Thursday, December 3, 2009

Animals Rights Nuts

Ok, I just wanted to post a response to the video that follows, which I tried to do at the YouTube site where it was submitted, but was unable to get my response to go through. Ok...

What really doesn't make sense about all of this, is the fact that these people - the animals rights activist nuts is, they throw out a lot of hatred for hunters when they have no understanding of hunting and the beneficial effects that result of it in return, because they've never hunted, instead, choosing to ridicule thousands of law-abiding citizens who happen to be hunters who enter the woods every Autumn season, which is an important part of America's history, the Native Americans of which, who first introduced and taught the first settlers or Colonies who first landed at Plymouth Rock in the 1500s the art of hunting - teaching them to hunt with bow and arrow, and my, what the age-old tradition has grown into, it's literally amazing the bows and arrows that are on the market today. What was once a simple piece of wood, with strings made of either leather from the tendons (sinew) in the backs of the legs of buffalo or deer and even the mane hair of the horses that they traveled on. They also gathered materials from certain types of plant fibers that were tough and durable enough to withstand the tension that is required to be put on the bow to create the speed, accuracy and force necessary for adequate penetration and a clean kill of the animal being killed for food, for survival. Today's bows are made of mostly fiberglass, and milled from the finest of technologically advanced hardware in our modern era today, with accessories such as adjustable sights, arrow rests, silencers, trigger releases that you attach to your wrist and a device that has two little jaws at the end of it that open up when pressing on the trigger and then close shut when letting off, cams for ease of drawing the bow back that act like rotator joints and now are advanced to where one can hold the bow back for longer period once the bow is at complete draw, this is called "let-off" that ranges anywhere from 65% all the way to 88%...amazing! Even hard for me to understand and I've been hunting since I was a 12 year-old boy. These bows also have poundage adjusters, so that the strength of the bow can be either increased or decreased going anywhere from 40 all the way to 150 pounds...and that would take one strong fellow, let me tell you! I started out with 45 pounds when I first started hunting and later changed to 55 pounds, and when I last changed I was at 70-72 pounds of draw keep in mind, it took extra care when I deer was in front of me to not spook it away as I struggled to get the bow at full draw...of course, I used finger pads for a while, which made it more painful to pull and hold the bow string, but after I got my new release it converted all the pressure onto my wrist, making it exceptionally easier to pull and hold the bow string. However, later I began to notice that regardless of my practice, which seemed to be a fairly good grouping pattern, I was missing more deer than I was hitting - at the time, I was shooting right-handed, and had shot right-handed for several years. After a year or so of this hit-and-miss or half-accuracy, I decided to check into a new line of I went to the nearest archery shop to see if I could get a "better" bow and maybe acquire some knowledge as to why I was missing a majority of the deer that I was hunting. Well, as it turns out, I luckily found the right place...when I got there, I looked at all the new bows that were on the shelf, and they even had an indoor shooting range where I could practice some with the new bow, so I inquired with the shop owner about trying out one of the new PSE bows that he had on the bow rack there, and he said, "Sure, this the one you want to try?" And I told him right off that that was the one I wanted, as it was like the last one I had...after a few minutes of practice and hit and miss just like before, I further inquired with the owner about what was going on with my shooting? And the first thing he told me, "What is your eye dominance? What eye are you dominant in?" What?? I said to myself. He said, "Do this - form a triangle in front of you with your hands, pick an object out on the wall and focus with both eyes on the object through the triangle then close your right eye, then your left, whichever eye the object stays centered on in the triangle is the eye that you are dominant in and is the eye you must shoot with, which translates into the correct handed bow you must use." So, I tried it...I looked through both eyes two times, and on both the object was centered on the left-hand eye. Here's the thing though, after all those years shooting right-handed, many of the deer that I missed would not have gotten away had I known this information before-hand. Since I've changed to a left-hand bow, which is the eye that I am dominant in I have not missed one deer that I could clearly see. Needless to say, it was awkward at first trying to get used to the new side, but I will tell you that I'e thoroughly enjoyed it since. I picked out a brand new Hoytusa ZR200 series bow, and it is right on the mark every time and I've taken many deer since. Just recently, there was a deer that I shot at that I could not see well through the sights and I shot over its back, well, the deer ran about 60 feet and stopped to look back at what just happened (it didn't know where I was at, because I was up in a tree), so I knocked another arrow and just guessed at the general area where the deer was standing (which would be a real Indian-style shot), as I could still see the body of the deer in the little light that was quickly fading on the overcast evening. I went back later that night and retrieved my deer with the help of a friend, which took us the majority of the night as I had to drag the deer for 3.5 - 4 miles back to the vehicle. Luckily, I had a cell-phone with me that evening and could call for extra-help...I called my brother about half-way through the drag and told him to bring a rope and water! Water! Water!...Water! I was getting severely dehydrated from the heavy clothes and heavy pulling...and I would take my cap off, unzip my coat and I could see the water evaporating from the sweat like a geyser...I told him to come to the location where he could get to us after we found the railroad tracks just above the river and upstream about 1.5 - 2.0 miles. After a bit more dragging, I seen a little light coming up the tracks and boy was I ever glad to see him and that big bottle of water...then after we got the deer back to his pickup truck, we had to drive back to the hunting location where we had to walk about a mile and a half more where my pickup truck was parked, and I was wearing pretty thin...then we drove back home and hung the deer up at about 1 AM in the morning, I skinned the deer so that the meat would cool-out good for the next day which took about 30 minutes in total. Then off to clean up before hitting the hay, grabbing some cookies and milk and it was 2:00 AM on the dot, sitting there amazed, at the Lord's blessing us with a successful hunt and the strength and safety from a heart-attack or a broken leg getting the deer home. Needless to say, it took a few days to get rested up from that adventure in the middle of the frosty night through the dark hills and hollows. I could not imagine dragging an elk or moose...those are thousand-pound animals that would require heavy machines to retrieve to say the least and would take days to process.

In my response to the person who posted this video:

There is a point to be made in harvesting animals, it would be essentially thinning the herd to make it healthier. Also, it creates a peaceful form of recreation to get away from the hustle and bustle of our everyday stress-filled lives and connect with nature in much the same way the Native Americans did, of course, that was their living, their very survival, and they had to hunt for their food. Much different than today with the ability to obtain meat through the farming of cattle, chickens, turkeys, and pigs (bacon - one of my favorites). The farmer knows how many animals he can afford to raise on his budget, and he also knows how much land he has for a reasonable number of animals to keep on - putting too many animals on his piece of property would create a poor environment, it would overgrazed, or would be too crowded and the animals would become malnourished and diseased from the close proximity to each other through the overcrowded area. This same scenario applies to wild creatures...if we'd allow nature to have its way, there would be little if any deer to speak of. I remember listening to many old-timers on the subject, and every one of them exclaimed that there were no deer at one time in this part of the country, they became overpopulated, contracted a disease and all perished. This, until they introduced them back in the early 70s, and as they began to spread they had one trail that they used everywhere they went, and there were just a few hundred then...then around the year 2000 the deer population had grown to outlandish proportions, there were deer being found in the woods everywhere lying dead from lack of food, they had browsed the tree limbs for their nourishing buds as high as they could reach standing on their hind-hooves, and then there was no more. Now, keep in mind, deer hunting was legal during this entire time, but you were only allowed so many deer per year, like 3 or 4 and then they opened deer season up on the does (female deer) with a rifle...and let me tell you, it has been several years since then, and the deer that remained/remain are much bigger and fat as butter balls now. Very much healthier I must say! That, to me, really just goes to show that the land can only support so many deer in order to maintain a healthy environment for the deer and other species to thrive on. You see, what the animal rights activists don't get, is that everything gets out of balance when one is taking more than its fair share. Now granted, we humans have probably taken more than our fair share of the game species populations...but here is the entire point - you must keep the entire population in check from year to year, for it doesn't take long for them to become overpopulated. If nature has its way, then there is much pain and suffering, and I have seen this pain and suffering first hand. It's not pretty. It's sad!

I would also make the point, that ... if we want to keep our wildlife, then we must reduce the land being purchased through large land companies like Plum Creek corporation creating urban-development, that is essentially, homes being built on prime wildlife habitat...when this happens, it pushes the wildlife in a tighter space, kind of like in our own houses, if we become what are called 'pack-rats' we don't have as much space to move around and occupy in the house and we are prone to an accident happening. Well, that's essentially the way it is with deer and other wildlife when we are encroaching in on their home and we fill it with our homes.
Also, the construction of new roads must also be factored in, new roads makes it easier to access deer and increases illegal hunting activities...yeah, you guessed it, shooting deer from a vehicle, which is illegal. Roads also unfortunately create a hazard with vehicles hitting deer and killing them, I don't know how many over the years that I've seen while driving down the road that we lying by the roadside dead...and on an interstate freeway, tractor and trailers hit deer sending them for a loop and creating a mess. Of course, the Interstate traffic people have taken measures in recent years to correct this issue by putting up 9 ft. tall fences in areas where deer are prone to cross the freeway, and this has helped greatly.

So, here' what I would suggest. Ok, there is already National Parks and National Forest areas owned by the government that is free to the public, instead of allowing these land corporations to make literally billions and even trillions of dollars from it by butchering it, the government could expand more of the areas designated for National Forest area and they wouldn't have to compensate Plum Creek or whoever for anything.

You see, good folks, all these new things taking place, like the new serial numbers on ammunition, extra taxes on ammunition, paying an outrageous sum of money to Plum Creek to hunt a tiny 400 acre tract of land is all working to the favor of the animal rights activists and gun/weapon-control advocates, making it to where its going to become almost impossible to hunt in the near future. Well, that's essentially what it all boils down to. I don't know about you, but that makes me one unhappy camper!

That's how communism gets started, my good friends, a little bit at a time, inch by inch, day by day they take a piece of our freedoms away. In doing it in that fashion/order it is correctly termed socialism, but the final goal or result is, as I said, communism-complete control by the State (government) over personal/individual liberties/rights/freedoms. They don't see the very end result, being one of chaos and mayhem with the most lawless of the lawless being the ones with weapons in their hands...whose intent is to take the very life-blood of the most precious of God Creation, us humans. They don't see that, no!

But to get back to the point, they don't see the point either in maintaining a healthy wildlife population through allowing hunting, or the life-long enjoyment of the tradition that is handed down through the generations in families being able to share in God's wondrous fountain of beauty in the outdoors that is a part of hunting. You know, while I'm onto this, for those of you who are hunters like myself, I'd like to share that I received as a gift just before hunting season in 2004 The Sportsman's Bible, which can be purchased at Holman's Bible Publishers that is bound with Denier Nylon for a cover, which you can carry into the outdoors when you go hunting, camping or whatever outdoor recreation you might can purchase one here

Well, I think that's a good place to stop for right now. I will, however, have more to say on it in the future as there is much, much more to it. Needless to say, though, this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart, as I was raised in the deer and turkey woods, and I know that is the same for many others who enjoy the great outdoors, as well. So, I would like your input. If you're a hunter, or know anyone who is a hunter, you or they may feel free to share your thoughts on the issue. Yes, and feel free also to share some of your hunting adventures.

We must all stick together and fight this ever-growing battle in order to retain our time-honored traditions and rights!

God Bless You, and thank you for reading!

Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!


  1. Jeremiah,

    I have never been deer hunting but, would like to give it a shot sometime (no pun intended). That being said, I fully support the rights of you hunters who abide by all rules (many of which are ridiculous, I'm sure) and truly respect the animals for which they are hunting.

    However, I have a bit of a problem with your arguement against Plum Creek (or any large landholder for that matter) because I also believe in property rights - something getting stripped from Americans right out from under their noses without so much as a sniffle.

    If Plum Creek owns land - let them charge for you to use it. Let them develop. Let them do what they want to do. It's theirs!

    While I agree that the acquisition of such lands by the US for national parks would be a great alternative - they would still need to compensate Plum Creek! For God's sake, don't condone a "government take" without compensation. That is already happening to millions of land owners where things like wetlands, bodies of water, steep slopes and other "critical areas" are present.

    You speak to communism and socialism pervading society? What do you call your plan?!? Government, in essence, taking over PRIVATE land without compensation? Do you think they'll stop at Plum Creek?

    Look - I support your message. But, if you truly believe in constitutional rights - believe in ALL of them.

    Thank you!

  2. Dear Anonymous Poster,

    Glad to know that you are interested in trying out hunting some day. Although I do like the rifle hunt, bowhunting is by far the better experience of the two, there's just so much more skill's truly one on one then, with you pitted against the extremely acute senses of the wild critter, which ... I must confess is amazing, and once you take your first, you are hooked for life. At least I have been, although I have seen some very sad, touching moments while in the woods in my lifetime.

    I agree with you about the Plum Creek situation. However, I think there is just a small misunderstanding. All I am saying really, is that the large corporate landownders need to relinquish the land back to the American taxpayers, and if this took reimbursement to do so, let it be so. We are the rightful owners.

    It is absolutely ridiculous at the fees that are required just to hunt-once you factor in your gear, your hunting licenses and extra permits, it soon adds up to an enormous amount of money just to hunt, and some people may not hunt but maybe one or two weeks in total, and still for some, it is even less and for those folks, they forked over a great deal of money for no more than they got to hunt. Add in another 200 as a hunting fee from the corporate landowner and it becomes senseless.

    Many people cannot afford these enormous fees. And they have it set up so that only a few can hunt certain tracts of land, a first come, first serve basis type thing...if you can get 3 people to put their resources together, and they would have to be wealthy to say the least, they could lease 700 acres, and only those 3 would be the only people that would be allowed to where does that leave room for others?

    Take into account also, if you have considerable acreage behind your own house, let's say the same figure of 700 acres, and the land company owns it...if they lease that piece of property out to a hunting club, where does that leave you? You won't be able to even set foot on that property.

    It may not be communism to the fullest extent of the definition, but it is for the greater percentage of the word, because it's coming down to the wealthiest of the wealthiest being the only ones who will have access to the land.

    And yes, I am a full on believer in Constitutional rights, yes indeed.

    So ... what say you?