plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
You've posted enough "hey look at me" pictures that I don't see why you are worried about the next guy.
Extreme hunting
- Thread starter timdollins66
- Start date
You're kind of late planning an "extreme" hunting trip for the year. For under $5,000, I'd be contacting outfitters for cancelled hunts and looking for leftover tags in states like Colorado that offer them.
Wolverines are generally an incidental take on a big game hunt in Alaska or Canada. You don't need a guide for one, and can get a tag so if that's your goal drive up and look for one. They have a huge range, so connecting will be a challenge. Have never heard of a targeted wolverine only hunt, so you might be treading new ground.
Wolverines are generally an incidental take on a big game hunt in Alaska or Canada. You don't need a guide for one, and can get a tag so if that's your goal drive up and look for one. They have a huge range, so connecting will be a challenge. Have never heard of a targeted wolverine only hunt, so you might be treading new ground.
There's no hypocrisy in admitting that I harvested an easy kill for food yet being revolted by the notion of tracking down a dangerous animal (but not one that is threatening a community or some such) just for the sheer joy of blowing it damn head off. That's the distinction I make: Hunting for food vs killing an unsuspecting critter for the joy of killing (scientific population management and community safety are obviously a whole separate situation). Do even the indigenous people of the Arctic intentionally hunt polar bears for food? Anybody making wolverine burgers?
Yea, but my camping trips don't involve killing non-food stock critters for glory. Big difference.
Zeiderman
Adventurer
You do understand that some would use your same argument on you and your land usage don’t you.
Hell you drive a Toyota and sleep in an a RTT, what a lil b***ch, I walk in and sleep under the stars with no footprint.
Hunters should not be attacking hunters. I don’t trophy hunt either, but hey if someone wants to legally take game that way go for it. And at the end of the day I will stare at their 9’ grizzly mount, listen to their story, and think that person has some balls right there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
Is there a shovel mounted on that tacoma, or are you digging this hole with your manly bare hands?
A more apt analogy would be a guy with a shovel lauding his triumph over nature because he can dig faster than a gopher. Kinda ridiculous, aint it? Nothing "extreme" about it, especially if you've paid a guy $5k to bring you to the softest, loamiest pile of dirt in which to dig.
plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
If only it was that easy. Dalko clearly laid out facts showing its not. Carry on though this is getting interesting.
1) Your hypocrisy stems from the fact that you criticize polar bear hunters for being "pansy's" because you allege that their technological advantage makes the hunt far too "easy," but on the flip side you have no qualms about shooting a bunch of tame deer on an island....that is arguably a far easier hunt, if you want to even call it that, than what the polar bear hunters are going through. I'm not criticizing the culling of deer in areas where they're overpopulated; rather, I'm criticizing you for your lack of principle when it comes to judging other hunters.
2) Plenty of people enjoy bear meat, in addition to appreciating the animal from a trophy aspect. Trophy hunting, though it is a much maligned term in modern society, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with hunting for food and sound conservation practices. Yes, there are some hunters who kill an animal purely for the cache and wall ornament and may leave the meat in the field (where legal); I don't agree with such hunting, and I suspect most other North American hunters don't either. Most of us have an ethical initiative to get the most use out of whatever animal we are hunting.
3) The main reason we (North America) have had such success with our wildlife conservation and public land management is because of hunting (and the tax/fee revenue it generates). You may not like the motives or personality of the hunter who kills a grizzly in the Yukon or Alaska, but simply by nature of purchasing the requisite tags/permits and relevant hunting equipment (tents, firearm, ammo, ect.), that "pansy" hunter has contributed much more money to bear conservation than the average citizen.
Last edited:
natopotato
New member
I'm not sure if it is an over the counter tag, or a guaranteed draw hunt, but look into the Unlimited Sheep Hunt in Montana. Still time to get in there before the snow. It's a hunt that will make you switch religions 6 times if you get out there for 10 days. PM me for more info if you can get a tag.
mikeyb1976
Member
I am not a hunter of animals, only a casual fisherman 1 or 2 times a year. But the stance you're taking is illogical and incomplete. I would assume many hunters like the challenge of a hunt, not the safari-led, rover-ridden, photo-op trophy hunt in Africa for a lion or whatever. But with more and more data coming out that exhorts the benefits of controlled, limited trophy hunts, I'm less inclined to view the guy killing a lion as a bad man. I'm not particularly fond of unsportman hunting, but those instances are few and far between (whaling, for example).
That said, hopefully it gives you a perspective on my opinions, and I'm sure you know about the variety of hunting available. Guns, bows, spears, etc. I believe firearm hunting is more humane to the animals than others because I think it's a quick kill. I've heard stories of bowhunters that have to track a wounded animal miles, and/or days. Less challenging, yes. Technological advantage? Hardly. The argument "hunters have advantages over animals" is the same argument as "the cop should have aimed for the guy's hand or leg instead of killing that guy."
Firearms and other weapons even the biological playing field. Humans are weak and fragile in comparison to animals that are routinely hunted. Humans lack the strength, endurance, and muscle reactions to combat animals with nothing but our hands. Even knives. Obviously we lack claws, antlers, thick hides, and camouflaged fur. Animals have better hearing, smell, and in some cases, sight. They live outside 24/7/365 without the aid of a The North Face Parka or Sorels or a house. So where is the human advantage? Our brains and ability to harness industrial production. And opposable thumbs.
Hunters also get attacked by other wildlife as well. There just was a grizzly attack on a pair of bowhunters who were tracking elk. So I think it's highly disingenuous to say that hunters have distinct advantages over wildlife.
Even if I was a hunter, that's a big nope. I ain't camping in the woods in grizzly land. Hell no.
Not extreme and not hunting, but there are ranchers that need to eradicate the prairie dog infestation. One of my buddies helped a rancher out. Just a better version of Whack-a-Mole.