Well fooey. Another magazine bites the dust. Sports Afield is ceasing publication after 115 years in business.

I've been reading it since I was a kid. Seems like a few years ago it went sort of yuppie. So did Popular Mechanics, however they are still in business.

I can't recall how many times I would sit with riveted attention reading Sports Afield cover to cover, then save the issue and read it again and again in the future. Homer Circle, Grits Gresham, and others I can't recall the name of. Sigh.

Some things change, some things don't. Some change for the better, some for the worse.

-- gene ward (gward34847@aol.com), April 22, 2002

Answers

SA lost its youth appeal. Advertisers aren't interested if only old codgers are buying the rag.

Most young people never have a true country experience. Most young people will grow up without ever going hunting or fishing. Outdoor experiences got too high-powered, too high tech, too expensive and too regulated.

-- paul (wprimeroselane@msn.com), April 22, 2002.

Could also be that today's young men are less interested in blood sports. Thank God!

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

I'd recommend as a replacement Fur-Fish-Game its a hunting, trapping and fishing 'poor man's' magazine.The Lew and Charlie stories are worth the cost alone.

-- Gary (burnett_gary@msn.com), April 22, 2002.

Thanks Shannon, I was about to say, a country experience doesn't have to involve killing something. I'm not against hunting (when it's done smartly, know too many people who've been shot by friends hunting), but hiking, camping and birdwatching can all be very gratifying without bringing home a carcass. And again i have to stick up for my generation! I'm 19 and have lived in the country all my life, except for the past year. Almost all the kids I know have had meaningful experiences outdoors.

-- Elizabeth (Lividia66@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

A friend of mine is a great hunter. He is out at it most seasons of the year. He really bags a lot of trophies. He is really a great shot. He uses some expensive high powered equipment. I have seen a number of his trophies and they are beautiful. Alive and beautiful....on film.

-- Charlie (kneedrop@triwest.net), April 22, 2002.

gene got it right -- the mag went yuppie.

-- Joe (CactusJoe001@AOL.com), April 22, 2002.

Well, if you are yuppie enough that's fine, but it's hard to eat film and stay alive. :) Hunting for food is probably the least intrusive most eco-friendly way for a human to live in northern climates.

And before you bash me, at least know that I don't hunt. But in my state they pretty much shut down for deer opener & fishing opener tho, as 1/3 of the population is hunting or fishing, & another 1/3 wishes it could...

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

I truly have no problem with folks who hunt because they'd go hungry if they didn't. But I have yet to meet ANYONE who falls in that category. Regardless of all the common excuses of why people hunt (overpopulation, male-bonding, stewardship, yadda-yadda-yadda), the bottom line is that hunting is about killing, and if you don't truly enjoy killing things, you don't hunt. Period.

There are myriad other ways to enjoy nature without having a negative impact on it. My 14 yr. old is a nature freak, and he does not even fish. He can identify darn near any bird, fish, or track, and he doesn't need to kill anything to do it. He is curious about fishing, just because he likes to see fish up close. I tell him, you go ahead and reach into the water and pull out whatever you can with your hands. That's fair fishing! I'd challenge any hunter to do the same; chip your arrowhead out of a rock and put it in a bow you've made from a tree limb. Or get naked and chase after a deer (on foot). If you catch it, you have my blessing to rip it's throat out with your teeth. Better still, figure out how to get birds out of the sky without a weapon...heck, you do that, and I'll eat one myself.

Leave all your doe piss and "deer cocaine" blocks and camoflage and your high-powered night-scope bazooka guns at home, and get out there in the forest and kill like real men, like the cave-men did!

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

Reality Check Time
To those of you who think that Bambi and "your friends of the forest" will die of old age if there was no hunting; WAKE UP and SMELL THE ROSES! Every animal WILL eventually die a slow, painfull death due to either starvation, disease and/or being eating by carnivore. There is no such thing as "dying of old age" in the wild. Again, all of these eventualities will happen in a natural, wild ecosystem---that's Mother Nature. Managing wildlife populations, where lives end quickly by a bullet, is orders of magnitude more merciful than what Mother Nature has in store for these animals.

-- Cabin Fever (cabinfever_MN@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

Anyone who doesn't want to eat meat is welcome to that lifestyle, it's not for me and don't try to make me out a murderer because I eat meat. If you do eat meat, but vilify hunters, then you are not thinking logically. Meat harvested (yes, harvested- deer overpop. is a serious prob. in my area) by a knowledgeable hunter is far cleaner and less toxic than the grocery stores. Why should doing your own killing and butchering be less ethical than hiring someone else to do the "dirty work" and buying neat little packages of lord knows what at the store. Yes, some folks in the country do depend on hunted meat and I don't know personally know anyone shot in a hunting accident. Compare the incidence of hunting fatalities to car, bicycle, or swimming pool fatalities. It seems to me a big problem with a lot of folks today is the separation from the origins of their food supply (or"who needs farmers, there's always the grocery store). Sorry for the rant

-- J.S. (stoom2@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Shannon, I understand you are an animal rights person, and we will never agree on these issues. I calmly present things as I see them from my point of view, and I will leave it at that, to move on to other topics. I take it that your comments are aimed at me.

I truely have no problem with an animal rights person who films nature without disturbing it. But, I have yet to meet one. Regardless of all the common excuses of how harmless it is to stomp through the wilderness I find leaving noise, garbage, disturbed habitat & yadda-yadda-yadda behind to be a very crass double-standard of how "filming is SO much better than hunting" wildlife.

Perhaps if a person got out there nude with a piece of charcoal they burned themselves & drew a picture of some wildlife they would do less damage, but those modern photographers stomping around with the auto-advance cameras are just harmful!

In reality, anyone stomping through the wilderness is imposing upon the wildlife living there.

Many hunters feed their families, and behave as a part of the environment. I find that at least as responsible and humane as any photographer.

For many people that I know, hunting & fishing is about _procuring food_. Period. The women hunters I know aren't in it for any male bonding. :) And so on.

Shannon, you live in a different world with your own blinders firmly on, and I suggest you should not make up things about people you do not know and do not understand by your own choice. You sound very foolish to me in this one message. I _do_ understand that there are many unethical & 'kill kill kill' types out there _also_, but to say you know of no one who needs to hunt or does so responsbly certainly is underwhelming and only shows your biases.

Again, I have hunted a few squirrels & rabbits that cased damage around the farmstead, and I have been fishing a handful of times in my life. But I certainly do not consider myself a hunter. I just see an odd double-standard in your words that I don't see how you can reconcile in your life. To believe that a hunter does less overall damage than a photographer - that is odd! Both disturb the habitat.

I think that people who look at the big picture of wildlife management and habitat preservation make a lot more sense than those that focus on an individual being and forget about all the rest.

But, differences in people are the spice of life, and I enjoyed your stories on the horse (how's she (or was it he?) doing?) and I'll move on to other topics now. We will never understand each other on this issue, and thank you for at least reading my words, if not understanding them.

Best wishes, --->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Well - SOME body in the neighborhood/family best know the basic skills of hunting cause if tshtf then some BODY is going to have to be the "provider". It's called SURVIVAL!!! Most of us have livestock - but how many of us buy the bulk of their feed/medical needs!? Sooooo how long do you think our stock will be "live" once we HAD to provide ALL their needs!!? My guesstimate is not many!

We tend to live in a mind set that 100 - 150 y/a people raised ALL their own food. NOT! "Hunting" played a MAJOR role in putting the meat on the table. For the family to kill a most precious chicken was consider a last resort. Remember a champain promise - "A chicken in every pot"? If you were "lucky" you had meat to put in your pot ONCE a week. And ole Bessy was truly a "sacred" cow!!!! She was the last to "go". Man has always been a hunter/gatherer. If for some very bad reason we were reduced to being totally self-sufficient - how many of us would "make it"!? And waiting till we're in that position to "learn" the skills of hunting would be too late! Heck of a time to be learning while your family is suffering because of our short-sightedness.

During the great depression - many a family found their ONLY meat source was being provided for by the markethunter. Men who had been proficient in hunting. Think any of them turned their nose up when the man knocked on their door and dropped off a fish, a duck, a squirrel, a chunk of deer meat????? Think any of them "knew" how to provide for themselves? NO!

To me, homesteading's core is self-sufficiency - at ALL times. Either you learn how-to - or you don't. But at least one person in your close circle NEEDS to have hunting skills. Just "in case". Mind you - I am NOT speaking of the "sport" hunter! I'm talking of one who hunts and then EATS what they bag!!!! Nor do they bag their "limit" only because they "can". I'm speaking of a person who hones their skill at hunting as a means of "providing" for their family's ability to SURVIVE!!!! Survive on their OWN if the need should become paramont!

I am not one who can look Bambi in the eye and shoot. But if I had a house full of kids and I HAD to provide - I darn SURE hope that I at least have the basic knowledge to do so - or have some one in the household that DOES!!!!! It's easy to say don't kill/hunt - BUT - how many would change their mind if they AND their kids very survival was dependant on some one briging home the meat!!!!? Many people found themselves in that postion not too many generations ago - and one thing is for SURE!!! History DOES repeat itself!

-- dottie - in E shore MD (mother-ducker@webtv.net), April 22, 2002.

http://www.tednugent.com/about_tnusa/hunters_hungry.shtml

-- B. Lackie - Zone3 (cwrench@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Shannon,

Since you are against hunting and fishing, I can only assume that to be consistant, you're also against raising animals for food and perhaps even gardening (wanton slaughter of plants).

The thing that bothers me about animal rights extremists is that they have no room for anyone else's beliefs on the subject, and they will often either knowingly or unknowingly consume animal products that were raised in extremely inhumane conditions.

What you do or don't do is fine with me, but please don't insult us by trying to force your beliefs on us.

-- bruce (niobrara55@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

don't pay attention to her rants. it has been clear that she turns to animals to the extreme because she can't handle people or even her own children. same reason most of the animal rights nuts get involved in it.

-- hunter (nevermind@dontmatter.com), April 22, 2002.

hunter, although I frequently disagree with the positions that Shannon and other animal rights activists take.........I find your comment unkind and uncalled for. Of course you are not brave enough to use your real name........so that certainly tells us a lot about you.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

We'll I am not a hunter or a fisherman, but I did enjoy reading Sports Afield, it was nice publication years ago. So Gene, I am with you I'll miss it too. Shannon, I agree with some of what you say and I applaud your passion.
And Mr. Hunter at the fake addy it's one thing to attack a persons belief's but you cross the line when you say something about their children/family. I would like to think everyone here agrees on that. I hope...

-- claudia in NY (cooleyville@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

well said diane. yes, let's do keep it civil. this type of post becomes troll bait right quick.

-- B. Lackie - Zone3 (cwrench@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

At least Shannon is consistent . She has never swatted a fly, never killed a mosquito, aphids share her garden and slugs are welcome in her back yard. She is mad at that Salk guy for eliminating the polio bug and opposes any research on virus' done by pharmaceutical companies. She thinks death from the flu bug is natural and loves rats, mice, moles and gophers.

-- carnivore (none@no.name), April 22, 2002.

As a once faithful subscriber to Sports Afield who started by always reading my brother's copy when we were kids, I thought I'd put my .02 worth in. I always thought it was a pretty good magazine, but in the years I subscribed it seemed like they covered the same things over and over again in a cycle. Once you've got 2 or 3 back issues with the same info, why do you need more? And, yes the ads and articles seemed to be more geared towards the "yuppies" who could afford all the new gadgets and fancy fishing and hunting trips. Now, for the anti-hunting position that's also being brought up in this thread: hunting for sport, that's your business and I don't personally do it or endorse it, but hunting for food has always been part of life in my family and that I truely believe in and that's our business. We always hunt on private land and eat what we kill. Now, I don't mean anyone on her in particular so please don't get on my case for this next comment, but I'm always amazed by the number of animal rights people who go off spouting their beliefs while wearing leather shoes and jackets! I have much more respect for people who truely live their beliefs, totally and quietly.

-- rose marie wild (wintersongfarm@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

The majority of the readers of the Sports Afield magazine abhor the hunter who kills only for the thrill of killing. This type is the extreme rather than the norm, just as Shannon is the extreme in the other direction. When, as a gardener I go out into the garden to till, plant, weed and harvest the crop, I get a thrill out of my actions. I am proud of my accomplishments and enjoy the fruits of my labor much more than buying them at the grocery store. Why then, do the extremists, such as Shannon condemn me for getting the same thrill out of hunting and fishing and providing natural food for my family?

I have not read cover to cover, a hunting/fishing mag for years, but can remember growing up with them and loving the hunting and fishing articles. SA's passing is an indication of the direction this country is taking and a sad day it will be when the Shannons are able to eliminate all hunting and fishing. May Sports Afield rest in peace.

-- Mac in Ak (nospam@no.spam), April 22, 2002.

I am a hunter/fisher person who does so to provide meat for the table. I enjoy the experience very much. I can sit in the woods for hours watching the squirrels play and kill one when it is time to take it home for tomorrows supper. For all the animal rights activist, and vegetarians because they are against killing animals for food, they will feel differently when the deer, squirrel, and rabbits have eaten all their veggies. I can hunt with a bow and fish with a cane pole, tools for the poor country girl. For the vegans who don't believe in consuming animal products, God provided mammal milk for the infant of the human race when he built them. SA was a good mag to grow up with and it's demise will eventually be missed because the younger ones won't have it to teach the way.

-- Robin Downing (Southpawrobin1@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

I apologize sincerely if I have forced my beliefs on anyone. I am kind of excited, though, to think that I have that power! You mean that by merely reading my post, some of you now hold my same beliefs? That was way too easy. Think of the potential here! I could change the world if I posted on enough forums, huh??

I forget who asked if my post was directed at them. It was not. The post was an expression of my view of and frustration with the common hunter. Not the hunters who had to feed their families during the depression. Not the Eskimos who hunt to eat. Not the homesteaders who hunt as an act of self-sufficiency. No, I am referring to the "if it moves, kill it" crowd, and unfortunately, their numbers are large. Much larger than the number of hunters who have a respect for wildlife. If you're a member of the second group, then why are you offended by what I said? You should loathe the first group as much as I. They give you a bad name & image. You "good guys" need to work on that, and compensate for the losers amongst yourselves, rather than waste time trying to convince an animal rights nut like myself to change my thinking. Weed out the bad apples in your group, and distance yourselves from them, rather than trying to defend sport-hunting as a whole. And I was talking about sport-hunting, to start with. The name of the magazine is "Sports Afield", after all. Not "Hunting for Basic Survival". I've stated before that I'm mostly okay with people raising animals for food, particularly in the small-farm way that seems common on this forum. Not that it matters what I think; I'm only saying that because someone else brought up meat-eating in general. While I am a vegetarian, I am accepting of your choice to eat meat, especially if you avoid the tortured carcasses that come off the factory farms.

Soooo, anyone care to take up my challenge of catching fish by hand or bringing down a buck in your birthday suit? Video proof will be necessary. Provide the proof, and I'll eat the whole deer myself! ;)

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

Rose Marie, I wholly agree with your last sentence. If you knew me, you'd be surprised at how much I am NOT a fanatic. And if animals could speak for themselves, and defend themselves, I'd leave it entirely to them. Do you actually think it's FUN having to do what I do, in the face of such vast and pervasive ignorance and indifference?

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

Wait, wait, wait. I mean the indifference and ignorance of the general population, not the population of this forum.

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

I hate to see any publication go out of print. I was reading this week about the demise of several aimed at the home hobbiest/scientist. The article was bemoaning the fact that there will soon be fewer or no home grown scientists coming up through the ranks of childhood.

How many of us really encourage our children to tinker? Do we ourselves know? Well I for one do. Sure wish that I had taught my daughter more about the fun science/tinkering/playing can produce.

Anyway, Shannon I respect your right to your opinions. 'Spect it is frustrating that you can't convince everyone to believe as you do. Still though it would be a drab world if we all believed alike.

Just want you to know that I really enjoy the thrill of hunting, but I do not like killing as you suggested is connected. As a matter of fact the last few times I've gone hunting with others and by myself I haven't even carried a gun. MAINLY because I don't care to eat the game and because I'm to tight with my money for a license.

As for people needing to kill for food--my brother tells the story that our dad made him quit hunting one year. (The rabbit kills were either eaten by us or given to our dogs and cats.) When he asked why he could no longer hunt, he was told that a neighboring family needed the rabbits for their table, and there just weren't that many around that year. Think there were at least 9 in the family and it was probably the only meat they could get.

Expect that the family survived by what today we would call homesteading skills, i.e. gardening, poultry, and raising hogs as they could, when they could afford the feed that they couldn't grow themselves on what acreage they had.

I digress from the topic, but the family finally was able to get ahead and get on their feet when a grain elevator was constructed locally and both boys and their dad were able to get steady employment at a decent wage.

Hope you haven't felt too bashed, but others feel strongly about their rights to opinions also.

-- Notforprint (Not@thekeyboard.com), April 22, 2002.

Shannon was making an exception for those who were truly hungry, if I read her post correctly. I do to, and would add that some of the same people out hunting "because they're hungry" also seem to have money for booze and cigarettes, which aren't getting any cheaper, so when I see that, I question the "true hunger" issue. I also make an exception for "thinning out" the herd, when permitted by the government, especially if the meat will be going to the hungry.

I think that, with all the government help people in this country get, and can get, unless you are incapable of accessing it (for example through some health issue--say you can't fill out the forms), nobody is hungry enough in the U.S. to justify hunting for that reason.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 22, 2002.

Goodness, and to think this thread started out simply with an individual bummed about Sports Afield going down...ah, the power of words....

Blessings, everyone! The sun is shining in western NE today! How 'about where you are? (:

-- teddy in NE (millerfam@panhandle.net), April 22, 2002.

Goodness, and to think this thread started out simply with an individual bummed about Sports Afield going down...ah, the power of words....

Blessings, everyone! The sun is shining in western NE today! How 'bout where you are? (:

-- teddy in NE (millerfam@panhandle.net), April 22, 2002.

Whoops! Sorry, folks... not sure how I submitted that twice! (:

-- teddy in NE (millerfam@panhandle.net), April 22, 2002.

I used to be a subscriber to Sports Afield, and am not surprised to hear about them going belly up. I think besides readership, the cost of publishing and shipping the newstands is getting prohibitive in cost.

I second the motion for the recommendation of Fur-Fish & Game; plain ole common sense tactics for the outdoorsman. Might also want to suggest looking at The Backwoodsman, though this caters to the more primative (blackpowder and archery) modes of hunting.

Hunting has changed greatly during my lifetime; trophy deer are worth big money, and leasing rights have rose beyond the means of the regular guy. In my state (Texas), baiting has brought about a new hunter. The guy who just puts out a pile of corn, sits in a blind near the feeder, and waits for his/her deer of choice to show up. Hunting? BS, that is killing. Though I will admit that if you are hard up for venison, that is probably the way to go if you are in a hurry.

Stalking in the woods, or picking a trail where you hope a deer will cross is more my style. Sometimes you win; most of the time, all you will see is a waving whitetail, or noise of game who heard / smelled your scent. The shame is kids who are now being brought into the sport don't know the difference; they hardly get to hunt small game, and don't know the differences.

-- j.r. guerra in s. tx. (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), April 22, 2002.

As a person who farms I can tell you I appreciate deer hunters, around 200,000 deer are killed in VA every year but still can't plant a crop that deer will eat and expect a decent harvest,but the flip side is my friends, family and myself have lots of low fat meat to eat.I don't see where killing a deer is any different from killing a sheep,a chicken, a fish or a cow to eat or make clothes out of.

-- Gary (burnett_gary@msn.com), April 22, 2002.

"Not that it matters what I think;"

You got that right.

-- bruce (niobrara55@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

lets all kept things civil. i also recommed fur fish and game. I hunt and raise meat and a garden I really don't see much difference between killing plants or animals for food hunting or butchering not to mention the millions of microbs and bacteria your body fights off and kills everyday or you would get sick and die you kill millions of things everyday just to stay alive. I hope that respect is the common ground we all have on this forum. All of my animals have good food fresh water big stalls and proper vet care. As a side point though and one nobody has brought up yet i am a hunter i have as much right to hunt as a lion or mink and I am no less a part of nature then they are. I have caught fish by hand and i wasn't naked but i have taken big game with a spear and i do have the video tape but im not interested in forcing anyone to eat a whole deer. There is no way to stay alive except by the death of other things we should appreciate their sacrifice every minute. jkg

-- jason godsey (jasonkgodsey@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

What magazine were we talking about? Hey Teddy, it's clear, warm and windy here in western Oklahoma.

-- cowgirlone in ok (cowgirlone47@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Accessing government help? When the government permits?

This is truly sad. I hope you realize you are giving away our money and rights

-- J.S. (stoom2@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

Gloomy, rainy and smatterings of snow......did I mention gloomy?? So, here I am reading this silly thread again :>)

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

J.S., when I wrote "accessing" I was referring to the capacity to know how to get that help. A lot of the mentally ill, for example, can't get help without someone to fill out the forms for them--has nothing to do with being permitted to or not.

And animals do have some rights.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 22, 2002.

Shannon- I'm gonna get ya to eat that deer. I looking up references for a hunter who can take them by hand. I've gotten as close as three feet to a fully wild deer. I've been in a tree right above a deer may 10 feet below me. It's not as good as eating crow(hee,hee), but you're gonna like the taste of venison.

-- Drew Whitfield (huhwhat2@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

OK, Drew, but remember, it has to be a nekkid hunter who kills the deer with a bite to the throat, and it has to be on video! :)

Weather here is very cold and rainy and bleak. Bleh!

-- Shannon at Grateful Acres Animal Sanctuary (gratacres@aol.com), April 22, 2002.

I've never read that magazine, but it's sure not uncommon for magazines to go "yuppie" and be ruined. I canceled my sub to Organic Gardening years ago when they featured Meryl Streep campaigning for organic foods and had an issue devoted to, get this, harvest festivals you could attend. Give me a break! I'd rather see a magazine go out of business than to be destroyed the way they did that one. Still have the old issues from 30 years ago. They are great.

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), April 22, 2002.

I'm with you on Org. Gardening. They ruined a great and very helpful resource. I got very tired of that editor with the puns. I still buy the old issues (small ones) at yard sales, etc. with article by people like Logsdon. Sometimes I see great things advertised that I wish I could order but alas, the business is defu

-- J.S. (stoom2@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

GT, I don't think you got my point. Probably because we are philosophically light years apart here. My emphasis should have been on the "government help" not "accessing". The "government help" is other peoples money, not the governments. I wasn't referring to permits to access, I was referring to your "thin the herd, when permitted" comment. There probably wouldn't be a herd but for hunters and their license fees. I gather you believe it is more "correct" to subsist on government handouts than self-sufficiently harvest your own meat supply, and live with pride and confidence. I confess I haven't seen the animal bill of rights.......

-- J.S. (stoom2@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.

More than 10% of the wildlife that gets killed in my state (fish excluded), gets killed with automobiles. So when is everyone going to stop driving?

-- Ed Copp (OH) (edcopp@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

Shannon, when you get that video of the "natural" hunter I want to see it! Should make for some entertaining viewing!!! ;)

-- Terri in WV (mrs_swift_26547@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

With SA gone a good mag is Bowhunter. My cousin is a bow hunter and proud of it. Has had some good articles printed in the mag. and brougt home some good tasting meals! Some of his best work though was with his video camera. There is something thrilling in him crouching behind a tree while a suspicious Elk buck walks right up there takes a hard look and then goes back to his harem. Fun watching! LQ

-- Little Quacker (carouselxing@juno.com), April 22, 2002.

I don't think there is an animal bill of rights per se, but we do have an obligation to be good stewards of the earth. I'm sure that there are many who hunt without licenses (I mean, look at all the people who drive without them), so the license/permit issue is really a non-issue (although if you can afford a rifle and bullets, it follows that you can afford a license as well).

I am not pro hand-outs per se either, but if there is food, and a mechanism for giving it out, and the food is already dead (livestock), you might as well get rid of it before it goes bad. Food banks are not necessarily government run with taxpayer money, and that was what I was referring to, not necessarily food stamps/welfare. And you don't need meat to survive, there are plenty of healthy vegetarians around to prove it.

So yes, we disagree, but that's okay!

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 22, 2002.

Shannon,if the hunters have to get naked and hunt,do the vegetarians have to get naked and graze with the cows and deer in the meadow? Only seems like the fair and natural thing to do.Give them poor blades of grass a fighting chance!

-- Gary (burnett_gary@msn.com), April 23, 2002.

Shannon - You still out there?

You have defenders and you have attackers. I am neither. I am not interested in the debate, just your challenge.

There are many hunters that are now using bows they make by hand and arrows also made by hand. That challenge is accomplished each archery season countless times.

As noted by another poster, people can and do catch fish by hand. Heck - if I were in a salmon river at the right time I could do it blindfolded. I may have to fight off a dozens of other animals there for the easy pickings, but it can and is done.

As far as killing a deer while naked with your teeth... I didn't say I accomplish that today, a hunter always chooses the best times. I doubt that it was done very often even by cave men, but I am sure it is possible. Just to show you how possible it is maybe you could look at www.trackerschool.com. You can't pass this guy's class on tracking without touching a live wild deer, and yes if it does something for you they are usually almost naked. I'm sure fully naked could be accomplished if it does something for you. I and many other college age people have done a lot of crazy things naked - nothing new there. In fact, many runners still train and race bare foot, and believe me nylon running shorts aren't really clothing. Again, I am not here to bash, just discuss and learn. Our world is ever changing and it is evident here we can easily become biased. I am not surprised about the uproar this started. The internet is full of extremes. As of right now I can't really say I am going to accomplish your challenge. I'll check with the regs about killing a deer with your method for my state. Point is - I just wanted you to know that making the hunting challenge harder doesn't make it impossible. Many of the modern developments in hunting don't make the hunter successful, it's their ability to hunt. I had modern equipment many years and never took a deer. I didn't know how to hunt, but experience, reading and mentors have changed that.

It seems to we owe this post, and it's close relative the bill of rights one as much to you as to Paul. Thanks for playing - and be true to yourself.

-- Drew Whitfield (huhwhat2@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Good grief! You people make me want to gouge the eyes right out of my potatoes!

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), April 24, 2002.

Until just now, I didn't read any of this thread exept the original post. Good grief, what the heck is the matter here? Everyone is ranting and raving like they have nothing else to do. So Shannon posted her opinion....is this something new? If, for nothing else than accomplishing something positive, everyone go find something to do. For myself, I have to go to a little town for a bit. Then I'm going to vacuum and do some painting.

-- Ardie/WI (ardie54965@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

Gary I am third for "Fur, Fish, and Game". I just read my first copy cover to cover. Really great magazine!

As for running around naked and chewing on deer necks, first of all the mental picture of me doing this is enough to scare me, much less what it would do to all of you.

God killed the first animals. That took care of the clothing. After that men were not stupid enough to chase down deer and chew on them without killing them. No from the beginning of man's hunting for survival, men have always reached for the best weapon the could find to subdue their prey. At first it may have been simple rocks. If Shannon doesn't like the idea of bullets(which more often than not is a quick humane method of terminating a life), I am sure the idea of stoning an animal to death would probably be repugnant to her.

Here's a possible senario: A man is hungry and needs a meal. He goes to a deep narrow rocky canyon. He somehow finds a way to lure his prey into the canyon and climbs to the top of the nearest ledge. He then starts an avalanche which in turn kills the animal probably pretty slowly. The animal more than likely suffers and the meat is bruised and damaged, which destroys it's eating qualities.

Contrast this to today: A man has a family that he wants to feed. His family can get food from the grocery store, but the quality they can afford is certainly not the healthiest choice. Instead of grazing on a wonderful natural diet, the animals have been grazing on antibiotics, pesticide ridden genetically modified grain, and preservatives. The have also been raised in feed lots where crowding, piling manure, and minimal sunlight and grass has been their constant companions. The man is unhappy with the idea of knowing where this food comes from and yet cannot afford the price of organically raised meat. So he grabs the most effective, humane device for bringing down and animal, and hits the hunting trail. Of course, first he jumps through the required federal and state hoops to get permission to feed his family. (Control the man, control the food) The man as a hunter wants to disturb the envioronment as little as possible, because any evidence of his presence will also mean that there will be no meat on the table. He also wants a clean kill, because without one once again there will be no meat on the table and no trophy on the wall. So the man hunts for the right animal. He purposely skips ove animals that are very young, knowing that those animals are needed to feed him next year. He may take a doe this year, because the number of does in his state are pushing the population to an overwhelming high, increasing the chances of mass deaths by disease and oncoming cars. He also is looking for a big buck, because he knows that the larger bucks need to be weeded out to keep fertility rates within acceptable limits.

Finally the man sees his prey, and shoots, hitting the animal in the heart causing near instant death(much better than stoning). The man then skins the animal, saving it for tanning later. Then he quarters the animal, leaving the heaviest parts with very little meat to feed the buzzards just as his Lion counterpart would do. Off the man goes to give his family clean, fresh meat for the year.

In my state the deer are growing by leaps and bounds. This is from near extinction a hundred years ago. The hunters here insure not only the survival of these deer, but also the continued healthiness of the herd. The world over the primary animals slated for extinction are those that hunting is illegal for. These animals including elephants, tigers, lions etc., are being wiped out by poachers simply because they can get high prices for them BECAUSE of so called wildlife protection. In contrast, most of the widely hunted animals are growing in numbers rather than declining. A good example of this is the canada goose. Currently Canada geese are the most numerous bird in north America. Their populations are growing. They are also widely hunted. If indeed animal activists really did want to protect species, they would realize that hunters are their best friends. They would realize that the absolute best thing to save animals is to use sound hunting management practices. Instead, animals across the world are being killed supposedly to protect them from hunters. It saddens me to see whole species disappearing in the name of saving them. And the people who are claiming to be protecting these animals do nothing to stop it. They stand by and allow markets to be created for poachers to make ten or even a hundred times more money from, than if those same animals could be hunted legally. Not to mention that they prevent a whole army of protectors from being in the forest(or jungle) that could report these poachers. If you want to stop poaching, take the poachers business away.

Little bit farm

-- Little bit Farm (bittlelitfarm@aol.com), April 24, 2002.

Lackie, You of all people should talk.

-- nunya (eatsomething@aol.com), April 24, 2002.

true. and after recent reflection I was prompted to post the above. that shoe fits.

now, if it's Ted Nugent you don't like then that's different...

-- B. Lackie - Zone3 (cwrench@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.