“We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock,” Mr. Ryan said. “We don’t want to turn the safety net into a system that ultimately drains people of their potential, that ultimately lulls people into lives of complacency and dependency on the federal government for their well-being.” – Rep. Paul Ryan
And I gotta love this: “..his office, adorned with a large Green Bay Packers helmet and a duck he bagged on a hunting trip.”
1 Comment | 
Hunting, politics, Quote of the Day, Wisconsin | 
Permalink
Posted by Peter
Via Alan, via Robb, via Brigid, via My Hunting Spot (that’s as far back as I can trace it)
Leave a Comment » | Hunting, People that don't have a clue | Permalink
Posted by Peter
John still loves to tell the world that if deer were attracted to loud sighs, swinging feet from the deer stand, and constant complaining about the cold… I would have a herd of heads on the wall. – Tracy
Leave a Comment » | Hunting, Quote of the Day | Permalink
Posted by Peter
Good to see. Hunting has been on the decline, probably due in no small part to the investment of time and money required. It would be a shame for hunting to die out, both in terms of the tradition that hunting in America is, but also the troubles with animal overpopulation.
I haven’t hunted for a while, but used to enjoy it quite a bit. I did go dig up my old hunter ed card, now I just need a license, and most of my old cloths “shrunk,” so I’ll need some new stuff… at this rate I should be in the woods by 2012.
Leave a Comment » | Exercising our rights, Hunting | Permalink
Posted by Peter
The NRA regularly parrots Craig’s misleading message about our public land roadless areas, interchanging the terms Wilderness, Roadless Areas and Road Closures, in an effort to confuse the public and convince hunters their hunting access will be lost in those areas, a blatant falsehood. In fact, land covered by any of those three designations is open to hunting; only motorized access is restricted to various degrees.
In fact, hunting and fishing are usually better, often much better, in roadless areas. The most exhaustive scientific studies have repeatedly confirmed that elk, deer, bears, mountain goats, bighorn sheep and trout do better in areas away from active roads. – Pat Wray at Huntersandshooter.com
First off, I do not think that hunters as a rule are snobs*, I am referring to this particular snob, who happens to be hunting. Look, Pat, there is a reason things are bigger back there. It is because those lands are not accessible to people who, oh you know, have JOBS, don’t have the time or the money to ride back in on horseback or hike in. I am not saying we should pave Yellowstone, but closing roads and restricting access might as well be closed for most hunters.
Pat and his kind *cough*AHSA*cough* are trying to divide hunters and shooters, and we can’t let that happen. Whether you shoot paper, clay, or game, we need to realize that:
a) we all depend on our Second Amendment rights
b) that divided we will not be nearly as effective at protecting those rights
c) No, you are not better because you don’t kill Bambi, or because you can eat what you shoot and you can’t eat paper, or whatever people use to put other sooting sports down.
And to top it off, Pat Wray is running for the NRA board. We need to do what we can to make sure that gets all of nowhere.
* For the record, I am an “inactive hunter,” I have hunted in the past, and intend to again at some point, but spend most of my “gunny” time at the trap club, along with rifle/pistol ranges. My not hunting right now is related mainly to time and money, or lack thereof.
1 Comment | gun politics, Hunting, People that don't have a clue, Quote of the Day | Permalink
Posted by Peter
There has been another coyote attack in California. With three attacks in five days, maybe it is long past due that we recognize the threat these animals pose and start shooting them. Fortunately, none of the children that have been attacked were killed, but the next one might not be so lucky. Sorry if this sounds too blunt and “uncivilized,” but we need to make these predators fear man. I really don’t see why this is so controversial. If you are a Biblical creationist (which I am), God gave us dominion over the animals. While this does not give us a right to abuse them, removing problem animals is certainly Biblical. For instance, David killing the lion and the bear attacking his sheep. If you are a evolutionist, it is simple survival of the fittest. We make guns and traps, therefore we are more fit, and survive. I don’t see the problem here.
Related:
You are currently browsing the archives for the Hunting category.
