Horns Without the Hide - Would You?

[dieselchessy]

Where did it say you couldn’t keep the meat? Did I miss that part?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a hypothetical question. His description of the hypothetical situation was the part in parentheses.

 

[Kevin Dill]

If I'm hunting...I'm after an animal I intend to eat. Period. Might have big antlers or a great hide for me to keep, but the meat is the reason for my season. I can't justify continued hunting and killing once my larder is full. I would hunt (meat) for others, but I haven't felt the desire. My need to hunt is always tempered by my responsibility to conserve and use the resource wisely.

I might shoot a predator here on my farm, but that's definitely not hunting as I see it. Opportunistic killing...yes.

 

[Dos Perros]

I've always thought it would be cool to have a team that just comes along and cleans up behind me through the season. I keep killing, and they keep hauling them out. Where they take them......I don't care. Drop them off at all the local soup kitchens. That would be a fun elk season.

Pretty grotesque dude.

 

[DWhite213]

I don’t kill just to kill. If I do hunt for the trophy I have somewhere for the meat to go. If they need the animals for research and it’s something that needs to be done I don’t see a problem with it.

 

[5MilesBack]

Pretty grotesque dude.

I don't see it that way. I'd hunt elk year round if it was legal. When hunting coyotes do you stop at one or keep shooting? Coyotes are animals too. I've never understood why some people put the almighty ungulates on some high pedestal, yet at the same time they have no problem killing all they can on coyotes or such......and then don't even save the meat. That's hypocrisy. Are coyote hunters grotesque? You could also add prairie dog shooters to the list, or even anyone eliminating gophers, mice, rats, raccoons, etc.

 

[dreamingbig]

It was a hypothetical question. His description of the hypothetical situation was the part in parentheses.

Gotcha. It wasn’t what Idaho was proposing in the article. I thought it was a bit misleading to those that didn’t read the article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[guylaga]

I hunt for the meat, horns are an added bonus.

 

[bozeman]

Yep!

 

[TxxAgg]

To answer the question, yes I would. I love hunting, and I'm not sanctimonious about it.

 

[WBT]

I have zero interest in killing something for the sake of killing something.

 

[Dust Rider]

Yes.

 

[Dos Perros]

I don't see it that way. I'd hunt elk year round if it was legal. When hunting coyotes do you stop at one or keep shooting? Coyotes are animals too. I've never understood why some people put the almighty ungulates on some high pedestal, yet at the same time they have no problem killing all they can on coyotes or such......and then don't even save the meat. That's hypocrisy. Are coyote hunters grotesque? You could also add prairie dog shooters to the list, or even anyone eliminating gophers, mice, rats, raccoons, etc.

Some coyote hunters absolutely are grotesque, yes.

 

[5MilesBack]

Some coyote hunters absolutely are grotesque, yes.

"Some". Which doesn't address the actual quandary I presented.

 

[Dos Perros]

"Some". Which doesn't address the actual quandary I presented.

What's the specific quandary? That coyote hunters don't eat the meat?

 

[5MilesBack]

You said "some" so that means not "all". You called me grotesque for wanting to hunt elk all season regardless how many I killed, while having a group that takes care of them for me so I can keep hunting. Every coyote hunter I know does the same.......minus the "group". Same for prairie dogs etc. So now I'm wondering which of those hunters you would qualify as not grotesque since you said "some" are? Those that only kill one coyote......or those that eat everything they kill? Other than physical appearance, those are the only other quantifiers that would fit with what we are discussing.

 

[Dos Perros]

You said "some" so that means not "all". You called me grotesque for wanting to hunt elk all season regardless how many I killed, while having a group that takes care of them for me so I can keep hunting. Every coyote hunter I know does the same.......minus the "group". Same for prairie dogs etc. So now I'm wondering which of those hunters you would qualify as not grotesque since you said "some" are? Those that only kill one coyote......or those that eat everything they kill? Other than physical appearance, those are the only other quantifiers that would fit with what we are discussing.

Hunting is different than killing. Like you, I would love to hunt elk every day of the season. But I interpreted your comments to mean that if you could kill an elk, or 10 elk, or 100 elk every day, you would.

Would you shoot them from a helicopter if legal?

 

[WCB]

Depending on circumstances... I would and have. Hunted New Zealand and Africa. I have also "donated" the meat from a bunch of deer. IMO donating it is the same thing.

 

[Justin Crossley]

I would hunt without being allowed to take the meat and/or the hide depending on the circumstances. Examples would be Africa (as long as the meat was used), Science (using the meat for studies), predator or varmints (simply to keep numbers in check).

Personally, I get sick of the "holier than thou" types who say things like "I only kill what I eat". If you only hunt for meat, that's fine but don't make it sound like hunting for the antlers, hide, AND meat is somehow wrong. It's my opinion that most people who make comments like that can only kill young fawns/does instead of old, cagey bucks.

As long as the hunting is legal and ethical (everyone must decide this for themselves), I'm for it.

 

[Justin Crossley]

I have also shot deer that were hit by cars and walked away simply because the law at the time didn't allow recovery of roadkill. I would rather have seen the meat go to use but I knew I was right to kill them regardless.

 

[TnRanger]

No way!