Interesting.
Have balls, show your pride & joy in all it's bloody, gory grander. Show the blood spilling out of the animals body. In fact I say snap a pic of it taking it's last breath, gasping for air and a smile on your face. Record that kodak moment!!!!!

Dude, I can see the veins in your forehead popping out. :p

You know Don, yeah I get worked up. It's the lack of understanding on my part. The need, sense of accomplishment, the joy of killing an animal. I suppose it's even more pics of said joy. I hope Joe Football/hunter got cougar shyte all over his hand. :D

I don't understand the joy in killing an animal at all.

When Ma nature sends her coyotes to eat my dogs and cat, mink and herons to eat my fish, and deer to eat my garden, it's way more that a nuisance.

My dad was a rancher. So was his father. Ranchers always overestimate the impact of predation on their herds. Always.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389455892.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389455926.jpg

Yes, agreed - I'm sure they do. However, "the times they are a-changin'". Today, determining whether or not a particular animal was lost to predation has taken on a political side that I suspect your father and grandfather probably did not have to navigate.

Speaking with ranchers and land owners here in Washington, over in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, I hear a common theme. They find a calf, or a lamb, or whatever killed by predators. They contact the game department. The game department sends out an "expert" whose only job appears to determine that the animal was not killed by whatever politically charged local predator is in the limelight. Wolves seem to be the most immediately ruled out; it's reached the point that even if you shoot a wolf that is feeding on one, it's up to you to "prove" that wolf actually killed it, or risk fines or imprisonment.

Mountain lions are a bit further down the scale politically than wolves (probably not "majestic" enough...), but there is still pressure to assign kills to anything but. Coyotes are the current scapegoats. No one cares if you kill coyotes - they are not "majestic" at all. Anyway, even in this politically charged environment, they can't help but charge Mountain lions with the crime in an awful lot of cases. Witness the number of depredation permits aigel mentions above. Granted, his data covers quite a period of time, but it is indicative of the problem.

That, and like I mentioned earlier, game department agents now kill more Mountain Lions in a given year than hunters ever did, ostensibly based upon complaints received from ranchers and land owners. It is a problem, the taxpayers of California are paying their game department to take care of it, where they could have paying hunters taking care of it. Either way, the cats die. Just seems like a bass ackwards, completely emotionally driven, uninformed, and expensive approach.

One is an African Lion; the other is a cougar. No comments on that yet.

The kill or the "shot" is not what drives hunting for most. It is the preparation, the pursuit, being in nature, becoming part of it and following an ancient instinct that is deeply engrained in man's soul. One can even add a dimension by including the first domesticated animal: the dog. The connection and team work between human and dog are incredible. Hunting has nothing to do with "enjoying killing" or posing with dead animals on a photograph while wearing douche-bag sports make up or blazing white veneers.

G

Then one could argue you can do the same... preparation, pursuit, being in nature, and use a camera. I will agree it is deeply engrained in some men's souls.

Whoa. Who was there first?

Well, one part of hunting is that you can eat the animal. You can't buy genuine game meat at the store. But you can get pictures of animals pretty easily on the internet. :)

That said, I have been out in the off season for scouting, and hiking, and a high quality camera with a large objective would be a lot of fun to have along.

G

Mountain lions have made a pretty strong comeback in the North East. They are not endangered in any sense of the word. Deer and coyotes are actually over abundant.

Then I was a kid, a mountain lion hadn't been seen in much of the East for many years. They are regularly seen today by casual observers. Coyotes were nonexistent. I live on the Hudson river 2 hours from NYC, and I have a pack of them in my back yard on a regular basis.

I have seen mink, black bear, fox, otter, fisher cat, bob cat, and all the usual small mammals all from the road within 6 miles from my house. These species have all made amazing comebacks in the last 40 years. Fishers in particular are voracious predators, and an area has to have a particular abundance of small game to support them.

Mountain lions are not really endangered in the US. They aren't suffering loss of habitat. They don't take 2000 years to mature like some trees, and they aren't being harvested out of existence.

Here, here is your outrage. Wait. I seem to be experiencing gratitude that there are enough that some guy with a bow can go out and find one. They are notoriously hard to hunt. However, when there are enough of them, they will start encroaching on suburban areas, because they have no natural fear of humans.

Everybody has an opinion. In this case, I really don't feel outrage. I am not a fan of outrage in general. I much prefer a reasoned and rational response.

I was in a Diner yesterday. Someone was eating chicken. Where is the outrage ?

Good or bad, who can say ? Give me pros and cons. Many of the responses I get from people every day aren't measured or considered. They are not a response so much as a reaction. A preprogrammed reaction that has been regurgitated many times over many years, with no additional thought or information given to its formation.

We miss Dottore because he thought about things. We miss Zeke because he was always willing to speak up and call BS, and would willingly admit that he didn't always know the answers. Many of the responses I hear here are pretty much the same as they were last year, and five years before that. But the world changes.

Hey, nobody ever said chickens were majestic.

I always thought it was all about getting away from the old ball and chain for a while....

http://moviecappa.files.wordpress.co...hicken_l04.jpg

I have seen a guy camped in the deer woods. He'd be having coffee in the am when we came by, prime hunting time, reading a book. :D. Opening day too. I am sure he never got anything in previous years, didn't want to bother, but enjoyed the alone time on a set yearly schedule. :D

G

I'll never understand how somebody can hate hunting, yet eat meat. I guess if you refuse to watch it happen, you're not responsible for the animals' deaths.

It' not hunting if you shoot a sitting duck with a rifle. The animal doesn't even know it's being 'hunted'. It's just minding it's own business going about it's daily life when some a-hole with a scope at a safe distance extinguishes its life. Chase the animal down like all good predators and kill it with your bare hands. Then you're a hunter.

How is it any better to eat a steak? Did somebody stalk that cow and kill it with a sharp stick?

blah, blah, blah...some old crap. So you eat Lion or Black Rhino do you???

I'm a big fan of life-saving surgery...doesn't mean I care to watch it happen.

Cows aren't majestic. Get with the program!

I'd sure give it a try if it was available.

They may be on shaky ground in LA but not in other areas. Where it's legal I have no issue with hunting. Better for the animal population as a whole.

Well Said.... I am sure it was really difficult to be at a safe distance, bait the Lion and then shoot him. It must take extraordinary skills and nerves of steel to sit at a safe distance and shoot the unsuspecting Lion.

Why not just photoshop yourself into a picture of a sleeping Lion? At least that takes some knowledge of photoshop to do a good job.

So which is which? As a professional baseball player, I bet his income is at least one, if not two decimal points to the right of hers.

For all we know, he rode a quad or a snowmobile up to a cat that had been treed by hounds, put his beer in the cupholder, and killed the cat. Maybe she spent a month, every morning and evening in a ground blind, being eaten alive by tsetse flies, mosquitos, and just about everything else that bites and stings in Africa. Maybe she spent that month hiking around the bush hunting every day in 110 degree heat, morning to night, being eaten alive by everything that stings and bites in Africa.

That's the problem - we don't know in either case, and never will. So we pass judgement based upon one photo of each and our prejudices. The non-hunters and anti-hunters especially seem to harbor many preconceived notions concerning what hunting is all about, or should be all about - with nary a clue as to what it is really all about.

So, the rough looking guy with the beard somehow looks more "right" to them than the nice looking lady. Being a lady, maybe she simply took the time to clean up a bit for the photo - who knows? Guys certainly would not - the gnarlier they look in the photo the better. But please, let's not consider these things - it's way better to pass judgement over that which we know nothing about (hunting) and specific cases we know even less about.

Only one picture shows someone who took a bow and arrows out into the wilderness, stalked and killed an animal.

Only one picture shows someone who was close to their prey, and in danger of it.

Only one picture shows the solemnity due the event.

Only one pictures shows the blood of the animal.

Only one picture shows a hunter.

Pure conjecture on your part, Shaun. There is no way you can glean any of that from those pictures.

While I have never hunted the African lion (a bit too rich for my blood), I've spent a good deal of time in pursuit of our own Mountain Lion. Have you? Do you even personally know anyone who has? I didn't think so... your ignorance of the game is betrayed in your post.

They are simply never "stalked" by anyone, anywhere. Chasing them with hounds is the only viable way to even get a chance at one, and even then that is far from a sure bet. I will absolutely guarantee that cat was treed or brought to bay by a pack of hounds.

Like I mention above, I have never had the pleasure of hunting the African lion. I've been left to live that adventure vicariously, through others that have. Some very close friends and hunting partners, some who have written extensively about their exploits, and through many reports in the general hunting press. So, yes, all I really know about it is what I have heard and read - but I have spent a lifetime doing so.

One common theme emerges - most lions are shot at dawn or dusk, when they are most active. Most are shot at very close range, from ground blinds over bait. No one "stalks" lions - to do so at dawn or dusk would be not only foolish, but unproductive. To do so in broad daylight, in the heat of the day, would be a waste of time. So it just is not done.

Guys like you how know less than nothing about hunting see a scoped rifle and assume it was employed at long range, that the hunter merely sniped away at the animal from some safe distance. Again, your comments in your post betray this ignorance. No, that is not why the scope is used on such a dangerous game rifle. It is used as an aid to shooting in very low light, when open or peep sights cannot be seen. Many such scopes on these kinds of rifles do not even have any magnification, or very little if they do (a fixed 2X or a variable 1.4-4X are very popular for this duty).

I have several heavy caliber rifles so outfitted for use on large, dangerous animals, and believe me - they are a godsend when it's very early in the morning, or starting to get dark at night. They are a real comfort when going after stuff that will fight back, in thick brush, in dim light. While I have not gone after the African lion, I have sure had my fair share of such "fun" with other animals under these conditions (even got knocked flat on my back by a bear one day, but that's a whole 'nother story...).

So, no, the bow means nothing, nor does the scoped rifle. It's almost certain the cougar was at bay, likely in a tree. Not much danger to the hunter - I've walked away from several of those that were too small. The lion, however, does not climb trees very often, and was certainly on the ground, as was the hunter - who was not very far away at all. Your assumptions are way, way off...

The lion was sitting down. They drove up in a truck, shot it and took a pic.

I've hunted all my younger life. I haven't gone hunting recently, maybe things have changed.

I'm sorry for being right.

I think the photo with the babe was Photoshop. The other one was found already dead and the football guy shmeared on a little makeup and picked it up for his photo-entourage to snap some action pics, then off to the lodge to tell of his exploits. That's my take.

On a similar note...
I follow PSE Archery on facebook. They just recently posted a couple of pictures of a clothing model holding on of their bows. People started making some pretty crass and rude comments (fake boobs, knows nothing, not a hunter, etc). The girl in the photo keeps coming on to defend herself even posting a photo of a buck she took with her bow. Pretty sad IMHO. It's not just guys making the comments either, women are just as bad.

Why such a glib, childish response?

Oh, never mind - I'm pretty sure I know. I would say something like "I expect better of you", but in all honesty, I really don't. Maybe you've spent too much time wallowing around in PARF - this is pretty much how everything winds up over there. Come to think of it, you are often the one that leads it there...

Glad we could wrap this up.

I've seen this time and time again in the hunting world. Something about an attractive lady with a dead animal really seems to set some people off. I'm no psychologist or anything, but I don't really think we need to be to understand there is something fundamentally wrong with these people. The behavior of some on this very thread does an excellent job of capturing this.

Folks who otherwise cry from the rooftops just how open minded and tolerant they are, and how everybody else is some kind of "(fill in the blank)-ist" or "(fill in the blank)-phobe" certainly show their true colors at times like this. No wonder they are so quick to assign those labels to others - they are so filled with intolerance and hatred they are afraid of being noticed, so they constantly point the finger at others.

Shaun is a great example - I've lost track of how many times he's cried "racist!" or "homophobe!" over on PARF. Yet here he is, baring his own brand of intolerance (and ignorance) for all to see, finally ending with the glib and childish when he runs out of gas.

Take that nonsense back to PARF, Shaun. It might "work" in the dysfunctional little world you folks have carved out for yourselves over there, but it sure doesn't do much for you over here. It's neither cute nor clever.

Clearly.

Geez, this thread went so well, considering the subject ... talk about killing your own thread there Jeff ...

At least it was a quick kill.

G

Im stunned.

So the hawk that picks a field mouse out of the grass to the complete surprise of the mouse is not a real hunter?

How about the big corporate meat operations that pack animals into insanely crowded situations, feed them strange doped up foods and then sneak up and chop off their heads or put a steel rod through their brains........then send it to you for your dinner?