Opening Weekend Dove Season

[shinerbock]

If nothing else, try some of that chili once winter rolls around...I generally like any recipe w/ venison, but I prefer it to beef in chili.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Dove are great for appetizers. Take the breast (which is still on the bone) and wrap it in bacon with a jalapeno and a small slice of cream cheese in the middle. Season if you want and cook on a charcoal grill.

Excellent.

Wow, that sounds REALLY good. Maybe I'll take out a pigeon or two tomorrow.

Had venison many times, but I just don't care for the venison chili - maybe it's the texture of the meat w/ the beans & spices or something.

[macallan25]

I agree....although Elk chili and jerky is damn good...just tastes somewhat different than deer venison. Deer sausage would be the way to go if you don't like the gamey taste of venison (backstraps and such.)

I have also made some venison peppercorn burger patties that are excellent and also do not have that gamey taste.

[Rudey]

I never said I was an expert. You are not an expert in much, let alone this stuff. I am also sure that you know that animals exist in areas where they are not hunted and have existed for many years before man hunted them. Nature is pretty good at balancing things out and there are other alternatives to hunting to reduce a population. By the way, you hunt for sport and not to be a saint to the animals so stop pretending.

It bothers me that anyone would hunt for sport and fun instead of for food. That intent is important to me. Just like some have issues with gays existing and wanting to marry because of the underlying ethics and ideals behind it.

-Rudey

Originally Posted by macallan25

Oh, so I take it you are an expert on natural evolution of game animals, animal migrations, birth defects, population control, etc. etc. Maybe you should come see what happens to deer populations when they aren't regulated properly, it isn't pretty. Same with ducks. Hmmmm I wonder why Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl are the worlds leaders in waterfowl conservation.......yet they promote responsible hunting. Because it is necessary in the grand scheme of things. People have been hunting for far longer than since guns were invented.



Yes, I disagree with homosexuality....and I think putting gel in your hair is for GDI's. I know plenty of people who don't hunt that feel the same way. However, my gut reaction towards people who criticize hunting for whatever reason (defenseless/unneccesary/unethical, blah, blah, blah) is that they are some varied form of liberal, over-sensitive, tree hugger.

Tell me why hunting is unnecessary....you obviously think it is.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Rudey

I never said I was an expert. You are not an expert in much, let alone this stuff. I am also sure that you know that animals exist in areas where they are not hunted and have existed for many years before man hunted them. Nature is pretty good at balancing things out and there are other alternatives to hunting to reduce a population. By the way, you hunt for sport and not to be a saint to the animals so stop pretending.

It bothers me that anyone would hunt for sport and fun instead of for food. That intent is important to me. Just like some have issues with gays existing and wanting to marry because of the underlying ethics and ideals behind it.

-Rudey

Sorry chief....I don't try to be an expert about anything on an online message board, thanks though for your input. Concerning hunting and fishing....yeah I would actually say I am getting to the expert level. I have been a fly fishing and duck/goose guide in quite a few different parts of the country for the last couple of years. I have also spent enough time working with wildlife biologists and conservation organizations such as DU and Delta Waterfowl to know exactly how population trends, breeding, migrations, etc. work and fluctuate. For deer...I have a multiple thousand acre ranch in West Texas and a lease in South Texas...pretty sure I know what is going on there.

I know enough to know that you don't know jack shit about what you are talking about. Yeah, I hunt for sport.....but I do it responsibly and within the established regulations in the areas in which I am hunting. I am not pretending to be some sort of saint you worthless moron.....i'm talking about hunting in a hunting thread. However, if you knew anything at all (which you don't) you would know that established hunting seasons and game management periods are put into place for a reason, not just so a bunch of people can go shoot things.

Who ever said that hunters don't hunt for food, just for sport? Unless I am going to get the bird or whatever it is mounted........I am going to eat it. Same with fishing.

Thanks for your time. You're an idiot.

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by Rudey

All those years that animals survived, evolved, and maintained a natural equilibrium before guns were invented are always ignored by people who use that as the reason why hunting is necessary.

And someone can have a gut ethical reaction to killing for sport and enjoyment much like most of the people that hunt have a gut reaction against homosexuality and gel heads.

It's also funny creating an analogy of hunting vs supermarket food in terms of humanity when you have absolutely no credible evidence and statistics on "pain" at the butcher shops. I'd be willing to bet that most people don't even get clean shots and no matter what there is pain involved.

-Rudey

If you want to have a gut reaction against killing the animals, that is perfectly fine with me. But you should realize that hunters (and their families and friends) do eat the meat of the animals that are killed; it is not merely for "sport and enjoyment", as you put it. The meat is also used for food.

And yes, I am going to argue that hunting is more moral and healthy way to obtain meat, should you choose to eat it, than this:

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

If you want to have a gut reaction against killing the animals, that is perfectly fine with me. But you should realize that hunters (and their families and friends) do eat the meat of the animals that are killed; it is not merely for "sport and enjoyment", as you put it. The meat is also used for food.

And yes, I am going to argue that hunting is more moral and healthy way to obtain meat, should you choose to eat it, than this:

Than what?? Does that website you ripped pictures from condone hunting?

You have zero statistics and facts here and are just posting conjecture about what is and isn't moral, healthy, and painless all in an effort to justify hunting. So really you are not arguing a single thing as you don't have a single fact that you've presented.

You can eat the food, but you didn't go hunting because you were hungry.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Bubba-Cleetus, it's great that you can ignore the points I make because you can't address them and pepper in insults to help hide your inadequacies.

Again, nature hasn't needed people to come in and kill animals for many years before humans came into the same environment and it still doesn't in many of the ecosystems around the world where humans are scarce. But keep insulting me and sounding like a boob.

Good luck being a lawyer with your ambitions of getting into a fourth tier school. Of course if it doesn't work out you can be a park ranger as you are an expert on wildlife, you can become a pro hunter/fisher, you can ride donkeys on your "Ranch", or you can run your pops' lube company.

-Rudey

Originally Posted by macallan25

Sorry chief....I don't try to be an expert about anything on an online message board, thanks though for your input. Concerning hunting and fishing....yeah I would actually say I am getting to the expert level. I have been a fly fishing and duck/goose guide in quite a few different parts of the country for the last couple of years. I have also spent enough time working with wildlife biologists and conservation organizations such as DU and Delta Waterfowl to know exactly how population trends, breeding, migrations, etc. work and fluctuate. For deer...I have a multiple thousand acre ranch in West Texas and a lease in South Texas...pretty sure I know what is going on there.

I know enough to know that you don't know jack shit about what you are talking about. Yeah, I hunt for sport.....but I do it responsibly and within the established regulations in the areas in which I am hunting. I am not pretending to be some sort of saint you worthless moron.....i'm talking about hunting in a hunting thread. However, if you knew anything at all (which you don't) you would know that established hunting seasons and game management periods are put into place for a reason, not just so a bunch of people can go shoot things.

Who ever said that hunters don't hunt for food, just for sport? Unless I am going to get the bird or whatever it is mounted........I am going to eat it. Same with fishing.

Thanks for your time. You're an idiot.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Bubba-Cleetus, it's great that you can ignore the points I make because you can't address them and pepper in insults to help hide your inadequacies.

Again, nature hasn't needed people to come in and kill animals for many years before humans came into the same environment and it still doesn't in many of the ecosystems around the world where humans are scarce. But keep insulting me and sounding like a boob.

Good luck being a lawyer with your ambitions of getting into a fourth tier school. Of course if it doesn't work out you can be a park ranger as you are an expert on wildlife, you can become a pro hunter/fisher, you can ride donkeys on your "Ranch", or you can run your pops' lube company.

-Rudey

I'm not sure if I"m still on ignore to you or not, but whatever.

Before people came in and started hunting, there were natural predators. And before Europeans came here, there were Native Americans hunting prey for, oh i don't know probably thousands of years.

We killed the wolves. The wolves no longer eat the deer which overpopulate and strip fields, trees and grass... they spread disease because there's no one bringing down the sick ones.. the circle of life is broken. Hunting is replacing the extinct predators with human ones.

Make sense?

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Because it is necessary in the grand scheme of things.

<snip>

Yes, I disagree with homosexuality....and I think putting gel in your hair is for GDI's. I know plenty of people who don't hunt that feel the same way. However, my gut reaction towards people who criticize hunting for whatever reason (defenseless/unneccesary/unethical, blah, blah, blah) is that they are some varied form of liberal, over-sensitive, tree hugger.

I'd ask for support for your assertion that hunting is necessary in the grand scheme of things, but if you're going to engage in personal attacks, I don't see the point of discussing the issue with you.

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Than what?? Does that website you ripped pictures from condone hunting?

You have zero statistics and facts here and are just posting conjecture about what is and isn't moral, healthy, and painless all in an effort to justify hunting. So really you are not arguing a single thing as you don't have a single fact that you've presented.

You can eat the food, but you didn't go hunting because you were hungry.

-Rudey

Did I ever say anything about the website the pictures came from? I don't have to agree with everything they do to use their photos, do I? The point of the pictures is to give you an idea of the conditions of animals which are farmed for meat, versus those which are hunted in the wild.

As for morality - what are you talking about statistics and facts for what I consider moral or not? I wasn't aware that it was a matter of mathematical analysis.

Anyway, an interesting article related to this thread I read the other day:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=589

Re: people not going hunting because of hunger. Corporations which provide the meat that is purchased in restaurants and supermarkets are not killing the animals directly because of hunger either, they're doing it for money. So when you buy their products, you're -gasp!- supporting killing animals for a motive other than purely eating them. How is this somehow better? I really don't get it.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

Did I ever say anything about the website the pictures came from? I don't have to agree with everything they do to use their photos, do I? The point of the pictures is to give you an idea of the conditions of animals which are farmed for meat, versus those which are hunted in the wild.

As for morality - what are you talking about statistics and facts for what I consider moral or not? I wasn't aware that it was a matter of mathematical analysis.

Anyway, an interesting article related to this thread I read the other day:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=589

Re: people not going hunting because of hunger. Corporations which provide the meat that is purchased in restaurants and supermarkets are not killing the animals directly because of hunger either, they're doing it for money. So when you buy their products, you're -gasp!- supporting killing animals for a motive other than purely eating them. How is this somehow better? I really don't get it.

Umm you gotta be kidding. Should I find pictures of animals that were shot and didn't die right away or died painfully? And then that would negate your post which didn't have facts and figures?

If someone goes to the supermarket to buy food, they don't go to make a corporation rich; they go to purchase food. Your reasoning doesn't follow through so maybe that's why you don't get it. Now let's say someone named Pocahantas lives in the woods and hunts buffalo for food, shelter, and clothing - I'd have no problem with that.

-Rudey

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Bubba-Cleetus, it's great that you can ignore the points I make because you can't address them and pepper in insults to help hide your inadequacies.

Again, nature hasn't needed people to come in and kill animals for many years before humans came into the same environment and it still doesn't in many of the ecosystems around the world where humans are scarce. But keep insulting me and sounding like a boob.

Good luck being a lawyer with your ambitions of getting into a fourth tier school. Of course if it doesn't work out you can be a park ranger as you are an expert on wildlife, you can become a pro hunter/fisher, you can ride donkeys on your "Ranch", or you can run your pops' lube company.

-Rudey

Your points are completely moronic. I'm not talking about ecosystems around the word.....and i'm not disagreeing with the fact that nature helped maintain animal populations long before humans occupied the land.

IF you knew anything about hunting, wetlands conservation, migratory bird fly-ways, maintaining leases, ranches, private land...you wouldn't make any of your idiotic dumbass statements. When you have 10,000 acres of enclosed land it is absolutely necessary to maintain the animal populations and closely supervise the wildlife. That is why we have wildlife biologists and game management periods.

Again, you haven't made any relavent points because you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject you are trying to argue.

....and i'll be going to Texas .....so if the #15 ranked law school in the country is fourth tier....guess i'll just have to live with it.


I'd like to know why you don't condone hunting though.

[Rudey]

Son you can't read. Illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of. We have been underfunding public education for years and this is just a result of that. When do you learn to read, perhaps you can address the points made instead of hurling insults though. OK Junior.

Oh and here are some quotes to enjoy:

From Mr. DuBrock, Director of Wildlife, Pennsylvania Game Comission:

"The increase in deer in Pennsylvania is a direct result of hunting practices which have routinely killed large number of bucks, thus removing a large number of animals from the herd and causing the compensatory rebound. Furthermore, such hunting practices, by constantly killing males while leaving females alive, have upset the natural 1:1 female to male ratio to at least 5 females to every 1 male." As rural areas have outgrown the ability to support a healthy deer herd, the animals have expanded into more populated areas and are now common in suburbs. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in auto/deer accidents, damage to property, and starvation of animals. Hunters actually cause overpopulation and the degradation of the deer herd in general by seeking to kill antlered bucks with no regard for the herd in general. This results in skewed sex ratios, as high as 25 females to one male in some areas. Since deer are polygamous, the herd multiplies while the hunting kill increases.

From the 1998-99 Kentucky Hunting Regulations Manual, page 12:

"In 1976, the first year for mandatory check in, Kentucky recored 3,476 harvested deer. Herd growth accelerated in the 1980's. A two-deer limit was begun in 1987. By 1989 the quality of the deer left much to be desired. Lots of deer were being killed, but they were small with small racks [antlers]. Hunters blamed malnutrition, disease or poor genetics, but the real reason was lack of age. Kentucky had lots of healthy deer with good genetics, but they were young. The number of deer living long enough to reach their rpime was very small. 22% of the bucks were two years or older, less than 6% were three years old. Biologists determined that the quality of the deer herd would improve if more of the herd lived longer. Genetically superior bucks would naturally out-compete their unfit rivals."

Additionally, the only animal considered to be "Overpopulated" from what I'm seeing on the internet is the whitetailed deer. And those deer are less than 2% of the total animal population hunted. Furthermore, this thread is about doves. When doves start overpopulating Texas, let me know Cleetus.

You asked why I was against it and I provided you with multiple well thought out responses. When your state gets a governor that will finally help you read better, you'll understand and not be such a Snappy Sally.

-Rudey

Originally Posted by macallan25

Your points are completely moronic. I'm not talking about ecosystems around the word.....and i'm not disagreeing with the fact that nature helped maintain animal populations long before humans occupied the land.

IF you knew anything about hunting, wetlands conservation, migratory bird fly-ways, maintaining leases, ranches, private land...you wouldn't make any of your idiotic dumbass statements. When you have 10,000 acres of enclosed land it is absolutely necessary to maintain the animal populations and closely supervise the wildlife. That is why we have wildlife biologists and game management periods.

Again, you haven't made any relavent points because you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject you are trying to argue.

....and i'll be going to Texas .....so if the #15 ranked law school in the country is fourth tier....guess i'll just have to live with it.


I'd like to know why you don't condone hunting though.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

I'd ask for support for your assertion that hunting is necessary in the grand scheme of things, but if you're going to engage in personal attacks, I don't see the point of discussing the issue with you.

I am pretty sure I made that point when I was discussing Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl.....which in both cases, hunting is necessary. It absolutely plays a big factor in maintaining and creating wetlands areas, fly-ways, as well as benefiting other wildlife and the ducks themselves. If you have a ranch, lease, or are in any area that has different open hunting seasons....you have to understand that they have seasons for a reason. Take for instance a 20,000 acre ranch with deer on it. More than likely it is fenced in, in which case you are going to have to hunt to control the deer population in the are. Obviously they can't move freely beyond the borders of the private land. When the deer start overbreeding and then breeding within each other......bad things start to happen.....diseases, deformity, lots of problems. It really isn't a good thing.