Re: OT: Wuzzy - Captain Carnivore

Let the dance begin...

On Jul 27 2007 12:39 PM, James L. Hankins wrote:

"WuzYoungOnceToo" <WuzYoungOnceToo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qjcpn4x89f.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 26 2007 5:31 PM, James L. Hankins wrote:

"WuzYoungOnceToo" <WuzYoungOnceToo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42mmn4xg61.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


It's just a pity it's never a fair fight.

You're right. Deer and hogs possess sensory apparatus far superior to
that of humans, making even locating them under "fair chase" conditions
terribly lop-sided in their favor. And even when they are discovered,
getting in position to take a clean shot without alerting them to your
presence is yet another battle that favors them.


I'm generally with you on the hunting stuff.

But to suggest that animals have an advantage over modern hunters is a
little nuts. Unless you are out there hunting them with a sharp stick
and
wearing a loin cloth.

I suspect you're letting your bitterness over past debates cloud your
literacy skills here James. If you'll take the trouble to read what I
wrote again...this time with the intent of understanding it rather than
artificially reading into it an excuse to "get" me...you'll note that I
spoke exclusively of the challenge of locating and approaching the quarry
without spooking it.


No, you spoke of the challenge of locating and approaching the quarry
without spooking it "under 'fair chase' conditions" which are artificial
restrainsts on your hunting methods. Of course the animal will have an
advantage if you as a hunter choose to not utilize the modern tools
available to you for hunting.

Since *I* and my hunting methods are the subject of this thread (did that
fact escape your notice as well?) then that would be the context for the
comments made up to this point. Furthermore, it would be those same
"artificial restraints" that you should have taken into account when
interpreting what I was saying about sensory advantages and their impact
on fffffurken's vague and nebulous "fair fight" assertion. There are
multiple elements to most hunts, some of which are advantageous to the
hunter, and others that are advantageous to the hunted. I was pretty
specific about which ones I was referring to, and in no way made any
claims about being generally disadvantaged (I'm not sure that's even
meaningful in this context, but we can debate that later.) In light fo
that, your response...

"But to suggest that animals have an advantage over modern hunters is a
little nuts."

Is either disingenuous or an indication that you didn't bother to read and
comprehend what you were responding to.

But on the subject of literacy skills, since you brought it up, I have an
observation for you, one that I think will be useful. When someone reads
this post (really any post), part of the meaning of what you post is
informed by the post to which you are responding.

A pity that you didn't take that into account when making the comment
quoted above.

And I'm not trying to be cute here, but I have noticed that you tend to form
the meaning of your posts in a vacuum without any context to what came
before. I think that's a natural tendency (not only for you but for
everyone) since you know what you meant when you wrote the words; but others
don't know what's in your head, so when we read the entire thread it guides
us in trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

Nonsense. My responses in this thread (I'm not going to try to address
every thread here) have been quite clear and specific with regard to my
exact meaning, even when the context in which they've been made is taken
into account. I don't know how the meaning of comments that are the
subject of this particular sub-thread could have been made any clearer to
you or others, leading me to conclude that you were in too much of a hurry
to respond without first making sure you'd accurately read what you were
responding to. A similar result can be seen in the "Russ G. finally
vindicated" thread where you rushed to tell someone that the incident was
significant because...

"The situation here is that a specific method of cheating has been
apparently uncovered as occurring, not in the mind of Russ G., but in an
actual casino in a high stakes poker game."

...even though the story was quite clear about the fact that it had NOT
occured in a casino.

For example, your post was in response to fffurkin's claim that hunting is
never a fair fight.

See, right off the bat you're getting it wrong. The irony is that while
presuming to lecture me on concern for context, you're getting this wrong
because you're ignoring context. ffffurken's claim about a lack of fair
fight was made in the context of a thread about me, specifically, and MY
hunting. Now, you can make all sorts of assumptions about whether or not
he was referring to hunting in general as well (if so, it would still be a
meaningless and in some cases incorrect claim), but *I* was the specific
target of his comment. That makes MY hunting methods the issue.

When your lead response to that is, "You're right," and
then you proceed to give an example of some perceived natural advantage of
game animals, I don't think it comes across like you thought when you typed
it.

See above. To anyone who was making any effort to understand what they
were reading, the fact that I took great care to be *very specific* about
what advantages I was attributing to the animals should have left little
doubt about what I was saying. Of course, if your goal is just to...as I
said before...artificially read into it something you on which you thought
you could "get" me, then there's great potential (even probability) for
interpretive error.

The fairness comes from the hunter giving the animal a chance, not from the
animal's natural senses.

What the hell does that mean? If the animal is able to detect my presence
and avoid me altogether then that most definitely gives him a chance,
wouldn't you say? And the fact that I rarely even spot deer or hogs in
woods where the ground is positively littered with their tracks and other
signs, I'd say they're much better at sensing me than I am at preventing
them from doing so. Or perhaps you're not understanding the difference
between the "hunt" and the "kill". I already pointed this out, but let me
repeat it for you just in case you missed it as well:

If/when I finally locate a legal game animal that I am willing to harvest
(simple legality is not sufficient) AND if/when I manage to get close
enough and/or in a position that allows a clear, ethical shot that I'm
confident taking then at that point, yes.....the advantage is all mine.
However, at just about every point up until that moment my relatively
dulled human senses, heavy foot, human odors, etc. put me at a decided
disadvantage. You see James, "hunting" is not just "pulling the
trigger"...at least, not for many of us. In fact that's only the tiniest
fraction of what constitutes a hunt, if in fact it ever happens at all
(usually it doesn't.)

[snip] That sensory disadvantage is a large part of what makes hunting
enjoyable, and is
why...as I already pointed out...nearly all of my outings end without even
having seen a deer or hog.

Of course that's what makes it enjoyable.

But, it's a disadvantage imposed by you as the hunter when you forego some
or all of the modern options available to you as a hunter;

The subject is *me* and my hunting. Not some hypothetical situation in
which I'm equipped with thermal imaging equipment, noise-cancelling boots
(if such a thing existed), etc. Remind us again what it was it you were
just preaching about context?

it's not an advantage the game has.

If I have a comparative limitation it's an advantage for the game. It
doesn't matter whether the limitation is natural or artificial. If, all
other things being equal, someone offers to fist-fight you with one arm
literally tied behind his back that would be a completely artificial
limitation on his part, and it would constitute an advantage for you.

Even when you qualify it by saying "locating them under "fair chase"
conditions", that implies that you are imposing conditions on yourself as a
hunter for the specific purpose of not giving yourself an improper advantage
over the animal.

See above, and try...TRY, I implorse you...to remember the context and the
subject of the discussion.

The debate about what "fair chase" means doesn't really
come into play here, but the link below provides a reasonable definition, I
think.


http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEthics/ethics_fairchase.asp?area=huntingEthics

Well, that's one definition. Although it's somewhat vague in some of its
tenets, I wouldn't quarrel with any of them (except to add a statement
about non-confinement of the quarry.) But, you're right...it doesn't come
into play here, except to note that some of the restrictions of "fair
chase" contribute to the aforementioned advantages the quarry has in terms
of avoiding the hunter in the first place.

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Wuzzy - Captain Carnivore
    ... All of which are determined by the human hunter, ... meaningful in this context, but we can debate that later.) ... he was referring to hunting in general as well (if so, ... game animals, I don't think it comes across like you thought when you ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Hunters Have Small Dicks
    ... A typical hunter, on the other hand, uses swift ... I would much rather eat animals that have been killed by a true ... I hunt for the pleasure of hunting. ... that buck on my wall. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Hunters Have Small Dicks
    ... A typical hunter, on the other hand, uses swift ... I would much rather eat animals that have been killed by a true ... I hunt for the pleasure of hunting. ... that buck on my wall. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Hunters Have Small Dicks
    ... A typical hunter, on the other hand, uses swift ... I would much rather eat animals that have been killed by a true ... I hunt for the pleasure of hunting. ... that buck on my wall. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: OT: Wuzzy - Captain Carnivore
    ... All of which are determined by the human hunter, ... meaningful in this context, but we can debate that later.) ... he was referring to hunting in general as well (if so, ... game animals, I don't think it comes across like you thought when you ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)