Poll -Should we allow hunting related posts on this forum

[Sakobav]

prashant

What you stated is very accurate as Vikram said hunting was a privileged sport and cavalry was probably trained. Its true what you stated but I personally dont agree with it but it doesnt mean its isnt prevalent and a harsh fact. Special troops training agree requires a very different mind set and by the way many Vegans in US do eat 'fish' and snake and alligators do taste like white meat/chicken.

Timmy summarized it quite well and I also abstained from voting.
Best

[brihacharan]

Hi Guys!

> This is a topic that can be discussed endlessly - however consider this:
1. People primarily hunt either for trophies or the meat.
2. But wanton killing is neither sport nor skill.
3. In the US there is something called 'Game Biology' whereby qualified forest officials take census of animals, tag them to monitor their migration, reproduction etc.
4. This done to maintain an ecological balance - animals are 'Culled' to keep their herd healthy and confine them to their habitat and not let them wander into farmlands and destroy crops etc.
4. Hunting licences are given by drawing lots from applicants. Those who are lucky to get them are given instructions on how to select the animals to hunt. After the kill the hunters have to submit their kills for inspection and recording the details.
5. Only unproductive females & males beyond their rutting capacity are allowed to be shot. Thus keeping the animals healthy and young to sustain their numbers.
6. Hunters are likely to be fined for any transgression of Game Laws and they are strict.
Unfortunately in our country these cautions are cast to the winds. Thoughtless de-forestation resulting in decreased foraging areas for animals - hence their migration into farmlands and irresponsible farmers using firearms to destroy them & even poisoning them has led to the vanishing of several species.
In the final analysis education & awareness is the only answer to save the situation.
Yes - we can have hunting related posts provided these are informative & educative - makes good reading. Less bragging about kills is the mantra of the day. I am sure we enlightened IFGians will take note and keep the thread going!
Cherrs
Brihacharan
PS: The spiel on Game Biology / Culling / Selective Breeding etc. came from a distant relative who recently retired as a Game Biologist in the US. Incidentally these Game Biologists have to pass a Diploma / Degree in Game Biology before they are appointed as Forest Officials.

[hvj1]

Its about being one with the Jungle. I doubt any anti will ever be able to understand that.

-Inder

Being 'One with the Jungle' does not always require a gun in hand. There are several other ways of doing that, I tried it with a camera, without telescope lens and despite being warned by a close friend who is a professional photographer, the results of the photographs were HOPELESS (the object was indistinguishable from the background), the point however is that the heightened awareness of the senses which I experienced is almost the same as in the stalk.
The second instance was when I went to meet a sanyasin in the dense jungles of Mahabaleshwar. I retreated to a lonely spot and lay down under a tree, where the only passage of time was marked by the wind sighing through the trees, the quiet undertones of a small stream as it chuckled and dropped around stones large and small ,the different calls of some exotic birds and the gradual shifting of dappled sunlight filtering through the leaves overhead. An altered state of consciousness where there was a heightened level of awareness but with less adrenaline, my ego or self had dissolved and as you say, become one with the spirit of the forest.
At this juncture of my life, I preferred these two experiences over those with a gun.

[prashantsingh]

Very well written hvj1.

-- Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:13 pm --

Good points brihacharan.

[hvj1]

Thanks Prashant.

[Vikram]

@Brihcharan,

Very well said.Succinct and to the point.

Its about being one with the Jungle. I doubt any anti will ever be able to understand that.

-Inder

Being 'One with the Jungle' does not always require a gun in hand. There are several other ways of doing that, I tried it with a camera, without telescope lens and despite being warned by a close friend who is a professional photographer, the results of the photographs were HOPELESS (the object was indistinguishable from the background), the point however is that the heightened awareness of the senses which I experienced is almost the same as in the stalk.
The second instance was when I went to meet a sanyasin in the dense jungles of Mahabaleshwar. I retreated to a lonely spot and lay down under a tree, where the only passage of time was marked by the wind sighing through the trees, the quiet undertones of a small stream as it chuckled and dropped around stones large and small ,the different calls of some exotic birds and the gradual shifting of dappled sunlight filtering through the leaves overhead. An altered state of consciousness where there was a heightened level of awareness but with less adrenaline, my ego or self had dissolved and as you say, become one with the spirit of the forest.
At this juncture of my life, I preferred these two experiences over those with a gun.

Well said and as long as done in the correct way neither the camera nor the rifle is less good than the other.They both have their place. It need not be one or the other or one better the other worse.

Best-
Vikram

[hvj1]

as long as done in the correct way neither the camera nor the rifle is less good than the other.They both have their place. It need not be one or the other or one better the other worse.
Vikram

[brihacharan]

Hi hvj1 & fellow IFGians,

> Simply beautiful - your experience in the wilderness.
> I too experienced something like this many years ago while returning from a shoot for jungle fowls in the khandala Ghats near Mumbai.
> An actual experience that compelled to write a poem, that I reproduce below -

I stood at the edge of the mountain path
looking at the valley below,

Marveling at the handiwork of
the river gone dry eons ago,

A distant thunder rolled and shook
the earth below and beyond,

And soon a cold stormy wind blew
sending shivers down my spine,

Up in the sky a flock of birds
whistled and winged their way to safety,

From the nearby woods I heard a peacock cry
ushering in the torrential rain that soon fell,

Drenching wet I saw across the valley
the tantalizing sight of a rainbow form,

As mother nature played her pulsating rhythm
I let myself go and danced like a man possessed.
Cheers Brihacharan

[shooter]

Oops i missed the party. Thanks prashantsingh for alerting me to this poll.

Despite the poll being closed, i would like to vote a big YES (yes that is shouting)

Is this a democracy? really, why not let 1000 antis join the forum and then have a poll whether to post gun related stuff, vote against it and then shut down all the gun related posts; just have general rtamblings, humour and announcements section.

This forum has an owner who can put whatever he likes INCLUDING drugs. If u dont like it, go away or ignore the thread. Whats wrong with having a forum about drugs? there are thousands on the internet no one is forcing you to join/read.

Mr. Gverma, what do you mean by separate area, as pointed by many other members, it is marked and explained in english, im sure with the aid of google and other websites it can be translated into other languages as well.

Mods is it even 'legal' to have polls like this? im surprise no one has pointed it out earlier. I think he needs a caution re: this.

else some psycho like myself could be the next to start a poll "should we allow shooting related posts"

yes but tasteful ones
yes but only the trashy ones
only illegal ones
only legal ones
only in a separate section of the forum

(this is a forum about guns. why does it have to be about shooting. One can have guns and not shoot right (as done by majority in india anyways). Why cant this forum be about legal advise about buying/getting guns only and not shooting.)

Therefore i request mods to caution mr. gverma and make an announcement (its obvious but some people just dont get it) about the forum being what it is; take it or leave it.

[grewal]

Grewal

If your post was a satire or meant to be a dark joke sorry I missed do enlighten .. especially the part of equating Consuming Drugs with Hunting or is it compared to ' blood lust'?? There is hardly any relationship between these two issues and you are unnecessarily providing a cynical twist and a convoluted logic. Especially since 'culling/hunting' animals is quite different from 'selling drugs for economic and other adverse ramifications to society'. neither does this board support hunting for just heck of it.Hunting has provided eco tourism which in turn protects the habitat and forest. Your post could also be seen to come across as a bait and provoking members for response, so do try to tone down the nature of your posts and lets keep it straight , simple and rational. Consider this as an sincere advise and stop pushing the envelope.

best

I am free to air my view. And my post is not serving as a bait or is thought provoking . But this entire post is in itself provoking. Tell me what are we trying to prove here . Dont you think at the end we are encouraging hunting by talking about it .

And I don't know for whom those forests will serve as habitat when they will be hunted down . ( Eco tourisim)

The thought of Drugs is as irrelevant as hunting . But since you might be hunting so you have hundred ways of justifying yourself . And by the way I am as against the thought of drugs as of hunting.

Being a farmer I can hunt dozens of parrots everyday which destroy my maize crop , but I never do so . And some of the friends on this thread talked about killing wild boars and blue bulls which are very rare , but are still being killed not because they destroy crops but because people who want them to be served as delicacies on their dinner table.

But who am I to preach .

You people can happily talk about hunting --- Legal hunting---- illegal hunting --- hunting to protect the ones being hunted ( Eco tourisim)-- hunting to eradicate animals who destroy crops --- hunting in india --- hunting abroad --- hunting to maintain ecological balance and so on.

I'll better be snubbed

[kanwar76]

Its about being one with the Jungle. I doubt any anti will ever be able to understand that.

-Inder

Being 'One with the Jungle' does not always require a gun in hand. There are several other ways of doing that, I tried it with a camera, without telescope lens and despite being warned by a close friend who is a professional photographer, the results of the photographs were HOPELESS (the object was indistinguishable from the background), the point however is that the heightened awareness of the senses which I experienced is almost the same as in the stalk.
The second instance was when I went to meet a sanyasin in the dense jungles of Mahabaleshwar. I retreated to a lonely spot and lay down under a tree, where the only passage of time was marked by the wind sighing through the trees, the quiet undertones of a small stream as it chuckled and dropped around stones large and small ,the different calls of some exotic birds and the gradual shifting of dappled sunlight filtering through the leaves overhead. An altered state of consciousness where there was a heightened level of awareness but with less adrenaline, my ego or self had dissolved and as you say, become one with the spirit of the forest.
At this juncture of my life, I preferred these two experiences over those with a gun.

For me it will be retreating to a lonely spot, stalking game, where the only passage of time will be marked by movement of my prey and me advancing step by step, Call of kakad in a distance announcing that a tiger is nearby or jumping of Langur from one tree to another. Me getting close to my prey and altering my course all of a sudden realizing that wind direction has changed. Slowly lining my sights on my prey and gently pressing the trigger, and bursting with joy when I realize that my bullet has hit the exact spot where I wanted it to be. Slowly closing on my prey and admiring the beauty of majestic animal. Making it sit in a position where I can take a pic of me with my beautiful trophy and my rifle which helped me in harvest. Highly satisfied and full of pleasure while slowly skinning it and field dressing it, loading it in my backpack after quartering and starting my tiring journey till the base camp. Sharing the joy with my fellow hunters after reaching the camp, listening to their stories lying around the campfire admiring the clear sky, shining stars, content on getting a beautiful trophy and contributing towards wild life of my country.

That will be state of consciousness where there is heightened level of awareness full with adrenaline, That will be the time when I will become one with the spirit of the forest.

At any juncture of my life, I will prefer this experiences over those with a camera, sleep, So called eco tourism, nature walks and blah blah blah…


Having said that, I never said it can't be done with camera in hand or NOT by sleeping in Jungle.

Its about being one with the jungle with a rifle in hand May be I didn't clarify this in my earlier post.

My doubt/point is "no anti will aver be able to understand when we do it with a rifle". Good for you if you are fine with doing it with a camera and sleeping but I am not. I like to do with a rifle in my hand sniffing smell of burning cordite.

-Inder

[shooter]

Grewal

If your post was a satire or meant to be a dark joke sorry I missed do enlighten .. especially the part of equating Consuming Drugs with Hunting or is it compared to ' blood lust'?? There is hardly any relationship between these two issues and you are unnecessarily providing a cynical twist and a convoluted logic. Especially since 'culling/hunting' animals is quite different from 'selling drugs for economic and other adverse ramifications to society'. neither does this board support hunting for just heck of it.Hunting has provided eco tourism which in turn protects the habitat and forest. Your post could also be seen to come across as a bait and provoking members for response, so do try to tone down the nature of your posts and lets keep it straight , simple and rational. Consider this as an sincere advise and stop pushing the envelope.

best

I am free to air my view. And my post is not serving as a bait or is thought provoking . But this entire post is in itself provoking. Tell me what are we trying to prove here . Dont you think at the end we are encouraging hunting by talking about it .

And I don't know for whom those forests will serve as habitat when they will be hunted down . ( Eco tourisim)

The thought of Drugs is as irrelevant as hunting . But since you might be hunting so you have hundred ways of justifying yourself . And by the way I am as against the thought of drugs as of hunting.

Being a farmer I can hunt dozens of parrots everyday which destroy my maize crop , but I never do so . And some of the friends on this thread talked about killing wild boars and blue bulls which are very rare , but are still being killed not because they destroy crops but because people who want them to be served as delicacies on their dinner table.

But who am I to preach .

You people can happily talk about hunting --- Legal hunting---- illegal hunting --- hunting to protect the ones being hunted ( Eco tourisim)-- hunting to eradicate animals who destroy crops --- hunting in india --- hunting abroad --- hunting to maintain ecological balance and so on.

I'll better be snubbed

Grewal paaji,

of course you are free to voice your opinion. no ones denying that. well if you oppose hunting, good for you. at least you have the courage to stand by your opinions. well done you. But dont you think youre being a big hypocrite by eating meat and also condemning others killing. Im sure uve 'killed' more animals for your food than many hunters.


secondly there a few things that are facts and you cant justify them by saying that is your opinion. for example calling neelgai and wild boars 'rare' animals. Both these animals are listed as "least concern" in the IUCN red book of endangered animals. Its the international body that gives animals endangered /rare etc status and not the frequency of your spotting them in the fields.

thirdly parrots cause less damage (even flocks) than a herd of neelgai and a family of boars. not only they eat more but they also destroy for eg: neel gai by 'lot' or rolling around and wild boars by 'ploughing'/digging the land with the tusk.

paaji i do agree with you that this whole thread is provoking. i have actually requested the mods to caution gverma.

Paaji, there arentnt any forests left thats why less animals and more crop destruction. it is a fine balancewhich we have screwed up both bu 'hunting' in the past and also by 'conservation' and chopping the forests now.

Paaji you should know this better as Punjab is one of the most vastly farmed states where many trees have been cut down to get more land under the plough. even a tree occupying a square metre of ground translates as rs 2000 (or whatever amount) lost in crop revenue per year. And im not stating this about u but generally the more fertile the land, the better the crop yeild and more the temptation to get more and more land under the plough.


Fourthly HUNTING IN ITSELF WHEN DONE SCIENTIFICALLY DOESNT RESULT IN REDUCED NUMBER OF ANIMALS. Sorry for being rude but within this site itself there are a zillion articles re: the same. Please PLEASE read them first and oblige.

Lastly we do want to talk about hunting and promote it. Hopefully that day comes soon when we have convinced and persuaded enough people to understand about ethical hunting and thats going to be one way to preserve forests not by banning it.

Lets see what people gain by forests?

lets make 3 lists one for people who benefit by forests. one who lose out and last to whom it has no consequence. (short sightedly- lets not go for greenhouse gases and monsoon)

People who benefit from forests and would be wiling to pay money/lose a bit of money to maintain them:

hunters
wood mafia/loggers (at least short term)
Pharmaceutical companies (till they have discovered the chemical. they can then manufacture it in labs)
Timber business (all)
newspaper industry

Out of all these people only hunters need long term forests and dont need to chop down trees.


2 People who lose out because of the presence of forests:

farmers
cattleherds/shepherds/goatherds etc
builders
property developers
land/mafia
realtors/property dealers
mining industry
quarries
some industrialists

3 to whom it doesnt matter:

engineers
doctors
lawyers
dentists
it
call centres
all white collar workers
politicians
some industrialists
Most blue collar workers

Fellow members may add to the list.

But the tragedy is that most people and certainly the most moneyed people either lose out because of the forests or it doesnt matter to them. Thats why the world over the most money into conservation is put in by hunters. Thats why hunting sustains forests. How can i make it much more simpler.

do we have a publisher here? Can we have a project to write a book "hunting and conservation for dummies"?

-- 08 Apr 2010, 14:41 --

Call of kakad in a distance announcing that a tiger is nearby

Kanwar paaji, please note that the call of a kakad is not accurate in relation to warning about a tiger. It is easily spooked and might bark without a tiger being there. Other deer and birds in addition to langoors you mentioned are more reliable.

with the rest.

tc

[Vikram]

Excellent post,Shooter.Spot on.

BTW, ASFAIK, Having polls like this,as long as they are meaningful, are not contrary to the forum rules.But, the Admin's is the final word.

@Grewal, you are as free as anyone to air your opinions and not be apologetic about your stance.All one is asking is to extend that same courtesy to the other views.You can express your disapproval of hunting but cannot ask the other side not discuss about hunting at all.That is unfair.This thread is about that.It asks if hunting related topics should be allowed on this forum. How unfair is that?You tell us.If we don't talk, how do we learn?

No one here is going to snub you.If someone tries to do that instead of contesting the views in the post you made, that will be considered a personal attack and the Mods will take action.This principle applies to everyone.

Attack the post.Not the poster.

Best-
Vikram

[grewal]

If we don't talk, how do we learn?

[timmy]

Regarding hunting on its own merits, I think that as the "caretakers" of the planet, and also as the ones who make the largest impact on it, I believe we human beings are obligated to care for all forms of life here.

Even if one does not take such a position, it seems to me to be plain common sense that we human beings would manage Earth and all of its life and resources in a way that best benefits ourselves and future generations.

While these two statements seem to be different, I believe that at the core, they are the same.

As someone who has studied some biology and genetics, it's plain to me that even those small plants and animals in the darkest recesses of the rain forests -- you know, the ones that people with a hyper-development attitude sneer at -- have great value. The most famous example of the usefulness of all forms of life comes from medical research, where medicines are commonly developed by examining how some organism protects itself by producing some protective protein. Researchers examine this protein and its activities, and then produce it or a modified form for medicine that can result either in a new cure or at least a treatment for some illness.

I would observe here that, whatever one's political or business viewpoint, a person who is beset by a grave illness is all for a cure.

All the forms of life on this planet form a great treasure house of resources, of which we actually know very little. The loss of any one of them may well have impacts we cannot foresee.

Given these facts, I would next point out that there are 6.5 billion people on Earth and within a few years, we are expected to reach 10 billion people. We simply cannot afford to be carrying on as if we lived in the days when there were, say, 500 million people. We make too many demands individually, and as the lifestyles of many become more affluent around the world, the demand per individual also increases. On a per individual basis, we all are demanding more oil and energy, more food, more copper and iron and other raw materials, and more synthetics that come from a variety of sources.

Many of these resources come from taking over, or "developing" land that has previously been "wild," or used by other creatures.

The fact here is that humans are increasingly crowding out animal and plant life from this planet and this is not being accomplished with a gun!

In fact, when I lived in New Jersey for a couple of years, they had a very anti-gun and anti-hunting legal structure. There were no predators, and the deer, to take one species, had so over-populated the state that they were great pests. It was quite common to see many road-killed deer on the side of the road, since their population had grown so great.

Is is moral to kill a deer with a car, but not with a gun? Then if the morality of the deer being killed is the issue, ought not the law give the same protection to the deer from both car and gun?

From my perspective, we simply cannot manage a planet with 6.5 billion, let alone 10 billion, by the principle of preserving all life, regardless. The story of Albert Schweitzer protecting the cockroaches hiding in his piano is laudable, but simply doesn't reflect the way nature works. Tigers, for instance, kill cattle and other animals for food. Birds eat insects. Big fish eat smaller fish. To try to alter this is simply impossible.

At rock bottom, all living things depend on killing and eating autotrophs for life. Only those living things that make their own energy from non-living sources, such as plants that use sunshine and chemicals to live, sustain their lives without depending on the death of something else. This is, besides being a belief, a fact. It is an unpleasant fact to some, but that's the way life works, none the less. We humans have to kill something to live.

The odd thing here is that many plants also rely on their own deaths to live. Many plants propagate by "encouraging" animals to kill and eat them, and in the process their seeds are spread to keep the plant species viable.

Maize (which we Americans call "corn") was genetically developed by Ancient Native Americans from just such a plant. But the result, the maize plant, cannot survive without the aid of mankind.

If we are to maintain life on Earth at these levels for all, humans are simply going to have to be in the business of deciding what lives and what dies. Most of humanity rejects this in the case of other human beings, except maybe when triage in case of disaster or war. But as some have pointed out and the case of New Jersey shows, wild animal populations are increasingly needing human intervention in order to survive the intense competition from human populations.

Simply ignoring this and letting animal species die out due to human "development" and neglect is no more moral than any other form of their demise, despite providing a convenient way of dodging the responsibility of all humans in this sad situation.

In the USA, there are Republicans and Democrats, religious and atheist, pro-development and pro-environmental -- in short, there are people of every stripe of belief. But the fact is that the groups that lay out the BIG MONEY -- as opposed to just talking and serving on committees -- are hunters.

No group I can think of has achieved such spectacular results in the field of wildlife preservation as the waterfowl hunters of the USA and Canada. Funding for the preservation of wildlife habitat, studies to discover the best way to support a healthy, vigorous population of birds -- this has largely come from the pockets of hunters.

Similar situations are found in other areas of wildlife management and hunting.

So, the question is, how is a nation going to manage its resources? Both India and the USA are fortunate in that they are large countries, and in most cases can make effective decisions about wildlife management on their own. However, when populations of wildlife range across national borders, only international cooperation can solve the problems associated with survival for these animals.

The question here is, how is it going to work in a world that is increasingly shrinking? How will agreements be reached between populations, both national and international, that have different values and beliefs? In some cases, the idealistic best can be the worse enemy of the achievable good, and we must all ask ourselves, how can at least some form of conservation be supported in a way that will preserve the variety and diversity of life on this planet?

In a nutshell, personally I don't think it's enough to state what we believe in order for the problem to be solved. We must get something done. And in this vein, proposed solutions have to be practical to be useful: They must RUMBA! They must be:

Reasonable
Understandable
Measurable
Believable
Achievable

And with that, I will pass the floor on to the next person.