GoDaddy CEO Shot Female Elephant, Not Bull

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Discovery News

In a widely circulated video last week, billionaire GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons brags about shooting a bull "problem elephant" in Zimbabwe, but one of the world's leading elephant experts has told Discovery News that the animal was likely a young female.

During the video, Parsons is shown shooting the elephant and then smiling while casually leaning against its dead body, gun resting on the animal's head.

"The 'bull' that GoDaddy CEO, Mr. Bob Parsons, brags about appears to be a young female," said Joyce Poole, an elephant researcher and conservationist who has studied the animals for over 30 years. Poole first worked at Amboseli National Park under the mentorship of elephant expert Cynthia Moss and is now director of research and conservation at ElephantVoices.

"The video is low resolution, but the elephant's very slender tusks and the lack of male genitalia, which would have been visible, leave me with little doubt," Poole said. "Was Mr. Parsons so ignorant that he was not able to sex the elephant he killed, or was his claim that the elephant was a bull just one more example of his macho arrogance and misjudgment?"

"The fact that he put out his video for the whole world to see shows both," she added.

The video suggests this is Parsons' second year of killing elephants in Africa. He portrays himself as a hero, ridding villagers of "aggressive" bull elephants that raid their sorghum crops.

Elephant specialists, however, believe that such hunters are actually putting villagers and others who encounter the pachyderms in more danger.

"What people need to realize is that elephants become very traumatized when one of their family members is shot," Johnny Rodrigues, chairman for Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, told Discovery News. "They have very good memories and the trauma makes them aggressive towards humans, which is dangerous for tourists."

"I have noticed a definite change in the behavior of the elephants in Hwange National Park since the shooting started there," added Rodrigues, who grew up on a farm in Zimbabwe. "Previously you could drive through the game park and stop and look at an elephant for quite some time. This never bothered the elephants. Now, however, if you stop to look at an elephant, quite often, he will become very agitated and charge you."

Poole agrees, saying that "since elephants are fully capable of retaliating, such killing can put villagers, and any potential conservation benefits, at risk."

Elephants are among the world's most intelligent animals, with females living in tightly knit social groups that include their offspring. Adult male elephants live mostly solitary lives, but may form loose associations with other males. Research suggests that both males and females grieve for lost relatives and associates, remembering the deaths over long periods.

In 2009, Zimbabwe Parks Management Authority estimated that 100,000 elephants exist in the country now, but Rodrigues says that a proper audit has not been conducted there in years. He estimates the elephant population as being around 35,000 to 40,000.

If there ever was an elephant "overpopulation" problem, he said, "Contraceptives can be administered to female elephants."

Parsons' video ends by showing numerous villagers feasting on the dead elephant, AC/DC music edited over the scene. Rodrigues, however, says that other meat protein sources are healthier and more sustainable, "such as beef, goat, chicken and fish."

As human populations continue to expand into elephant lands, encounters between people and these large animals will continue. In India, for example, the human population grew by 181 million in the last decade. Now elephant numbers in India are declining, according to Poole, due in large part to diminishing habitat.

"Wildlife management authorities can continue to shoot so-called 'problem' elephants until the last elephant is exterminated and still not solve the food challenge," Poole said, adding that other problems, such as poor land use planning, corrupt regimes and climate change, further complicate the situation.

She concluded, "As a global community we should deal with these issues rather than continue to blame and exterminate elephants."
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"If there ever was an elephant "overpopulation" problem, he said, "Contraceptives can be administered to female elephants." "

typical BS. Contraceptives are NOT a NATURAL means of cutting back on overpopulation. In wild populations starvation, migration and predators are the correct way to lower numbers. Mankind is a NATURAL predator.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Organised hunts ...... baited hunts ...... culling the wrong sex .......

Some hunters are more "Natural" than others it seems to me :rolleyes:


:p

Mankind has hunted since mankind has been on this planet. MANY natural predators have organised hunts. Man has always had organised hunts. Baiting is a tool, used by man for CENTURIES, as long as man as been on earth, to insure greater success and cleaner kills with fewer wounded animals. It is still a legal means of hunting certain game in many states. It is even being considered again for snow goose hunting. Snow geese have grossly overpopulated and are destroying their own nesting sites due to over grazing. Baiting would bring larger flocks into gun range.

I don't know the specifics of this case. Our press, the press in general, is NOT know to be "honest", "fair", or "unbiased" in ANY way. Most of the press is VERY anti-hunting and will NEVER present a story about hunting without writing in such a way to stir emotion. That is a VERY bad way to write and is becoming very damaging to modern game management.

There has not been ONE species of GAME animal in the United States that has been driven to extinction by sport hunting. A few have been by market hunting which has been outlawed largely due to the efforts of sport hunting organizations efforts to have conservation laws passed.

ALL game animals in the United States, and North America in general, that are in trouble are in the mess they are in due to habitat destruction. The general population does little to protect wildlife habitat. The VAST majority of all habitat conservation is done either directly by sport hunters, organizations that support hunting or taxes requested by these groups to provide funding for habitat restoration, protection, and rehabilitation.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Mankind has hunted since mankind has been on this planet. MANY natural predators have organised hunts. Man has always had organised hunts. Baiting is a tool, used by man for CENTURIES, as long as man as been on earth, to insure greater success and cleaner kills with fewer wounded animals. It is still a legal means of hunting certain game in many states. It is even being considered again for snow goose hunting. Snow geese have grossly overpopulated and are destroying their own nesting sites due to over grazing. Baiting would bring larger flocks into gun range.

I don't know the specifics of this case. Our press, the press in general, is NOT know to be "honest", "fair", or "unbiased" in ANY way. Most of the press is VERY anti-hunting and will NEVER present a story about hunting without writing in such a way to stir emotion. That is a VERY bad way to write and is becoming very damaging to modern game management.

There has not been ONE species of GAME animal in the United States that has been driven to extinction by sport hunting. A few have been by market hunting which has been outlawed largely due to the efforts of sport hunting organizations efforts to have conservation laws passed.

ALL game animals in the United States, and North America in general, that are in trouble are in the mess they are in due to habitat destruction. The general population does little to protect wildlife habitat. The VAST majority of all habitat conservation is done either directly by sport hunters, organizations that support hunting or taxes requested by these groups to provide funding for habitat restoration, protection, and rehabilitation.

Agreed that mankind has hunted since time immemorial, but not in the numbers that they are now.

Baited hunts IMO are really wrong - where is the "sport" or the "spirit of the hunt" with a known kill at the the end?

Or baited hunts with drugged animals - for the not so brave hunter. :mad:

Hunting for trophy - again IMO is wrong. For food yes, but to have a head stuck on your living room wall is disgusting.

Agreed - Mankind is an invader, and does little to repair damage to habitats. So organisations like yours are desperately needed.


Tree hugger mood tonght :p
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Agreed that mankind has hunted since time immemorial, but not in the numbers that they are now.

Baited hunts IMO are really wrong - where is the "sport" or the "spirit of the hunt" with a known kill at the the end?

Or baited hunts with drugged animals - for the not so brave hunter. :mad:

Hunting for trophy - again IMO is wrong. For food yes, but to have a head stuck on your living room wall is disgusting.

Agreed - Mankind is an invader, and does little to repair damage to habitats. So organisations like yours are desperately needed.


Tree hugger mood tonght :p

The HEAD is not eaten. The remainder of the animal is. I have two "heads" in my house. Both animals were properly recycled and returned to the earth to provide fertilizer to grow more vegetable matter for herbivores to consume so they can turn it into more usable food.

Mankind is NOT an invader on earth, man is no more or less natural than a bug. Much of what he does is foolish but man is a NATURAL species here.

I don't ask you to change your mind. You are entitled to believe what you want. I WOULD ask that you at least attempt to learn the ENTIRE story where hunting is concerned. Much of what you at least appear to "know" is either wrong, based on pure emotion not science or learned from biased sources.

Tree hugging is ok as long as it NEVER interferes with science. Anti-hunting is a serious threat to wildlife in this county. The use of emotional arguments to sway the uneducated is doing major damage to programs across the country that have not only insured that wildlife populations remained stable but in MANY cases have increased to levels that have not been seen since the 1950's or earlier.

Please do not think I get "Mad" at your questions, I do not. I like being tested. Please do not get "mad" that I try to educate you. It is my responsibility to try to teach those who have not had the chance to learn these things. The facts are surpressed in this country and it can be difficult to find it.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
The HEAD is not eaten. The remainder of the animal is. I have two "heads" in my house. Both animals were properly recycled and returned to the earth to provide fertilizer to grow more vegetable matter for herbivores to consume so they can turn it into more usable food.

Mankind is NOT an invader on earth, man is no more or less natural than a bug. Much of what he does is foolish but man is a NATURAL species here.

I don't ask you to change your mind. You are entitled to believe what you want. I WOULD ask that you at least attempt to learn the ENTIRE story where hunting is concerned. Much of what you at least appear to "know" is either wrong, based on pure emotion not science or learned from biased sources.

Tree hugging is ok as long as it NEVER interferes with science. Anti-hunting is a serious threat to wildlife in this county. The use of emotional arguments to sway the uneducated is doing major damage to programs across the country that have not only insured that wildlife populations remained stable but in MANY cases have increased to levels that have not been seen since the 1950's or earlier.

Please do not think I get "Mad" at your questions, I do not. I like being tested. Please do not get "mad" that I try to educate you. It is my responsibility to try to teach those who have not had the chance to learn these things. The facts are surpressed in this country and it can be difficult to find it.

LOL no worries, there will always be subjects that one has to agree to disagree on - it makes the world go round, but there are always two sides to the story ...... forums would be quite boring too :D

Obviously in the UK there is very little hunting compared to the USA, so yes it is a very different thinking here - but it will not change my mind over the lazy hunter who baits or the so called hunter who just wants kicks - no science required for those two.

I actually said that mankind was an invader and did little to repair habitats - maybe I did not state it clearly enough.
Mankind takes over what it wants with little or no regard for the habitat already there.

I do not disagree with population control but I do disagree with the needless killing in the name of sport.
I do realise that these can be one and the same in some cases, but not in the case of the OP.

As for science, it is a known fact now that in the case of elephants they do mourn.
So not only did this CEO kill the wrong elephant, but he caused stress to the herd.

As for anti-hunting being a serious threat to wildlife - I don't think the wildlife would agree with you :p

Seriously though, I do believe that hunting and anti-hunting is an emotive subject.

The culling for population growth - ok (not how its done in some cases, but that's another subject),
hunt for food - ok, the hunt for kicks - not ok - in my book.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
LOL no worries, there will always be subjects that one has to agree to disagree on - it makes the world go round, but there are always two sides to the story ...... forums would be quite boring too :D

Obviously in the UK there is very little hunting compared to the USA, so yes it is a very different thinking here - but it will not change my mind over the lazy hunter who baits or the so called hunter who just wants kicks - no science required for those two.

I actually said that mankind was an invader and did little to repair habitats - maybe I did not state it clearly enough.
Mankind takes over what it wants with little or no regard for the habitat already there.

I do not disagree with population control but I do disagree with the needless killing in the name of sport.
I do realise that these can be one and the same in some cases, but not in the case of the OP.

As for science, it is a known fact now that in the case of elephants they do mourn.
So not only did this CEO kill the wrong elephant, but he caused stress to the herd.

As for anti-hunting being a serious threat to wildlife - I don't think the wildlife would agree with you :p

Seriously though, I do believe that hunting and anti-hunting is an emotive subject.

The culling for population growth - ok (not how its done in some cases, but that's another subject),
hunt for food - ok, the hunt for kicks - not ok - in my book.


It is the "emotion" that is holding back almost ALL of the programs that are meant to insure wildlife populations. There is FAR more to hunting that population control. It far more complicated than that. Maybe someday you will get the chance to meet some of the waterfowl biologists that I know and hunt with. They KNOW the science and the need for hunting as we know it here. The reason wildlife populations in Europe, including the British Isles, are SO low is because there is NO hunting tradition or any real interest in maintaining habit.

As for tree hugging, one, it will get you infested with bugs and poison ivy and, two, most tree huggers cause more damage to modern forestry than ANY insect infestation in history!! ( You can't win, by brother was a forester, that is what his first degree was in) IN FACT, in the United States, there has been a NET INCREASE of land under forest canopy since 1937. ALSO, the term "OLD GROWTH" is NOT used by working foresters. The term "climax forest" is. They have reached the end of their life, produce little and are net USERS of oxygen. SCIENCE!! SCIENCE!! Many tree species put out the most oxygen in the first 3 years of it's life and LITTLE wildlife survives well in a climax forest. SCIENCE!! LOL!! THIS IS FUN!! :p
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
It is the "emotion" that is holding back almost ALL of the programs that are meant to insure wildlife populations. There is FAR more to hunting that population control. It far more complicated than that. Maybe someday you will get the chance to meet some of the waterfowl biologists that I know and hunt with. They KNOW the science and the need for hunting as we know it here. The reason wildlife populations in Europe, including the British Isles, are SO low is because there is NO hunting tradition or any real interest in maintaining habit.

As for tree hugging, one, it will get you infested with bugs and poison ivy and, two, most tree huggers cause more damage to modern forestry than ANY insect infestation in history!! ( You can't win, by brother was a forester, that is what his first degree was in) IN FACT, in the United States, there has been a NET INCREASE of land under forest canopy since 1937. ALSO, the term "OLD GROWTH" is NOT used by working foresters. The term "climax forest" is. They have reached the end of their life, produce little and are net USERS of oxygen. SCIENCE!! SCIENCE!! Many tree species put out the most oxygen in the first 3 years of it's life and LITTLE wildlife survives well in a climax forest. SCIENCE!! LOL!! THIS IS FUN!! :p


LOL yes it is .......but you have been putting forward your reasons for conservation and how bad tree huggers are, but not answering what bugs me (s'cuse the pun LOL)

1. Mankind takes over what it wants with little or no regard for the habitat already there

2. The lazy hunter who baits or the so called hunter who just wants kicks

3. The culling for population growth - ok (not how its done in some cases, but that's another subject),
hunt for food - ok, the hunt for kicks

Your turn :D
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Man is ALSO working hard to insure that habitat is conserved, at least those in this country who hunt are.

Baiting does NOT work how you think is does and in many cases will DECREASE the amount of game taken. It is not always a case of being lazy. It is, as much of this subject, more complicated than that.

Hunting is also used to INCREASE populations, adjust sex ratios etc etc etc. Culling is only ONE part of why it is important. Hunting is also used to protect certain tree species.

As to the "fun" part, that is something that would be impossible to explain since you have preconceived ideas and no real frame of reference. All fixable problems.

By the way, our dinner was a MASSIVE success. We are waiting to hear the final numbers but our credit card sales exceeded $42,000 and our live auction brought in over $21,000. That is NOT the bottom line. There was a $17,000 profit on the night BEFORE we opened the doors. 83% of that money will go DIRECTLY to habitat. I cannot wait to hear what our final numbers are but that is a week or two away.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Man is ALSO working hard to insure that habitat is conserved, at least those in this country who hunt are.

Baiting does NOT work how you think is does and in many cases will DECREASE the amount of game taken. It is not always a case of being lazy. It is, as much of this subject, more complicated than that.

Hunting is also used to INCREASE populations, adjust sex ratios etc etc etc. Culling is only ONE part of why it is important. Hunting is also used to protect certain tree species.

As to the "fun" part, that is something that would be impossible to explain since you have preconceived ideas and no real frame of reference. All fixable problems.

By the way, our dinner was a MASSIVE success. We are waiting to hear the final numbers but our credit card sales exceeded $42,000 and our live auction brought in over $21,000. That is NOT the bottom line. There was a $17,000 profit on the night BEFORE we opened the doors. 83% of that money will go DIRECTLY to habitat. I cannot wait to hear what our final numbers are but that is a week or two away.


Happy to hear the news about the dinner - well done.

Hmmmm this bit worries me .....


'As to the "fun" part, that is something that would be impossible to explain since you have preconceived ideas and no real frame of reference. All fixable problems.

I do hope you are not thinking of putting a gun in my hands :eek:

As for baiting from what I have been told (by a hunter) food is put down, he then climbs a tree and waits for the deer to come and start eating.
Voila - easy kill :mad:
Where is your fun in that :confused:

I understand that your forefathers (and I'm pretty sure mine too) hunted to put food on the table - that I have no problem with.
But again I reiterate .... as the OP ..... for kicks! That is just not right.

Also, Mankind as a species (not hunters) invades without consideration to the original surroundings.
He wants to build a dam or Mcdonalds and he will find a way around any environmental hic-cups.

In the UK we have the "green belt" used to be no way could you build on it, not nowadays .....
where I used to live 2,000 houses are going up on what was green belt when I left 1.5 years ago.
It was only a wee bit bigger than a village - one street of small shops- 2 engine voluntary fire dept. 2 medical centre's etc.
There apparently has been no thought to the impact on the infrastructure.
Also in a town near where I lived another green belt succombed to a waste facility - the council proudly announced that it is only for 3 years! :confused:

I'm sure the same sort of thing goes on here too.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Happy to hear the news about the dinner - well done.

Hmmmm this bit worries me .....


'As to the "fun" part, that is something that would be impossible to explain since you have preconceived ideas and no real frame of reference. All fixable problems.

I do hope you are not thinking of putting a gun in my hands :eek:

As for baiting from what I have been told (by a hunter) food is put down, he then climbs a tree and waits for the deer to come and start eating.
Voila - easy kill :mad:
Where is your fun in that :confused:

I understand that your forefathers (and I'm pretty sure mine too) hunted to put food on the table - that I have no problem with.
But again I reiterate .... as the OP ..... for kicks! That is just not right.

Also, Mankind as a species (not hunters) invades without consideration to the original surroundings.
He wants to build a dam or Mcdonalds and he will find a way around any environmental hic-cups.

In the UK we have the "green belt" used to be no way could you build on it, not nowadays .....
where I used to live 2,000 houses are going up on what was green belt when I left 1.5 years ago.
It was only a wee bit bigger than a village - one street of small shops- 2 engine voluntary fire dept. 2 medical centre's etc.
There apparently has been no thought to the impact on the infrastructure.
Also in a town near where I lived another green belt succombed to a waste facility - the council proudly announced that it is only for 3 years! :confused:

I'm sure the same sort of thing goes on here too.

Keep in mind that you spoke with ONE hunter and got ONLY that persons explanation about baiting. There are over 750,000 deer hunters in Michigan alone. Talk to 50 and you will get many different answers.

Yes there is poor land usage here as well. There is also more habitat conservation going on here than almost any other country on the planet and MOST of that work is paid for, pushed for and done by a majority of people who hunt and fish.

The vast majority of game taken in this country is eaten. Hunters donated in excess of 2.6 MILLION pounds of meat to the needy last year alone. Very little game is just shot and left and those people are arrested and prosecuted when caught. That sort of thing is immoral, unethical and illegal.

Hunting IS fun. No, I would not MAKE you hunt. What I meant was that, with the proper education, that I could help you to at least understand that there is more than one side to this story and emotion need not get in the way of learning.

By the way, I CAN feed my family without a grocery store.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Keep in mind that you spoke with ONE hunter and got ONLY that persons explanation about baiting. There are over 750,000 deer hunters in Michigan alone. Talk to 50 and you will get many different answers.

Yes there is poor land usage here as well. There is also more habitat conservation going on here than almost any other country on the planet and MOST of that work is paid for, pushed for and done by a majority of people who hunt and fish.

The vast majority of game taken in this country is eaten. Hunters donated in excess of 2.6 MILLION pounds of meat to the needy last year alone. Very little game is just shot and left and those people are arrested and prosecuted when caught. That sort of thing is immoral, unethical and illegal.

Hunting IS fun. No, I would not MAKE you hunt. What I meant was that, with the proper education, that I could help you to at least understand that there is more than one side to this story and emotion need not get in the way of learning.

By the way, I CAN feed my family without a grocery store.



So what other type of baiting is there?

And what is your opinion on killing for kicks as in the OP?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So what other type of baiting is there?

And what is your opinion on killing for kicks as in the OP?

Many hunters put in what are known as "food plots". They will plant things that are high in food value and will attract game onto their property. That not only feeds the deer, if it is deer they are after it feeds all kinds of other wildlife year round. Most do NOT hunt OVER the food plot but will hunt the approaches or exits from them.

Tree stands are just a tool. There are pros and cons from a hunting standpoint to using them. They give the hunter a better line of site. They allow the hunter to get out of the scent range of a deer. They can also contribute to hunter safety. A rifle being fired DOWN has less chance of traveling to unwanted destinations. The down side is IF no deer pass you see NOTHING all day. It can often DECREASE your chances of getting a deer.

I have taken a number of deer in my day. A rather LARGE number of deer. MOST of them were taken from the ground. Many I stalked for a long time till I got a shot. I have walked up to deer in their beds. I have taken some over legal bait, and some from tree stands. I do NOT take illegal deer. I have no need or desire to do so. I am good and am able to get all I want or need in a legal manner.

I prefer to hunt ducks, divers mainly. That is my first passion.

We eat what I kill and prefer REAL meat to the swill in the stores. It is what mankind is designed to eat. Low in fat, calories and LOWERS cholesterol. Hunting is good exercise, gets you out in the air and ties you to nature.

Not to worry, I would NEVER force feed you GAME or even make you watch the TV show I did on a duck hunt. Sorry, I can't hide the deer heads.

AS to the original post, I would have to have FAR more information than is presented in that post. The bias is so thick it is dripping like honey from an over full bee hive. There is little FACT and a TON of opinion. I cannot honestly say, based ONLY on that story, that "kicks" was the only reason for the kill.
 
Last edited:

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Many hunters put in what are known as "food plots". They will plant things that are high in food value and will attract game onto their property. That not only feeds the deer, if it is deer they are after it feeds all kinds of other wildlife year round. Most do NOT hunt OVER the food plot but will hunt the approaches or exits from them.

Tree stands are just a tool. There are pros and cons from a hunting standpoint to using them. They give the hunter a better line of site. They allow the hunter to get out of the scent range of a deer. They can also contribute to hunter safety. A rifle being fired DOWN has less chance of traveling to unwanted destinations. The down side is IF no deer pass you see NOTHING all day. It can often DECREASE your chances of getting a deer.

I have taken a number of deer in my day. A rather LARGE number of deer. MOST of them were taken from the ground. Many I stalked for a long time till I got a shot. I have walked up to deer in their beds. I have taken some over legal bait, and some from tree stands. I do NOT take illegal deer. I have no need or desire to do so. I am good and am able to get all I want or need in a legal manner.

I prefer to hunt ducks, divers mainly. That is my first passion.

We eat what I kill and prefer REAL meat to the swill in the stores. It is what mankind is designed to eat. Low in fat, calories and LOWERS cholesterol. Hunting is good exercise, gets you out in the air and ties you to nature.

Not to worry, I would NEVER force feed you GAME or even make you watch the TV show I did on a duck hunt. Sorry, I can't hide the deer heads.


ROFL - :D

You see I understand about stalking and killing to put food on the plate - agreed man has always done that.

But to put food down or a food plot so that the deer or whatever come to you is not "hunting".

The deer or whatever found food enough without the need for hunter assisatance for eons - so that dog don't hunt :p

You still have not commented on the "hunting for kicks"

and we haven't started on the weapons used to kill yet :(

Tony had to pull me out of Walmart not long after I arrived in the US - these guys were looking at crossbows and such.
When Tony told me what they were used for ...... well Tony thought it best we left :p
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
ROFL - :D

You see I understand about stalking and killing to put food on the plate - agreed man has always done that.

But to put food down or a food plot so that the deer or whatever come to you is not "hunting".

The deer or whatever found food enough without the need for hunter assisatance for eons - so that dog don't hunt :p

You still have not commented on the "hunting for kicks"

and we haven't started on the weapons used to kill yet :(

Tony had to pull me out of Walmart not long after I arrived in the US - these guys were looking at crossbows and such.
When Tony told me what they were used for ...... well Tony thought it best we left :p

Hunting is the act of trying to kill game. Methods vary. Dogs are used for hunting all the time!! Men have been using sticks, stones, knives, spears, bows, crossbows, firearms and even resorted to running game off of cliffs to make a kill. Man has ALWAYS used tools to kill his food. Even you "LEAF EATERS" use tools to kill your food. Do NOT forget that EVERY you eat, was once or still is alive. You have to kill almost everything to eat it, except yogurt. I REALLY love to hear them little "creatures" in yogurt SCREAM as I eat them alive!!

NONE of the things used to kill are "weapons". Tools only become weapons when used in an offensive or defensive manner against our fellow man. A rifle fired at a a target is just a tool, fired at man it becomes a weapon. NO different than a hammer, which can also be used either way.

I do NOT hunt for "kicks" but I do enjoy what I do. It IS fun! I would NOT kill, "just for fun".
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Hunting is the act of trying to kill game. Methods vary. Dogs are used for hunting all the time!! Men have been using sticks, stones, knives, spears, bows, crossbows, firearms and even resorted to running game off of cliffs to make a kill. Man has ALWAYS used tools to kill his food. Even you "LEAF EATERS" use tools to kill your food. Do NOT forget that EVERY you eat, was once or still is alive. You have to kill almost everything to eat it, except yogurt. I REALLY love to hear them little "creatures" in yogurt SCREAM as I eat them alive!!

NONE of the things used to kill are "weapons". Tools only become weapons when used in an offensive or defensive manner against our fellow man. A rifle fired at a a target is just a tool, fired at man it becomes a weapon. NO different than a hammer, which can also be used either way.

I do NOT hunt for "kicks" but I do enjoy what I do. It IS fun! I would NOT kill, "just for fun".


Yoghurt screams :eek: Now what will I eat :(

LOL

Agreed to virtually everything you stated above - but today we have humane ways to kill - bows & arrows :confused:
Surely just playing "cowboys & indians" :confused:

Does a hunter not want "a quick, clean kill" does that not mean in a humane way?
Talk about yoghurt screaming

I think you misunderstood the part about hunting for kicks - it was in regard to the OP.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yoghurt screams :eek: Now what will I eat :(

LOL

Agreed to virtually everything you stated above - but today we have humane ways to kill - bows & arrows :confused:
Surely just playing "cowboys & indians" :confused:

Does a hunter not want "a quick, clean kill" does that not mean in a humane way?
Talk about yoghurt screaming

I think you misunderstood the part about hunting for kicks - it was in regard to the OP.


No, archery hunting is NOT playing "cowboys and Indians" In the hands of a skilled shooter you get fast, clean kills. I could go into the science of how different tools actually kill but I don't think you are ready for that yet. The MAIN reason hunters use archery gear for hunting is the challenge, you have to get MUCH closer for a shot, that takes skill.

I guess I am missing the "kicks" part, what did I miss? Maybe just cut out the one sentence and repost it so I know what you are after.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
No, archery hunting is NOT playing "cowboys and Indians" In the hands of a skilled shooter you get fast, clean kills. I could go into the science of how different tools actually kill but I don't think you are ready for that yet. The MAIN reason hunters use archery gear for hunting is the challenge, you have to get MUCH closer for a shot, that takes skill.

I guess I am missing the "kicks" part, what did I miss? Maybe just cut out the one sentence and repost it so I know what you are after.

I tried watching a hunting program once - the hunter, who was also narrating and one would assume a proficient hunter seeing as he was on TV, used a bow & arrow on a moose.
The first bounced off, the second wounded it enough to run off - the hunter found it dead sometime later :(

As for the science on how each weapon kills - no thank you
Just for the record - I have used an air rifle and a dart pistol - obviously both weapons used on inanimate objects LOL.

Hunting for kicks = as in paying for big game hunting
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I tried watching a hunting program once - the hunter, who was also narrating and one would assume a proficient hunter seeing as he was on TV, used a bow & arrow on a moose.
The first bounced off, the second wounded it enough to run off - the hunter found it dead sometime later :(

As for the science on how each weapon kills - no thank you
Just for the record - I have used an air rifle and a dart pistol - obviously both weapons used on inanimate objects LOL.

Hunting for kicks = as in paying for big game hunting

Don't assume that a person is proficient just because he/she/it is on TV. Also, NO one is perfect, mistakes occur.

How did you make it through the military without learning how to shoot?

By paying do you mean hiring a guide? I have hired guides for both hunting and fishing. I have guided hunts and fishing trips my self.

If you mean buying an animal that was raised for the purpose of hunting it, that is something that I have little interest in myself. I don't see much difference between that and going to the grocery store. The good side of those "pay" big game hunts is they keep those people out of the "real" woods. They are also quite good for severely handicapped people. Many have set ups for them.

I have hunted on "pay" pheasant farms. Short of going out to the Dakotas there is no other way to hunt pheasants around here since their habitat is all but gone and modern farming practices leave no room for wildlife.

I LOVE pheasant. I breast them out. Then I a sauce of white wine and butter. I sautee onions then flash fry the pheasant along with green/red bell peppers.
 
Top