allowing hunting for practical reasons but most hunters I know (and I know lots of them) are pretty disingenuous about their motives for killing harmless animals. 99% of the time it is for no purpose other then their own amusement. I find that sort of mentality rather disturbing.

Sorry, your biased opinion of hunting aside, it is called harvesting because left to their own devices, and with no other predators available, many hunted species would populate to the point of being unable to feed and then slowly dying of starvation killing off most, if not all, of entire herds. Hunting seasons are used to cull these herds of excess population and provide food and "sport" to humans.

Here's a thought. How about re-introducing natural predators like say ... wolves rather than shooting them from helecopters? Not that I'm against hunting but wolves in particular have been demonized far beyond all sense.

Needless legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that they give out licenses to hunt for the purposes of food/materials, and that they place a limit on how many animals the hunter can kill in a season, there is no point to denying hunters the use of drones (barring issues with licensing and operating drones). The ability to more quickly hunt and kill an animal doesn't actually do anything besides give some people a better 'feeling' about hunting not being so unfair to the animal.

Re:Needless legislation

[Overzeetop]

On the contrary, it biases the animals taken in a given year. If you are a hunter and have a week to take a large game specimen, you are likely to make a different decision about what is an "acceptable" take if you are limited to ground review vs being able to survey a much larger area and select a better trophy animal to hunt.

This seems to be aimed specifically at sport hunters since subsistence hunters would be less selective or would simply have more time, as local residents, if they felt some odd need to harvest a particular size animal.

Re:Needless legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunting for trophies is entirely different and very clearly NOT part of the post you responded to, as it specified hunting for food/materials.

Sport hunting is an affront on many levels.

Bigfoot

[emilionicoli]

Now we will never find Bigfoot

Re:Bigfoot

[ArcadeMan]

Of course we won't, because he's naturally blurry.

Re:Bigfoot

[iggymanz]

we did, he was delicious

Red herring arguments

[sjbe]

Aside from being done to control populations, it is also done as an activity people enjoy.

Most population control does not require the involvement of people hunting for amusement. That argument in most cases is simply a red herring. The vast majority of hunting in the US is simply done for amusement and any other goals it accomplishes are purely incidental.

Hunters already have plenty of advantage over their prey.

That's putting in mildly. Humans are ridiculously efficient killers.

Re:Red herring arguments

[jythie]

Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food. Granted these are generally poor rural people and thus are poorly represented on the internet and media so they are somewhat invisible, but there is a significant number of them spread around the country and they hunt more frequently then the recreational crowd.

Re:Red herring arguments

[Ranbot]

Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food. Granted these are generally poor rural people and thus are poorly represented on the internet and media so they are somewhat invisible, but there is a significant number of them spread around the country and they hunt more frequently then the recreational crowd.

I don't think those poor rural hunters who supplement their food with game are using $1,000+ drones. $1,000 could buy a lot of other necessities, food or otherwise. I'm not saying your wrong and I wouldn't stop those people from hunting, but the argument doesn't apply to this situation.

Re:Red herring arguments

[Ardyvee]

That's a fair point. While you could argument they could get together and buy a drone to help them hunt when in group, as an investment, chances are that if that were indeed to happen, I'm sure they could probably get an exception opened for them.

Re:Red herring arguments

[multimediavt]

Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food. Granted these are generally poor rural people and thus are poorly represented on the internet and media so they are somewhat invisible, but there is a significant number of them spread around the country and they hunt more frequently then the recreational crowd.

Define significant? I was unable to find any data on an estimated number, either. I would guess based on Census data that it's less than 0.1% of the U.S. population, or less than 350,000 people nationwide. That's a conservative estimate based on populations below poverty level in rural areas. It's probably much, much smaller in reality.

Re:Red herring arguments

[plover]

Most population control does not require the involvement of people hunting for amusement. That argument in most cases is simply a red herring. The vast majority of hunting in the US is simply done for amusement and any other goals it accomplishes are purely incidental.

Actually, hunting is the primary method of population management used by our state's DNR. For the most part deer are essentially pests in a lot of areas - they're traffic hazards, they cause crop and property damage, and they attract undesirable predators such as coyotes. The DNR
performs herd counts, predicts survival rates, and then sets a target for the sustainable number of deer in each region. It turns out the number of hunters and tags requested is quite well matched to the desired population size. Some years demand exceeds supply, and people miss out on tags. Some years supply exceeds demand, and the hunters are given license to take either bucks or does. They can region, so they're diverted to another region through the distribution of tags. When the hunt in an area is less successful, they may extend the season. Certain areas will sometimes require a special hunt. For example, in a metropolitan area they may bring in sharpshooters or bow hunters. They may add a second season.

We've also had times where the hunt has been very successful, but is then followed up by a brutal winter where a significant portion of the deer starve - we had a winter not too long ago where over 25% of the herd died as a result, and they took to actively feeding the deer.

If they didn't manage the herd via the hunt, what would you propose as an alternative? Letting cars run them over on the highways?

Re:Red herring arguments

[Andy Dodd]

I grew up in central New Jersey.

Deer are a MAJOR pest there:
1) No natural predators. The closest thing to a "natural predator" they have any more are cars.
2) No firearms hunting. The area is so built up that I believe even bow hunting needed exceptions from the normal rules (regarding proximity to residences) be made. Doesn't help that residences are where most of the food supply (landscaping) is, so it's hard to find deer that aren't too close to a house to shoot.
3) People dropping rocks out of windows probably wouldn't be effective enough for population control. (Although the deer are so docile and adjusted to human presence that this, in theory, would be a possible method for hunting deer.)

Re:Red herring arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food. Granted these are generally poor rural people and thus are poorly represented on the internet and media so they are somewhat invisible, but there is a significant number of them spread around the country and they hunt more frequently then the recreational crowd.

I don't think those poor rural hunters who supplement their food with game are using $1,000+ drones. $1,000 could buy a lot of other necessities, food or otherwise. I'm not saying your wrong and I wouldn't stop those people from hunting, but the argument doesn't apply to this situation.

I have met people who routinely hunt for food. When you have hunted your own food since childhood you don't need drones to track game. People like that read spoor as easily as you or I read the morning paper and regard those who use spotter aircraft to hunt with a certain degree of contempt. A special brand of contempt is reserved for the kind of gun crazy camouflaged morons that trek around playing 'Delta Force', packing AR-15s and that seem to wound more animals than they kill. If you need more than one shot to kill an animal you should consider limiting your hunting to paper targets.

Re:Red herring arguments

[AK Marc]

Why, is the number "zero" surprising? If you mean "hunt for food" to mean hunt to eat, the number is zero. Many will hunt for "treats", but it's not for sustenance.

Heck, in Alaska, you can register to clean up illegal kill (you are paid in the meat you get to keep). Many of the rural hunters in Alaska don't "hunt", but scavenge.

Re:Red herring arguments

[Collective 0-0009]

I have lived in Texas and the Midwest, both relatively rural. I don't know a single, A SINGLE, person that hunts with a firearm for daily sustenance. NOBODY. I have however, known a couple of guys that fish to supplement, SUPPLEMENT, their food supply.

Video games are not real life

[sjbe]

Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters?

There is a HUGE difference between doing something imaginary in a video game and killing a real, live creature or a real live person. Do I really have to explain the difference to you? Here's a hint, in a video game no one actually dies and all the participants know that. It's one thing to fantasize about something and quite another to actually do it in the real world. We're talking about people getting amusement from the real world suffering of another creature. I hope you can actually understand why that is very very very different.

Re:Video games are not real life

[CanHasDIY]

Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters?

There is a HUGE difference between doing something imaginary in a video game and killing a real, live creature or a real live person.

Yea, namely that one is a method of food acquisition that requires training, certification, and licensing, and the other is a way for little kids (or people with little kid mentalities) to play up fantasies about murdering other humans.

Here's a hint, in a video game no one actually dies and all the participants know that.

No one actually dies when hunting either. At least, you hope no one actually dies, but accidents do happen.

Trouble is, if a kid's only interaction with firearms is playing a fantasy game where "no one dies," if/when they encounter a real firearm they aren't going to understand just how dangerous of a tool it is. Kids who hunt know the difference.

It's one thing to fantasize about something and quite another to actually do it in the real world.

True. Now apply that to your own thought process: your fantasy about what hunting is, and how hunters are motivated, is one thing, and reality is another.

We're talking about people getting amusement from the real world suffering of another creature.

Proof that you don't know jack about hunting, other than what [insert preferred 'envronmentalist' group] told you to think. FWIW, most hunters try to avoid causing the animals to suffer.

That's why we invented target practice.

I hope you can actually understand why that is very very very different.

I do. I hope you can understand how unreasonably uninformed you are presenting yourself as.

Re:Video games are not real life

[jwhitener]

All valid points. However, you've got to admit that the hunt itself is fun. The stalking, slow movements, feeling like a predator. That is part of hunting. And for some hunters, that is the main motivation. The meat is secondary.

"most hunters try to avoid causing the animals to suffer."

Well, except for the killing part. I understand what you mean (quick death). But it is death whose main purpose was just a game to a sport hunter. A death whose main purpose was to give someone a thrill leading up to it.

*I used to hunt a variety of things, but became less interested in it over time.

But

[slapout]

Is it legal to hunt drones in Alaska?

Re:But

[BitZtream]

No, not anywhere in the US, not anymore legal than hunting cars or motorcycles. You can't just go shooting up other peoples property.

However, it is also illegal for a drone to spy on you (watch without permission) and if they do that over your property, then it turns into self defense not hunting, and you can cock the hammer, its time for action.

Hunting for food is not needed in the US

[sjbe]

Actually, you might be surprised how much of the US population still hunts for food.

The answer is a very small percentage and close to none of them actually need to do it. We spend over $22 billion on hunting which could easily feed every person in the US that actually needs to hunt to put food on the table. Furthermore there are plenty of food assistance programs available to anyone in the US should they need the help. This argument that we have people that "need" to hunt for food is an absurd and false justification to whitewash the fact that most of them do it for their amusement and no other purpose.

Re:Hunting for food is not needed in the US

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Are you advocating replacing free-range wild game with McDonalds cheeseburgers? Or do you think a government program that will provide high quality [read: expensive] meat to rural people wouldn't be political suicide for anyone who suggests it?

Re:Hunting for food is not needed in the US

[Spiked_Three]

totally unfair to moderate you as a troll. I disagree with your statement, but it was not trolling, just plain poor moderation.

I used to live in an area where, granted somewhat lazy white trailer trash, did indeed hunt for food because their welfare checks just wasn't enough to fund both their junk car buying habits and eat. yeah, sad I know, but they truly did have to hunt for food, or starve.

I too thought that places like these were long gone, until I accidently moved into one. I thought the low cost of living there was a good thing, only to realize the worst hillbilly stereotype was too kind to describe the place. It was a nightmare - the largest area of depression in the united states, and sizeable (East Tennessee).

Re:Hunting for food is not needed in the US

[Oligonicella]

Actually, the other purpose is to keep the numbers of any given species in check. Just examine what's happening in upper New England in regards to overpopulation of deer. Without hunting, deer destroy forests, not maintain them. They will remove all undergrowth and most lower branch leafage. After that's gone, they will strip the lower trunk bark and the tree dies. They like cedar, probably because it's a soft bark and once they kill enough trees, you have an immense pile of dried cedar, otherwise known as tinder.

Re:Hunting for food is not needed in the US

[TubeSteak]

It was a nightmare - the largest area of depression in the united states, and sizeable (East Tennessee).

East Tennessee is part of Appalachia.
It's a corridor of poverty that runs up the East Coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia

There is an immense amount wealth being extracted from the area, but very little of it trickles down to the inhabitants.
The region is so fucked that black lung is making a comeback because of captured regulators.

Spotting with helicopter still okay?

[Manfre]

They're not okay with drones, but I thought Alaska allowed people to hunt and shoot from a helicopter. If this is the case, then I guess they don't want the poor people to enjoy an aerial advantage.

Re:Spotting with helicopter still okay?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

For wolves. Different animal, different rules.

No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[sjbe]

People also do it to eat.

That is how they justify it but very very few people in the US actually need to hunt to eat and we have food assistance programs that more than cover any of those who might. The claim that people "need" to hunt to eat is an absurd fiction in a country with the resources of the US. If they are actually reduced to the point where they have to hunt to eat in order to not starve then we should be deeply embarrassed as a nation because there is no need for that.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Annnd where is the food from these food assistance programs coming from? I suppose the meat is all grown at the grocery store?

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, donating your deer meat to charity is a common thing and it feeds, not the hunters themselves, but those who rely on food banks and assistance programs. The hunters that donate their kill are usually just rich guys that want to shoot stuff, which is kind of sick-in-the-head when you think about it. But at least their mental deficiency benefits someone.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people choose to spend a few dollars on a box of bullets which will put meat on the table rather than subsisting on government-sponsored food stamps because they have a thing called pride and the belief that using their own means to feed themselves is somehow far more fulfilling to their lives than spending other peoples' tax dollars buying Cheetos, porn, and lottery tickets.

That being said, other people like my family do it because venison is far healthier than any beef you buy in the grocery store and it's a shitload cheaper than having to buy piece of a cow.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[BitZtream]

So its perfectly okay to kill a cow in captivity to eat, but hunting a wild animal is different?

How does a food assistance program change anything? People still eat meat, regardless of wether it comes from captivity or the wild.

The difference is, a poor person can far easier go hunting than can get government assistance in some places. I'm speaking from experience having lived the government cheese before, if you know what I mean. (Do they still do cheese even? Its been 30 years). I've lived in places were the government and all handouts combined did not help 25% of the people who were qualified to get it.

You live in a nice comfy world and think that the government just protects everyone and makes everything roses ... you are ridiculously mistaken about what its like being poor. Obama didn't magically fix everything with government handouts, sorry. You need to get out into the real world.

In Alaska, its a legal requirement that if you hit an animal and kill it, you MUST notify authorities so that it can be processed for those who need food and can't afford it.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[BullInChina]

You know for some people, accepting charity is very humbling and they would rather provide for themselves than live off of someone elses charity.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[AK Marc]

So they live off the charity of everyone (the animals are "owned" and protected by the state). So they are accepting charity, but get to kill to do it, so it doesn't count.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[TheCarp]

Wow.... I have heard a number of ridiculous arguments but.... that takes the cake. I guess every breath I take is the charity of the state letting me freely use its air too.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[AK Marc]

Nope, the state doesn't own the air, the federal government does.

In all cases, the people of the jurisdiction are the "owners" of the resource, and they have "agreed" to let the government with jurisdiction manage it on their behalf.

Just because you don't know how government works doesn't make someone pointing it out to ridiculous.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you're aware, but you may have heard of this revolutionary agricultural industry. I believe they call it 'farming'.

But then again, you may not have - After all, it's only been around for about 15,000 years...

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[BullInChina]

Then the state really needs to keep their property off of my land or compensate me fairly for allowing their property to graze on my land.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[TheCarp]

I am familiar with these concepts, as familiar as I am with many fictions. Just because I think its ridiculous, doesn't mean I don't understand the claim.

Re:No one "needs" to hunt to eat.

[AK Marc]

It isn't "hunting" to shoot them on your own land. On your own land, there is no limit, and no season, and they are "nuisance animals". When your deer are on your private land, the only rules that apply are animal cruelty laws.

Where's the sport?

[Cro Magnon]

Doesn't anyone remember when we used to go out after wooly mammoths with clubs? Youngsters these days!

Re:Where's the sport?

[BitZtream]

No, because evidence suggests are ancestors weren't that stupid and used spears, a much more effective weapon.

False distinctions

[sjbe]

As a comment addressed to the general population, worry about your own food, which was probably mistreated all the way to your plate, and not about the animal that the hunter did his damndest to drop with one shot.

Are you seriously going to pretend that that same hunter gets all their meat from hunting? No one does and you know it. Hunters don't hunt because they need the food or because it is more humane or because of population control. They hunt because it amuses them to kill something. Any other benefit that results is simply a second order effect. We spend over $20 billion per year on hunting so any argument that it is about food for the needy is preposterous.

Re:False distinctions

[Montezumaa]

Your comment is beyond false, and you have no way to prove your point. I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun". There are many people that don't engage in trade based off of fiat currency, and are literally days from a grocery store. Oh, but you felt it was intelligent to make a claim, with no facts(your "feelings" don't count) because it's the "cool" position to take.

I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days. Afterwards, I want to see you come back and make these same comments.

Re:False distinctions

[DarkOx]

Are you seriously going to pretend that that same hunter gets all their meat from hunting? No one does and you know it.

I'll agree with the general point you are trying to make in your post but, there certainly are populations in very rural parts of this country, think Alaska (some cities are not even connected by roads to this day) and northern Maine, parts of Montana, some Indian reservations, etc were some people certainly do obtain all or at least the vast majority of the meat they consume from hunting and fishing. Is it a tiny part of population, yes, but they do exist.

Re:False distinctions

[drinkypoo]

Are you seriously going to pretend that that same hunter gets all their meat from hunting? No one does and you know it.

My father lived that way for over a year. Marine rifleman, got out of Korea about a year before getting a decent pension and medical because the alternative was some posting worse than what he had, which was ATC and therefore safely out of range of bullets. He went into the corps guaranteed air wing, in case you're wondering.

He may not have got a good deal from the government, but he did learn how to shoot like a motherfucker. And thus, he ate.

You know less than nothing.

Re:False distinctions

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I may be misunderstanding sjbe (his first post seemed trollish) but I think his point was that people choose to hunt for food and that hunting is not the sole source of food for anyone within the US. He is correct that there is a huge market in recreational hunting and fishing. However having an industry made up of almost entirely of recreational hunters and fishermen doesn't mean that there aren't people who chose to subsist solely on meat that they hunted or fished. I also agree that people chose to survive on what they hunt or fish and there isn't any real requirement to do so to survive within the US.

So what?

There isn't anything wrong with choosing to gather, hunt and grow your own food. I think it actually helps the environment. If more people had to get their own food, they would be more vocal about industry dumping waste in their streams or land being overdeveloped and adversely affecting wildlife populations.

Also I do not know a single recreational hunter that do not eat what they kill. Some members of my family hunt every deer season and we all enjoy venison. As members of their hunting club they work hard keeping their hunting grounds maintained and make sure the deer population remains healthy. During the season the club enforces strict hunting limits because the last thing serious recreational hunters want is poor game populations. FYI most recreational hunters in my state use hunting clubs which are self regulated while the game warden concentrate their efforts on the public hunting grounds.

Back on the topic of drone-assisted hunting, my state already bans hunting using planes or even radios. Why when enforcing limits should be enough? Because hunters outnumber the wardens and the hunting grounds are massive. While game wardens do perform checks on hunting clubs and been known to walk up to you at the entrance of public hunting grounds and inspect your kill, there are still a huge potential for abuse. Everyone I know that hunt support the restrictions on plain/radio coordinated hunts because often they are used in poaching and they don't consider that part of the hunt anyway.

Personally I don't hunt but I do fish and yes I eat what I catch and release what I don't.

Re:False distinctions

[drinkypoo]

I may be misunderstanding sjbe (his first post seemed trollish) but I think his point was that people choose to hunt for food and that hunting is not the sole source of food for anyone within the US.

Yeah, but he's full of crap. I've known some homeless people over the years, it's not always as easy to get free food as you might think.

Also I do not know a single recreational hunter that do not eat what they kill.

Also, if the hunters aren't out killing these animals, they'll overproliferate and the results will be awful. And indeed some of the animals are doing this already, and the results are awful. Wild pigs are taking over the continental US and doing more damage than most people would imagine possible.

Everyone I know that hunt support the restrictions on plain/radio coordinated hunts because often they are used in poaching and they don't consider that part of the hunt anyway.

Well, we should do more to control poaching, then. But I only go so far on this thing about not doing certain things because they're not sporting. Don't do things that are cruel, don't do things that are poor management practice, but if your goal is to go out and eat, then go get the food and don't worry about what kind of chances the animal has. The people who think they're hot shit because they killed an animal with a sniper rifle offend me, but only slightly. The people who use all available technology to bring home food, however, are just bringing home food.

Re:False distinctions

[Anonymous Coward]

As the parent said, "worry about your own food, which was probably mistreated all the way to your plate..."

If people are going to eat meat (and we are) taking that meat from free, wild animals is orders of magnitude more ethical than raising it in your nightmare factories.

Re:False distinctions

[AK Marc]

and you have no way to prove your point. I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun".

Do you have any way to prove your point?

There are many people that don't engage in trade based off of fiat currency,

So refusing to buy food they have access to makes hunting necessary?

and are literally days from a grocery store.

Only if you walk. Slowly. Or can you name a place where access is as remote as you claim? I've driven from Texas to North Dakota in a day, so there's nobody anywhere in the lower 48 that doesn't have better access than you claim. And yes, I know people that have no access to stores. In Alaska. They take food with them for a summer, then go out to a remote cabin. They live on the food they brought, and suppliement it with catch/hunt, but could still live off the time they are there without any hunting. They hunt for variety/fun. The women that do it generally don't hunt, but trap instead.

I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days. Afterwards, I want to see you come back and make these same comments.

Are you talking about tribes in the Amazon or Africa or something? This topic is about Alaska, on a US site dominated by US posters. The only possible explanation for your comments is that you are deliberately selecting alternate rules, and hiding them from us. The only question is whether that makes you a liar or a fool. Given your use of the word "fiat" I'll assume both.

Re:False distinctions

[AK Marc]

So there were not other programs or charities that provided access to food?

You know less than nothing.

That's because the jackasses who claim to know more refuse to explain anything, as if they have something to hide (like their argument being knowingly false). Most of the time it's that charity was available, and the person affected refused it.

Re:False distinctions

[Anonymous Coward]

I've known some homeless people over the years, it's not always as easy to get free food as you might think.

Sure if you're a criminal and trying to elude the authorities otherwise you have Welfare, Rescue Mission, Salvation Army, Church Charities, and area food banks.

Re:False distinctions

[Bill_the_Engineer]

If your goal is to go out and eat, then go get the food and don't worry about what kind of chances the animal has.

If you can afford to use a drone to aid in hunting then you can probably go to Walmart and pick up some groceries.

Re:False distinctions

[drinkypoo]

Sure if you're a criminal and trying to elude the authorities otherwise you have Welfare, Rescue Mission, Salvation Army, Church Charities, and area food banks.

Lots of places have only some of those things, and if you depend on them you'll get fed three days in seven or so.

Well, glad the drones arent doing the shooting yet

[luckytroll]

At least folks are still getting out in the fresh air.

Seems like its only a matter of time before people can just sit in their living rooms and run an armed drone around the bush to shoot stuff for them.

It already happens a bit with the astronomy crowd - why stand shivering when you can remote your telescope from the comfort of home?

On the plus side, if you do happen to design a drone smart enough to hunt down a critter, you may have a future building dystopian tech for the defense industry.

Palin's friends don't want competition

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Palin's rich friends with helicopters don't want the competition.

Sarah Palin hunting from helicopter

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarah Palin can hunt wolves from a helicopter and it's OK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPFPBmzRrQ
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/palin-shooting-wolves/

Once again, in the US you are above the law if you have $$$.

Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

Then law enforcement using drones should be illegal too.

Huh? I'd love to see the reasoning that led to this conclusion. What premises and inferences did you use?

Hunting is not humane

[sjbe]

Yea, namely that one is a method of food acquisition that requires training, certification, and licensing, and the other is a way for little kids (or people with little kid mentalities) to play up fantasies about murdering other humans.

"Food acquisition"? BULLSHIT. It's killing and terrorizing animals for fun. Nobody in the US needs to hunt to put food on the table. That argument is a load of crap.

No one actually dies when hunting either.

Exactly what do you call the dead animal that results from hunting? Oh, because a human didn't die it doesn't matter? Wow, you are a pretty cruel individual. The medical term for people who lack empathy like that is psychopathy.

We're talking about people getting amusement from the real world suffering of another creature.

Proof that you don't know jack about hunting , other than what [insert preferred 'envronmentalist' group] told you to think. FWIW, most hunters try to avoid causing the animals to suffer. That's why we invented target practice.

First you have no idea how much I know about hunting. (A lot actually as it turns out) Second, I know plenty about biology and it is a well documented biological fact that animals, just like humans, almost never die instantly or painlessly from gunshot wounds no matter how accurate the hunter is. Just because they fall down doesn't mean they are instantly dead nor does it mean they don't experience pain. Neither people nor animals usually die instantly from gunshot wounds and one shot insta-kills are pretty damn rare unless you are using enough firepower to vaporize the target. Any emergency room doctor can prove this to you. Any claims that hunting is somehow more humane than how livestock is killed when butchered is simply not supported by the facts.

I hope you can understand how unreasonably uninformed you are presenting yourself as.

Right, this from someone who can't understand biology, doesn't understand pointless cruelty to animals and can't see the difference between a video game fantasy and killing a real creature in the real world. And I'm the clueless one? Piss off troll.

Re:Hunting is not humane

[CanHasDIY]

Yea, namely that one is a method of food acquisition that requires training, certification, and licensing, and the other is a way for little kids (or people with little kid mentalities) to play up fantasies about murdering other humans.

"Food acquisition"? BULLSHIT. It's killing and terrorizing animals for fun. Nobody in the US needs to hunt to put food on the table. That argument is a load of crap.

Look, dink, just because you can easily go to the grocery store and buy your chosen food-that-had-a-mother "guilt free," because you didn't have to look it in it's sweet widdle face before it became your lunch doesn't make you better than the people who prefer the field-to-table process; IMO, it makes you worse, because you feel that this pawning off of the actual killing absolves you from being responsible for the death. Go watch a fucking PETA video of how stockyard animals live, then try and tell me that I'm torturing field-raised animals when I put a single round through their hearts.

Also - venison cannot be purchased at any grocer I've ever been to, and it's my favorite kind of meat, so... there's that.

No one actually dies when hunting either.

Exactly what do you call the dead animal that results from hunting?

Meat.

I sure as hell wouldn't try to affix human characteristics to goddamn livestock, I can tell you that - only a PETA terrorist or one of their supporters would do something so nonsensical.

Oh, because a human didn't die it doesn't matter? Wow, you are a pretty cruel individual. The medical term for people who lack empathy like that is psychopathy.

Oh, shit, you are a PETA terrorist, aren't you?

What's next, you gonna call me a monster because I had my pet dogs spayed and neutered? Go blow up a pig farm, terrorist.

Re:Hunting is not humane

[BitZtream]

"Food acquisition"? BULLSHIT. It's killing and terrorizing animals for fun. Nobody in the US needs to hunt to put food on the table. That argument is a load of crap.

I hate to inform you, and I'm tired of putting effort into fixing peoples ignorance today, but you really need to do some research, you could not possibly be more wrong. There are plenty of people in the nation for whom they can't buy food that was farm raised and slaughtered, and the government doesn't provide enough help for them to do anything other than hunt.

I've been there. I stood in line for the government cheese ... and then was fucked when it ran out before the line got to me.

You have no idea what being poor is actually like, contrary to your fantasy world, the government is this perfect protector that solves all your problems. You live in a nice secluded little part of the world that has your head so far up your ass, you don't even have any idea how some people live.

Outside of DC and a few states in the north east/new england ... I doubt there are very many states that don't have people who MUST HUNT TO EAT or die.

Go live in the swamps of LA, or the rural areas in Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi or Alabama.

You have no idea what poor is.

Re:Hunting is not humane

[sjbe]

Look, dink, just because you can easily go to the grocery store

Look twat. I raise my own livestock and I'm pretty sure you don't. But you've clearly shown your desire to justify your urges to kill creatures for your amuse yourself and pretend it is for feeding your family. Worse you feel the need to argue about your killing urges because you are afraid someone might point out that hunting for amusement is barbaric and unnecessary. Go right ahead and keep lying to yourself about why you hunt. I might actually give a shit what you have to say if you would actually come out and admit that you and most other hunters go hunting purely for amusement.

Exactly what do you call the dead animal that results from hunting?

Meat. I sure as hell wouldn't try to affix human characteristics to goddamn livestock, I can tell you that - only a PETA terrorist or one of their supporters would do something so nonsensical.

Ahh so animals are no more than pixels on a video game to you, put here for not reason other than for you to shoot them? It's not human so it's nothing more than meat for you to "harvest". Wow. That is an astonishing lack of empathy you've got there. If the animals are nothing more than ambulatory meat then why are you having such a hard time admitting that you shoot them for amusement. After all, it's just meat so where is the ethical dilemma? Why the need for all the excuses and lies and justifications about why you do it? Why do you need to pretend that animals don't feel pain and that they somehow magically die instantly when you shoot them? Why justify hunting pretending it is somehow more humane that farming when according to you the animals are just meat? Just own the fact that you kill for fun and it all becomes a lot simpler. I'm not even trying to stop you from hunting, I just think it is pointless and barbaric and unnecessary.

Oh, shit, you are a PETA terrorist, aren't you?

Cute troll. I think we're done here.

Re:Hunting is not humane

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Any claims that hunting is somehow more humane than how livestock is killed when butchered is simply not supported by the facts.

How about the claim that hunting is somehow more humane that how livestock is raised? Where do the facts stand on that?

You're either a vegan or a hypocrit.

Re:Hunting is not humane

[amorsen]

Exactly what do you call the dead animal that results from hunting? Oh, because a human didn't die it doesn't matter? Wow, you are a pretty cruel individual. The medical term for people who lack empathy like that is psychopathy.

Most people eat meat. You can call most people empathy-deficient psychopaths if you want, but it would be a rather useless term then.

The ethics of most hunting are vastly superior to the ethics of most meat farming.

Re:Hunting is not humane

[CanHasDIY]

You were done before you started, terrorist.

Go terrorize someone else.

Re:Hunting is not humane

[BitZtream]

Or I'm neither.

I don't have to be a vegan or a hypocrite. I have absolutely no problem killing and eating another animal, farm raised or wild. Eating is a fact of life for all living things, of this I am certain.

Vegans are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Its okay to kill plants, but not animals? WTF kind of species prejudice is that? Life is life. Plant is just as alive as an animal until you kill it.

I really fail to see how raising a field of corn to slaughter and eat is radically different than a herd of cattle ... other than you'll be killing off a lot more individual lives in the corn field than the cattle field ... and you eat the offspring of corn ... not even the plant itself, destroying hundreds of future lives without even providing a full meal. Its WAY worse than eating eggs.

Note: Exception to hypocrisy for vegans who eat plants not because they like animals ... but because they really hate plants! (I.E. Moby)

Re:Hunting is not humane

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You're either a vegan or a hypocrit.

Emphasis mine.

Okay, BitZtream/sjbe, I didn't realize you had two accounts. In any case, yes, if you eat meat while complaining about the ethics of hunting, then you're a hypocrit. Of course, if you don't eat meat [or other animal products], you can complain about the ethics of hunting without being a hypocrit. I wasn't suggesting that all non-vegans are hypocrits. Only the ones that complain about the ethics of hunting. Reading comprehension for the win.

Re:Hunting is not humane

[Algae_94]

I might actually give a shit what you have to say if you would actually come out and admit that you and most other hunters go hunting purely for amusement.

Translation: I might actually give a shit about what you say if you'll completely agree with all the points I'm trying to make.

Fuck off dude.

Keeps Chopper/Bush Pilots in business....

[Anonymous Coward]

Get it right... it has nothing to do with drones... it has to do with lost revenue from chopper pilots and bush pilots getting paid to help hunters scout game.

Why use drone for recon only???

[Goglu]

If I was going to buy a drone, then I'd weaponize it and hunt with it directly!!!

No need to walk needlessly in dirty forests or swamps. All done from my cosy armchair, watching the TV and controlling the drone with my wii-mote.

Yet... you eat meat from a commercial cow factory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about F'ing horrible treatment. You think that's better for the animals?

Now who's the sadist?

Delusional!!! ;)

I lived in Alaska for 5 years...

[AntiTuX]

From what I recall from the hunting laws, you had to have a 72-hour "cooling down" period after using a helicopter or aircraft to spot animals.

Honestly, we (my father and I) were more interested in terrain issues than we were the animals. You want to try to find the path of least resistance, and also making sure that we could actually cross specific rivers, and at what points they were broken open during the winter time. At some places the snow would be so deep that if you stepped wrong, you would be up to your neck almost instantly. That doesn't even count making sure that you weren't in a hunting route for a grizzly bear, which makes things even more difficult. Having something that is the size of a VW beetle running at you full-bore at around 40 MPH is not something I want to ever repeat. It was hard living. It was more a survival thing for us.

Every winter, there was a herd of about 400,000 caribou that would come within about 50 miles of town. Honestly, getting to the animals was the hard part. Getting one was as easy as taking a 200 yard shot with a high-powered rifle.

Keep in mind that where I lived, we were 500 miles away from any major city, and the only way in and out was by aircraft. We actually lived off of what we killed and made use of it. We weren't out there looking for the big racks. We were doing it for survival, and we also followed the rules.

Re:I lived in Alaska for 5 years...

[Anonymous Coward]

We were doing it for survival, and we also followed the rules.

You chose to live like that because you thought it would be fun. Therefore, you hunted for fun.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The lead in text talks about preventing hunters from having an "advantage". Advantage over what, the game? That does not compute. SO an advantage over other hunters? Seriously, is Alaska regulating drone hunting simply so bragging rights over game room trophies are legitimate state wide? That's retarded. They should also make cleats illegal in children's baseball leagues, that way we know who the fast runners really are.

Radio controlled airplanes...

[Bartles]

...are pretty much illegal now. Great.

Re:Radio controlled airplanes...

[CanHasDIY]

Only if you plan to, you know, do something useful with one.

The Bundle

[SuperKendall]

Anyways, as for drones, I don't mind so much that it allows hunters to find game, as infrared does a similar job. The problem I have is that it allows a hunter to know about game that is far away or hidden, encouraging long-distance shots

So then, the reasonable conclusion would be that you should be able to use drones to hunt, as long as:

(A) You also have a 50 cal sniper rifle to make the kill.
(B) You are bound by law to recover whatever it is you shot, no matter where it ended up... that includes paying for a helicopter if required.

Drones, PAH!

[JockTroll]

Hunting with drones is for sissies. You want that wildlife killed, you get your rifle, shotgun or pistol or whatever and you do it yourself. What's next, tapping animals' phones? Intercepting their e-mail? And for what, pray tell? Are you seriously telling me you've got any evidence, backed by solid intelligence, that some wild hares are planning to hijack a couple of bald eagles and fly them into some ol' sequoia tree because they've got religious issues with the squirrels? Think again, smartass. What's this fucking world come to that you can't hunt deer without blowing bucks into drones. Oh the huge manatee! THE HUGE MANATEE!

Economic need

[sjbe]

Your comment is beyond false, and you have no way to prove your point.

Sure I do. I simply have to point out the fact that there is essentially no one in the US that cannot get food without hunting which is a demonstrably true fact. Even the most poor among us have alternatives to hunting unless they choose not to take advantage of them. I don't have a problem with someone hunting for food out of economic need but that describes a vanishingly small percentage of our population.

I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun"

No there are not and I defy you to point out someone in the US that has no other alternatives. (Farmers don't count) Seriously, where is your evidence? We have vast food assistance programs in the US and a huge obesity epidemic. Explain to me how we have companies like Bass Shop Pro and Gander Mountain based on economic need to hunt. Exactly who needs to hunt and cannot get food any other way? If these people exist there should be some evidence of their existence. Prove your case.

Fact is that very little hunting in the US occurs due to economic need. It is primarily a form of amusement and any other benefits from it are second order effects. All I'm asking is for hunters to own up to that fact and not waste everyone's time with these lies that it is about food or the environment or anything other than their own amusement.

I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days.

Buddy, you have no idea what my background is. I have hunted and fished until I realized what I was doing was pointless and cruel. My family was poor as church mice when I was a child. I raise livestock and understand better than most what it means to kill the meat you are eating. I have a large family many of who are very rural and some were/are very poor. But you know what? Not one of them ever had to hunt to survive. Some do and that's fine but none of them pretend to do it for any reason other than they enjoy it.

Re:Economic need

[CanHasDIY]

Buddy, you have no idea what my background is.

That's mind-bendingly hilarious, considering that you've ad hominem attacked every single person who disagrees with you, calling them "psychopaths" and various other derogatory terms, even though you have no way of knowing what their backgrounds or rationales are.

Maybe no one cares what your background is, since your assaultive posts already say everything we need to know.

Don't tell Tanis Venn.

[Minwee]

By the way, his ex-wife Marlena has a message for him.

Laughable that some still say hunting is a sport

[JustNiz]

Hunters with high-velocity rifles/sniper scopes/drones/helicopters vs. an unarmed animal? When one side has such a massively asymmetric advantage it is ridiculous to label the activity as a sport. I laugh at those pathetic people. They should be embarrassed to even admit that they are mentally stunted enough to even want to do it.

Hunting will only be a sport when the hunted animal gains an equal ability to locate and kill its hunters, including taking out their vehicles and helicopters.

Until then, hunting is just a predetermined and terminal (therefore the worst) form of sadistic bullying and/or an unnecessarily inefficient form of food gathering. Apparently those that spend thousands on hunting then claim they do it just for food aren't capable of even basic economics or understanding that there's a good reason why hunter-gatherer societies got completely superseded by agrarianism.

Choice, not necessity

[sjbe]

I'll agree with the general point you are trying to make in your post but, there certainly are populations in very rural parts of this country, think Alaska (some cities are not even connected by roads to this day) and northern Maine, parts of Montana, some Indian reservations, etc were some people certainly do obtain all or at least the vast majority of the meat they consume from hunting and fishing.

Out of choice, not out of necessity. I don't actually have a problem with someone hunting for a meal but the fact remains that hunting in this country is a choice, not an economic necessity. People don't live in those sorts of areas because they landed there by accident. They made a conscious choice to live in a location away from society.

Hell, get a bunch of chickens and raise them. I have chickens myself and you can get chickens for about $1 each and feed them with scraps and a little grain. Hunting simply is NOT a necessity and hasn't been for a long time.

Re:Choice, not necessity

[drinkypoo]

Out of choice, not out of necessity. I don't actually have a problem with someone hunting for a meal but the fact remains that hunting in this country is a choice, not an economic necessity. People don't live in those sorts of areas because they landed there by accident. They made a conscious choice to live in a location away from society.

"Those sorts of areas"? "away from society"? You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. My father was living in Corning when he was living on wild game. Hardly the fucking wilderness. If my neighbors hadn't claimed a public access road as their driveway, I could walk for 15 minutes and be inside of BLM land where it's legal to hunt deer, and this area is thick with them, and I live on a paved road and have electrical connections. You are just completely, staggeringly ignorant. Therefore, I am totally unsurprised to see you posting to slashdot. But it's still sad.

Hell, get a bunch of chickens and raise them.

You not only have to have a place (usually outside of city limits) for that, but you also have to be able to afford feed, which has gone up massively. You have to be eating to have scraps.

Hunting simply is NOT a necessity and hasn't been for a long time.

Because it's not a necessity for you, it's not a necessity for anyone. Well, now we know the quality of your thought process: low, and selfish.

Re:Choice, not necessity

[CanHasDIY]

I presume the person you are responding to is also against gay marriage - you know, since there's no necessity for it. That seems to be the point their entire argument hinges on: nobody "needs" to hunt for food, thus nobody should be allowed to hunt.

Probably hates video games and marathons, too.

Re:Choice, not necessity

[drinkypoo]

I've just been praying he would say that was obviously a long time ago, to which I could respond yes but the economy is actually in worse shape now. But sadly, he has not taken the bait :(

Still, it's ridiculous to say that nobody needs to hunt. Actually, a lot of people do it, and save a lot of money that way that they can spend on other necessities. Or, you know, they just get to eat. The rifle that my father took deer with cost him literally a hundred dollars at a pawn shop, I have the receipt around here someplace. That won't buy even one deer's worth of meat.

Re:Choice, not necessity

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, get a bunch of chickens and raise them. I have chickens myself and you can get chickens for about $1 each and feed them with scraps and a little grain.

So what's your issue with hunting? You're ok with killing animals that you've raised and fed and that trust you. Do you get off on betrayal or something?

Re:Choice, not necessity

[AK Marc]

Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, neither do video games or marathons. Ask the deer if hunting hurts.

Re:Choice, not necessity

[CanHasDIY]

Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, neither do video games or marathons. Ask the deer if hunting hurts.

Not if you're a half-decent aim.

Kidding aside, a better question to ask them would be, 'which is preferable: to have a handful of your numbers die quickly and relatively painlessly every year, or have hundreds of thousands of your numbers die slow, painful deaths from starvation and/or disease?"

Of course, either way you're probably going to get that, er, no pun intended, "deer in headlights" look as a response. Don't have a lot of experience with mule or other varieties, but from what I've seen whitetail do not have a strong command of the English language.

Re:Choice, not necessity

[AK Marc]

Kidding aside, a better question to ask them would be, 'which is preferable: to have a handful of your numbers die quickly and relatively painlessly every year, or have hundreds of thousands of your numbers die slow, painful deaths from starvation and/or disease?"

So which should we be using in famine stricken areas of Africa? Which did the people pick? Surprisingly, it seems that, given the choice, people pick the slow painful method. Why would you assume deer would choose the opposite?

Re:Choice, not necessity

[CanHasDIY]

Kidding aside, a better question to ask them would be, 'which is preferable: to have a handful of your numbers die quickly and relatively painlessly every year, or have hundreds of thousands of your numbers die slow, painful deaths from starvation and/or disease?"

So which should we be using in famine stricken areas of Africa? Which did the people pick? Surprisingly, it seems that, given the choice, people pick the slow painful method. Why would you assume deer would choose the opposite?

Um, because deer aren't sentient beings capable of high-level rationalization, unlike humans? C'mon, man, you have to know you're grasping here.

Note that I never said it was a good question, just better.

Re:Choice, not necessity

[drinkypoo]

Um, because deer aren't sentient beings capable of high-level rationalization, unlike humans? C'mon, man, you have to know you're grasping here.

He's not grasping, he's showing his true agenda. It's a trite and boring one, but there is at least some internal logic to it. Unfortunately, it's usually associated with people who can't see their teeth in the mirror, or who think that we have four stomachs.

Re:Choice, not necessity

[AK Marc]

I was just responding to your point that "if it isn't necessary, it should be banned" as a logical conclusion of someone else's statements. You left out the "does it harm others (even deer)" question. I was just trying to re-context your previous comments that imply banning undesireable things because they aren't "needed" is a bad thing.

I'd take the original comments to be that because the action isn't "needed" then the restrictions on it are not overly onerous, and justfied for other reasons.

Republicans are so stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

they really can't murder animals without cheating? I'm glad the Democrats put a stop to this stupidity. They try so hard with their campaigns to make species extinct. It's nice to see someone fighting back against them.

Government

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I don't want to be hunted by a drone I should move to Alaska ?

Economic need to hunt is very rare

[sjbe]

There are plenty of people in the nation for whom they can't buy food that was farm raised and slaughtered, and the government doesn't provide enough help for them to do anything other than hunt.

Demonstrably nonsense. They may not know how to get help but help is out there. Not just from the government either. There are food banks, there are shelters, there are non-profits, there are huge amounts of resources. And frankly if there are a few people remaining who actually do need to hunt then I have NO PROBLEM with them hunting. What I DO have a problem with is arrogant asshole hunters using those very very few people as a justification for their own hunting which has nothing whatsoever to do with food. The vast majority of hunters hunt because it amuses them, not because of economic need. At least most of them have the decency to actually eat what they kill so that's something...

I've been there. I stood in line for the government cheese ... and then was fucked when it ran out before the line got to me.

And I've both gotten government assistance AND helped hand out that very same cheese later on down the line.

You have no idea what being poor is actually like...

Really? You know my life story? You know how much money my family had when I was a child? Fact is I know perfectly well first hand what it is like to be poor. Very poor. Most of my family comes from parts of Tennessee that are known for crushing poverty in years gone by. I also know what it is like to have crushing debt and I also know what it is like to depend on others for help. I'm not poor now but that doesn't mean I don't understand. And what I understand is that virtually no one in the US has to hunt to feed themselves.

I doubt there are very many states that don't have people who MUST HUNT TO EAT or die.

Ok, point out some evidence of their existence. I have no problem with someone hunting to survive but there simply are not very many of those people out there in the USA. Fact is that most people who get significant amounts of the diet from hunting do so because they chose to, not because they have to.

Re:Economic need to hunt is very rare

[BitZtream]

You don't live in the same world as the rest of us, but thanks for pretending you do.

I do know you're acting in a way that is completely different from reality. I know you're talking like the typical asshole who thinks he knows how 'hard' life can be and how people don't have to suffer and if they do its their fault ...

I may not know your life story, but I know you do know you're talking out your ass.

Ok, point out some evidence of their existence. I have no problem with someone hunting to survive but there simply are not very many of those people out there in the USA. Fact is that most people who get significant amounts of the diet from hunting do so because they chose to, not because they have to.

Seriously? I gave you 5 states with documented poverty cases like I'm referring to. I could throw in TN and Kentucky, West Virginia as well. This is well documented and so much so that its encoded into laws in those states to protect people who must hunt to eat. You even mention TN ... for fucks sake TN has laws specifically to help people who must hunt for food, some of them in an odd way created by the TVA!

Theres clearly no point in trying to convince you because you are just ignoring the real world or haven't seen it.

Re:Economic need to hunt is very rare

[Collective 0-0009]

No True Scotsman. That was pretty easy to debunk in 3 words.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunters with high-velocity rifles/sniper scopes/drones/helicopters vs. an unarmed animal?

So you support the right to arm bears?

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I agree. Similarly, javelin throw will only be a sport when javelins gain an equal ability to hurl humans for long distances.

a good reason for drones when hunting..

[Anonymous Coward]

In pheasant hunting some birds are wounded or killed but can not be found by the hunters or dogs. These lost birds do not count against your daily limit. I think most would agree a drone that helps to retrieve already shot or killed prey is a good thing.

Re:Well, glad the drones arent doing the shooting

[amorsen]

Seems like its only a matter of time before people can just sit in their living rooms and run an armed drone around the bush to shoot stuff for them.

It would be awfully tempting to get one of those and go hunting for... drones.

Hunting

[tacokill]

Hunting has been around for longer than any government has existed. It will be with us long after the last one crumbles. What are we debating again?

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

what about us drone hunters? What are we going to shoot if we can't shoot drones?

Yet Still

[Anonymous Coward]

It will main perfectly legal for the government to do so with humans.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[CanHasDIY]

Hunters with high-velocity rifles/sniper scopes/drones/helicopters vs. an unarmed animal? When one side has such a massively asymmetric advantage it is ridiculous to label the activity as a sport. I laugh at those pathetic people. They should be embarrassed to even admit that they are mentally stunted enough to even want to do it.

Yea, just like all those people who use a computer to do billions of mathematical calculations, instead of breaking out the ol' stone tablet and chisel. Pathetic fucking losers.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[JustNiz]

..grats for showing the world how you can totally miss the point bud.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[iggymanz]

you suppose farm animals get a nicer deal? you eat their meat, right?

it can be a sport, animal is just a target not a participant.

  hunting with weaponry is and has been natural for humans and their ancestors for over a million years, get over it.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[CanHasDIY]

..grats for showing the world how you can totally miss the point bud.

No, I get that you're a Luddite, I just refuse to accept your worldview.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[JustNiz]

I'm not a Luddite at all. I love new technology.

I just don't like people that gain pleasure from needlessly slaughtering wild creatures, especially those that try and delude everyone else that their disgusting actions are somehow socially acceptable by simply labelling it a sport.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[JustNiz]

There's a big difference between killing to survive and killing for pleasure.

If this was really true....

[Anonymous Coward]

They would limit hunting to bows, spears, knives, and blackpowder rifles.

Why? Because all of those require actual skill to take down prey, and additionally give the prey a chance to escape if you fuck up.

Modern rifles on the other hand lower those odds dramatically. Bolt-action less than semi-auto but not by much.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[CanHasDIY]

I'm not a Luddite at all. I love new technology.

... unless it's firearm technology, apparently.

I just don't like people that gain pleasure from needlessly slaughtering wild creatures

Yea, I don't like it when people make baseless assumptions because their preconceived notions and attitudes prevent them from even attempting to see the world from a viewpoint other than the one cemented behind their own eyes.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[JustNiz]

>> ... unless it's firearm technology, apparently.
No I'm ok with that too. Guns are just tools. Its the (lack of) thinking behind what some people choose to do with them that I find repulsive.

>> Yea, I don't like it when people make baseless assumptions because their preconceived notions and attitudes prevent them from even attempting to see the world from a viewpoint other than the one cemented behind their own eyes.

Dude read your own words and look in the mirror.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[JustNiz]

hell yes.

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[iggymanz]

yeah for that tasty salmon and mango sauce I had yesterday the fish was totally killed for my pleasure by the fish monger's supplier. let's all shed a tear for the fish and for another one I'll have later this month

Re:Laughable that some still say hunting is a spor

[CanHasDIY]

Your opinion has been noted and summarily ignored.

Have a nice Tolkien Appreciation Day.

Drones with guns

[Karger]

Maybe they can ban spotting drones, but put a gun on the drone and you'll have the NRA defending your right to hunt with it.