On a drawn hunt at Texas Black Gap State Park (borders Big Bend) rangers asked us to kill any puma on sight or to contact office to pin point where seen. Next door at Big Bend National Park they are protected. Back in late 80's there were only 12-13 known in Big Bend - today they estimate 20-24.
The owner of the company I worked for years back went on a mountain lion hunt in New Mex. They tracked one for several days. He got tired and flew home in corp. King Air whilst hunt carried on. He got a call saying they had it treed, so he hopped into corp plane, went to site and shot the cougar. Great white hunter that he was. His trophy room at his house was bigger than my entire house - full grizzly and polar bears, elk, elephant head, lions, mountain lion, major and lesser kudu's - not sure what happened to all the trophies when he lost home in divorce. One shallow POS. One of the best days of my life was the one I told him to take this job and shove it!!

Wino wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 12:05 pm On a drawn hunt at Texas Black Gap State Park (borders Big Bend) rangers asked us to kill any puma on sight or to contact office to pin point where seen. Next door at Big Bend National Park they are protected. Back in late 80's there were only 12-13 known in Big Bend - today they estimate 20-24.
The owner of the company I worked for years back went on a mountain lion hunt in New Mex. They tracked one for several days. He got tired and flew home in corp. King Air whilst hunt carried on. He got a call saying they had it treed, so he hopped into corp plane, went to site and shot the cougar. Great white hunter that he was. His trophy room at his house was bigger than my entire house - full grizzly and polar bears, elk, elephant head, lions, mountain lion, major and lesser kudu's - not sure what happened to all the trophies when he lost home in divorce. One shallow POS. One of the best days of my life was the one I told him to take this job and shove it!!

What an f’n ass. Ok, I understand ecological balance, but I think there are better ways than killing the animals. There are ways to limit animal overpopulation by reducing births and letting the populations reduce. It’s another form of wildlife management, likely not followed in this country because it costs money to implement and we have ready and willing people that just love to kill.

sikacz wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 1:41 pm It’s another form of wildlife management, likely not followed in this country because it costs money to implement and we have ready and willing people that just love to kill.

So you’re in favor of the ban and willing to foot the bill for non-lethal population control?

There are multiple means of wildlife management and they all have their time and place. Yeah, some are generally not economically feasible but still periodically employed when it makes the best sense. And yes, those toolkits vary state to state. It’s fallacious to make a broad stroke about what is and isn’t employed “in this country” unless you’re going to back it up with how every other country employs it. I’d honestly be curious if you can point to ANY country that out right bans lethal population control and tends toward “limiting births”.

It may not be anyone’s preferred method of wildlife management, but the only thing dumber than public pressure on the legislature to ban the DOW from having it in their tool kit is a popular vote ballot initiative.

Population control is always lethal. We even use it on ourselves.
Many object to hunting when purely for sport. I used to do some groundhog hunting when there was someone I knew who ate them. I have killed coyotes so as to spare my pets (dogs and cats). Always hated taking a life, but I do occasionally have a piece of pig and cow (no frickin chikin), so it would be hypocritical of me to deny the hunter his due.
This is a gun forum, and the things have no real utility except for taking life, either for food, or self defense.
Any moral person will have mixed feelings about this.

papajim2jordan wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 3:56 pm Population control is always lethal.

Darting wild horses (and other species) with birth control is not lethal, but it is population control. Hazing animals from densely populated areas to where they are more sparse is not lethal, but it is population control. Seeding an area with food, plant or animal, to draw a species into an area is not lethal, but it is population control.

All are tools alongside hunting. Which is most appropriate depending on the situation needs to be science based. Not what a voter base considers "socially acceptable" (as noted in the proposed ballot measure).

Many object to hunting when purely for sport.

It is currently illegal in CO to not designate hunted meat of most species for human consumption, including mountain lions. You kill an elk and give it all to your dog, you're poaching from a legal perspective. "Trophy hunting" or hunting "purely for sport" or "just for a head on the wall" is already illegal in CO.

The text of the ballot initiative is below. Note how there is no distinction about it being "purely for sport". The definition included for "trophy hunting" is pretty much just "hunting". The only thing distinguishing it as "trophy hunting" is the targeted species. Should be noted that lynx are already protected separately in other legislation. But the out of state interests pushing the bill don't actually care about the realities of the state.

(b) “TROPHY HUNTING” MEANS INTENTIONALLY:
(I) KILLING, WOUNDING, OR ENTRAPPING A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR LYNX; OR
(II) DISCHARGING OR RELEASING ANY DEADLY WEAPON, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-
901(3)(e) AT A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR LYNX.

I have killed coyotes so as to spare my pets (dogs and cats).

TBF, the coyotes were probably there first. I have no love for people who sprawl into the mountains and complain about big cats in their back yard. The humans are the ones needing population control in that scenario. However, in CO, we have cats coming into areas that have been inhabited by humans for hundreds of years. They are expanding looking for food and territory. My subdivision is relatively new and lots of coyotes out when I go on long runs. Either way, I personally don't hunt coyote because they taste nasty. Mountain lion, OTOH, is delicious.

Always hated taking a life, but I do occasionally have a piece of pig and cow (no frickin chikin), so it would be hypocritical of me to deny the hunter his due.

Hey, now. No one enjoys killing. It's an unfortunate part of eating meat and managed conservation. But so long as its necessary, you may as well enjoy it.

For pieces of pig, I've currently got a nice pot of dog and knife hunted wild boar green chili in the fridge. Made a bunch so I could can some.

This is a gun forum, and the things have no real utility except for taking life, either for food, or self defense.
Any moral person will have mixed feelings about this.

Damn, have I got a lot of useless guns. I consider myself a moral person and have multiples that are very unlikely to ever take a life. I have no mixed feelings about owning them.

But dig this:

(c) “TROPHY HUNTING” DOES NOT INCLUDE:
(I) ANY ACT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2)(b) OF THIS SECTION IF IT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE
DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE, LIVESTOCK, REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, OR A MOTOR VEHICLE

So there is "no socially acceptable reason" to kill them, unless a bobcat is digging in your backpack or a mountain lion is scratching up your car. Friggin' hypocrites.

58Hawken wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 11:43 am

papajim2jordan wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 3:56 pm Population control is always lethal.

Darting wild horses (and other species) with birth control is not lethal, but it is population control. Hazing animals from densely populated areas to where they are more sparse is not lethal, but it is population control. Seeding an area with food, plant or animal, to draw a species into an area is not lethal, but it is population control.

All are tools alongside hunting. Which is most appropriate depending on the situation needs to be science based. Not what a voter base considers "socially acceptable" (as noted in the proposed ballot measure).

Many object to hunting when purely for sport.

It is currently illegal in CO to not designate hunted meat of most species for human consumption, including mountain lions. You kill an elk and give it all to your dog, you're legally poaching. "Trophy hunting" or hunting "purely for sport" or "just for a head on the wall" is already illegal in CO.

The text of the ballot initiative is below. Note how there is no distinction about it being "purely for sport". The definition included for "trophy hunting" is pretty much just "hunting". The only thing distinguishing it as "trophy hunting" is the targeted species. Note that lynx are already separately protected.

(b) “TROPHY HUNTING” MEANS INTENTIONALLY:
(I) KILLING, WOUNDING, OR ENTRAPPING A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR LYNX; OR
(II) DISCHARGING OR RELEASING ANY DEADLY WEAPON, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-
901(3)(e) AT A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR LYNX.

I have killed coyotes so as to spare my pets (dogs and cats).

TBF, the coyotes were probably there first. I have no love for people who sprawl into the mountains and complain about big cats in their back yard. The humans are the ones needing population control in that scenario. However, in CO, we have cats coming into areas that have been inhabited by humans for hundreds of years. They are expanding looking for food and territory. Either way, I personally don't hunt coyote because they taste nasty. Mountain lion, OTOH, is delicious.

Always hated taking a life, but I do occasionally have a piece of pig and cow (no frickin chikin), so it would be hypocritical of me to deny the hunter his due.

Hey, now. No one enjoys killing. It's an unfortunate part of eating meat and conservation meat. But so long as its necessary, you may as well enjoy it.

For pieces of pig, I've currently got a nice pot of dog and knife hunted wild boar green chili in the fridge. Made a bunch so I could can some.

This is a gun forum, and the things have no real utility except for taking life, either for food, or self defense.
Any moral person will have mixed feelings about this.

Damn, have I got a lot of useless guns. I consider myself a moral person and have multiples that are very unlikely to ever take a life. I have no mixed feelings about owning them.

But dig this:

(c) “TROPHY HUNTING” DOES NOT INCLUDE:
(I) ANY ACT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2)(b) OF THIS SECTION IF IT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE
DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE, LIVESTOCK, REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, OR A MOTOR VEHICLE

So there is "no socially acceptable reason" to kill them, unless a bobcat is digging in your backpack or a mountain lion is scratching up your car. Friggin' hypocrites.

It is obvious that you and I don't see things quite alike. You seem to have some anger issues also. If you don't like my stance, fine. You are reading things into my post that simply are not there. I'm quite sure you are a pleasant person IN person.

Have a socially acceptable day.

papajim2jordan wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 12:03 pm

58Hawken wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 11:43 am

papajim2jordan wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 3:56 pm Population control is always lethal.

Darting wild horses (and other species) with birth control is not lethal, but it is population control. Hazing animals from densely populated areas to where they are more sparse is not lethal, but it is population control. Seeding an area with food, plant or animal, to draw a species into an area is not lethal, but it is population control.

All are tools alongside hunting. Which is most appropriate depending on the situation needs to be science based. Not what a voter base considers "socially acceptable" (as noted in the proposed ballot measure).

Many object to hunting when purely for sport.

It is currently illegal in CO to not designate hunted meat of most species for human consumption, including mountain lions. You kill an elk and give it all to your dog, you're legally poaching. "Trophy hunting" or hunting "purely for sport" or "just for a head on the wall" is already illegal in CO.

The text of the ballot initiative is below. Note how there is no distinction about it being "purely for sport". The definition included for "trophy hunting" is pretty much just "hunting". The only thing distinguishing it as "trophy hunting" is the targeted species. Note that lynx are already separately protected.

(b) “TROPHY HUNTING” MEANS INTENTIONALLY:
(I) KILLING, WOUNDING, OR ENTRAPPING A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR LYNX; OR
(II) DISCHARGING OR RELEASING ANY DEADLY WEAPON, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-
901(3)(e) AT A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR LYNX.

I have killed coyotes so as to spare my pets (dogs and cats).

TBF, the coyotes were probably there first. I have no love for people who sprawl into the mountains and complain about big cats in their back yard. The humans are the ones needing population control in that scenario. However, in CO, we have cats coming into areas that have been inhabited by humans for hundreds of years. They are expanding looking for food and territory. Either way, I personally don't hunt coyote because they taste nasty. Mountain lion, OTOH, is delicious.

Always hated taking a life, but I do occasionally have a piece of pig and cow (no frickin chikin), so it would be hypocritical of me to deny the hunter his due.

Hey, now. No one enjoys killing. It's an unfortunate part of eating meat and conservation meat. But so long as its necessary, you may as well enjoy it.

For pieces of pig, I've currently got a nice pot of dog and knife hunted wild boar green chili in the fridge. Made a bunch so I could can some.

This is a gun forum, and the things have no real utility except for taking life, either for food, or self defense.
Any moral person will have mixed feelings about this.

Damn, have I got a lot of useless guns. I consider myself a moral person and have multiples that are very unlikely to ever take a life. I have no mixed feelings about owning them.

But dig this:

(c) “TROPHY HUNTING” DOES NOT INCLUDE:
(I) ANY ACT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2)(b) OF THIS SECTION IF IT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE
DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE, LIVESTOCK, REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, OR A MOTOR VEHICLE

So there is "no socially acceptable reason" to kill them, unless a bobcat is digging in your backpack or a mountain lion is scratching up your car. Friggin' hypocrites.

It is obvious that you and I don't see things quite alike. You seem to have some anger issues also. If you don't like my stance, fine. You are reading things into my post that simply are not there.

Can you point to where I read something into your post that is not there? I specifically quoted you and responded to your statements. I don't see anywhere that I have misquoted or misstated anything you said. If I have done so, by all means, call it out so I can be more self-aware.

I count at least three jokes I made, subtle as they may be. Hardly anger issues aside from not appreciating out of state interests mucking about in my DOW, but I'd think that is justifiable.

Maybe you have some sensitivity about not being able to clearly communicate your opinions?

ETA: Actually, rereading, I don't see ANYWHERE that I even DISAGREED with your stance on the subject at hand. For the most part, I've agreed and expanded on your positions. The only point of disagreement was your statement that "This is a gun forum, and the things have no real utility except for taking life". That's a pretty unpopular opinion on this forum, IME. If that's where you're saying I "don't like your stance", you've got bigger fish to fry than li'l ol' me. And I again ain't "reading things into your post that aren't there".

58Hawken wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2023 10:48 am

sikacz wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 1:41 pm It’s another form of wildlife management, likely not followed in this country because it costs money to implement and we have ready and willing people that just love to kill.

So you’re in favor of the ban and willing to foot the bill for non-lethal population control?

There are multiple means of wildlife management and they all have their time and place. Yeah, some are generally not economically feasible but still periodically employed when it makes the best sense. And yes, those toolkits vary state to state. It’s fallacious to make a broad stroke about what is and isn’t employed “in this country” unless you’re going to back it up with how every other country employs it. I’d honestly be curious if you can point to ANY country that out right bans lethal population control and tends toward “limiting births”.

It may not be anyone’s preferred method of wildlife management, but the only thing dumber than public pressure on the legislature to ban the DOW from having it in their tool kit is a popular vote ballot initiative.

I see no difference in the ban on hunting raptors, if birds of prey are not allowed to be shot then I don’t support hunting mammals that are predators. Hunting species that are typically prey is another thing all together. As for comparing domesticated cattle or birds like chickens in a thread on hunting, I don’t see the point of bringing it up. We don’t hunt cows or chickens. There’s plenty of animals that are traditionally hunted, deer, wild boar, and an assortment of birds and so on. For predator species there are other ways to control the populations and yes I would support such. We over spend on the military, take some of that money for wildlife management. That’s just my opinion.

Went back and re-read. Started as a comment on my affinity for cats, large and small. Can't say we started of on the wrong foot, as all feet seem stuck in the mud. Hunt-don't hunt. I have no quarrel there. The Colorado Legislature and I are not in conference and I have not enjoined in conspiracy with those who would deny you hunting rights. I do not believe your issue in this matter lies with me.

As to interpretation, that rests with you.

As for the utility of guns, Kill is what makes them useful. Hunting is killing. Fishing is killing. Even a hook at the end of a string is lethal. Everyone on the planet knows that cigarettes' are lethal. Everyone on the planet also knows that is not why they exist, not why people buy and use them. Guns are the most recognizable object made (in common usage) which is explicitly made for the purpose (utility) of killing. One can make holes in paper far better in with a simple device purchased at Office Depot. Try making three holes' simultaneously in paper with a gun! Don't try this at the office! Guns are for making holes in living things and turning them into non-living things. That's why all the safety protocols exist. The (unfortunate) fact is that killing can be useful. Eating a deer, cow, pig, mountain lion, house cat, while they are alive is at best an unpleasant experience. For both!

Guns are a highly effective tool for self defense precisely because everyone on the planet knows they kill. Most often the very display of a gun can douse the fire in a villain's heart. Other uses? Of course! Target shooting is a way to improve one's ability with using the gun, and can be, and most often is, the sole reason for owning. But... the things would not exist were it not for their lethality.

Many, from what I've read(into?) on this forum would probably rather live in a world where killing was not useful. Not encouraged. Not promoted. Not necessary. Just plain not done. Many... have come to the gun as a means of preserving their lives, dignity, property, because the bigotry and hatred and ignorance and fear in others jeopardizes what they hold most dear. Many on the Left advocate the removal of guns from society for the sake of safety. Members here know that won't work, that's why they came. I stumbled into this forum while looking for a technical answer that did not require invoking the creator or trump (perhaps one in the same?). Not to quarrel.

Most here, I believe, do not wish for a world in which guns do not exist (impossible), but rather, in a world in which they were not useful, at least not in the way they presently are.

I would trade all my guns for such a world.

sikacz wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 4:24 pm I see no difference in the ban on hunting raptors, if birds of prey are not allowed to be shot then I don’t support hunting mammals that are predators.

IANAWB, but I believe the ban on hunting raptors is driven by international treaty. It's not about them being predators. It's about them being migratory. It's more of a concern with how they go from state to state and country to country. Waterfowl hunting is governed by the same framework. They are governed within an international flyway.

State to state regulation is secondary. Mammals are governed within a state according to the North American model.

As for comparing domesticated cattle or birds like chickens in a thread on hunting, I don’t see the point of bringing it up.

Killin' and eatin' is killin' and eatin' from where I'm sitting. It's the Omnivore's Dilemma. But I didn't introduce domesticated animals to the thread so YMMV.

We don’t hunt cows or chickens.

We did at one point. That's how they got domesticated in the first place. We started with them just 'cause they're slow. Bison are little more than ornery fluffy cows.

There’s plenty of animals that are traditionally hunted, deer, wild boar, and an assortment of birds and so on.

Ah, there's the rub. "Wild boar" are frequently actually feral, domesticated that were released or otherwise got loose.

For predator species there are other ways to control the populations and yes I would support such.

But can you point to any other country that outright bans killing? I'd really like to know what "other ways to control the population" you are talking about that are in use in other countries that "likely not followed in this country because it costs money to implement and we have ready and willing people that just love to kill".

From my POV, I don't see a difference between a hired gun being paid to "euthanize" animals and selling tags to hunters with an 80% failure rate who will utilize the meat. The former also have high failure rates, but the state pays every minute of it. Killing is killing. Though I'm wagering meat use is significantly less by hired guns.

We over spend on the military, take some of that money for wildlife management. That’s just my opinion.

If they would agree, I would agree. But the military is a federal budget, not state. I would 100% support less money going to the feds and staying in the state. Give a big chunk to the DOW and let them manage wildlife as they see fit.

If that means that they introduce more wolves to compete with lions and together they manage prey populations on their own and hunting is done away with, so be it. But at least then it is done from a science based perspective, not an emotionally driven popular vote. My objection is not (and has never been) to banning hunting lions. My objection has always been categorically making the decision by popular vote (or political pressure from the mainstream population) and eliminating the DOW's ability to make the decision from a scientific perspective.

papajim2jordan wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 4:34 pm The Colorado Legislature and I are not in conference and I have not enjoined in conspiracy with those who would deny you hunting rights. I do not believe your issue in this matter lies with me.

As to interpretation, that rests with you.

Uh, no. It's your own "interpretation" you need to worry about. I have repeatedly stated this is not about my hunting rights. And you're accusing ME of reading something into your posts that is not there? I'd wager your insistence on that is what is driving your repeated direct or oblique jabs at me while you hide behind philosophical waxing.

This is the second time you came into this thread pontificating off incorrect facts. No, population control is NOT always lethal. That is Sikacz' entire point. Seriously, read what others have actually written. To your point that many object to hunting when purely for sport, I responded why that is a red herring in this particular ballot measure and it was also discussed up thread when this subject was presented to the legislature.

You responded to me clarifying facts with saying me not liking your "stance" was because of my "anger issues" and passive-aggressively calling me "unpleasant". If you want to have a discussion on this discussion forum, I'm all for it. If you want to j*** off your mental m*********n prose AT me, that's just frickin' rude. You may think your attempted imagery and metaphor are elevating your posts, but it does not come across as you being interested in conversing. It's more reminiscent of Lord Dampnut's condescending droning at his rallies.

Take some time reading and actually understanding others' views before using them as a springboard to a stream of consciousness journaling exercise. You can start with any of the other threads about whether guns "have no real utility except for taking life". Take your 400 word musing over there. If you're actually interested in conversation, maybe it'll be on topic enough for people to be receptive to it.

This, OTOH, I have no problem with. Much better than a popular ballot decision.

Colorado Cancels April Mountain Lion Season Amid Anti-Hunting Opposition

https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservatio ... ng-season/

Well, whaddya know?

CDFingers

Just came back from Florida. Seems they're having increased issues with alligator/human encounters, due to all those expensive developments being built in alligator habitat. Then the people who spend all that money on all those nice houses get scared of the alligators--who were already there--and want them removed.

Yeesh...I get that people need somewhere to live. Heck, I'm in Suburbia, too. But the big builders have major financial incentives to keep doing this, and they have the money to bribe--er, sorry, "contribute to campaigns of" the local politicians to grease the wheels. You should see what Ryan Homes is doing in, say, the greater Jacksonville, FL area right now, as just one example.

Peace through superior firepower.

I hate to point out that that's a thing.

CDFingers

Sadly, you're right. That's the only reason, BTW, that anyone attacked during Black Wall Street survived, including my own forebears. They had some firepower with which to fight back.

We could do better, though, I think, in our choice of areas to develop housing, and how we do it. Yes, we as a species will displace some wildlife, and that is to be expected. But do we have to do it to the same extreme that we're currently doing? The Native Americans (my other forebears) seemed to have it figured out pretty well. The Cherokee Nation was pretty big back in the day. The Five Nations of the Iroquois were so big that they needed to develop a federated government, the very basis that the Founding Fathers used for today's US Government. The Incas, Aztecs, Pueblos, and Mayans did it with their large cities, too. They seemed to have that nature/civilization coexistence bit down. Maybe we oughta start listening to them more than we have.

.

CowboyT wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 12:28 pm The Incas, Aztecs, Pueblos, and Mayans did it with their large cities, too. They seemed to have that nature/civilization coexistence bit down.

Less than one might think. The Mexica/Aztec (my forebearers) for sure were well advanced in urban planning compared to their European counterparts. But both they and the Mayans were pretty exploitative. Really, when you read "X Mayan civilization was abandoned for lack of natural resources" it should be read as "because they burned up all the forests". Vs those like the Ancestral Puebloans who had to abandon their cities because of droughts.

The Mexica chinampas (floating gardens) were great at not taking up land for farming, but that means they were taking over the water's ecosystem. They weren't above draining a lake or two for development. Both were imperial peoples who did plenty of invading and conquering. Actually, you might look at it like that. If the Mexica had less impact on their immediate surrounding natural areas, it was because they demanded their tributaries do it for them and send the goods on back to the Emperor.

It's worth noting that the Mexica wrote poems extolling the virtues of the Chichimeca nomadic peoples having the "civilization coexistence bit down" and that they ought to be listened to more than they were.

OTOH, lacking large mammals for meat, no beeves, pigs, or even bison, they didn't need to clear cut land for the more eco intensive ranching. There were market hunters for deer and turkey (also eco intensive, hence why it's illegal in the US) and domestic dogs were on the menu, but their diet mainly had plant based complementary proteins.

As an aside, I'm of the opinion that the Plains peoples were much less the "noble savage" nomadic primitives people picture following herds and only taking just enough to eke out a survival and were much more large scale ranchers who even used prescribed burns to keep the grasslands fresh. The Arapaho were an agrarian people originating in the Great Lakes area until they pushed out the Kiowa from the Plains and found bison were more economically viable (read: profitable). There's a theory that the huge herds of bison that Europeans saw were actually overpopulated after smallpox went ahead of them and killed off most of the native peoples a generation before who would otherwise kept the numbers down.

Yes, they "used every part of the animal". But not every part of every animal. Seriously, how many bison skulls do you think a nomadic band wants to carry for ceremony?

Ah, thanks for the update on the Mexica, etc. Sounds like they, too, were guilty of not paying attention to good examples around them.

Fast forward to today, and history is repeating itself. Seems we did not learn the lesson of the Mayans that you speak of, above.

The Iroquois, though, and the Cherokee, seem to have it better figured out. I have an Oglala Sioux friend who I've had this very kind of discussion with, and as he describes it, his people did use basically what they needed, though they would trade with Whites for things as well. And I don't know any people who uses every part of every animal; even lions, tigers, and bears don't always eat the bones of their kills. Today, we have the technology to grind up the bones and use them for natural fertilizer, so perhaps we should do more of that, too, as just one example.

I guess this is all part of that larger discussion of, what do we do to keep our footprint to a reasonable minimum, and what defines "reasonable"?

CowboyT wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2024 10:50 am Ah, thanks for the update on the Mexica, etc. Sounds like they, too, were guilty of not paying attention to good examples around them.

Or that romanticizing the primitive over the developed is not new.

The Iroquois, though, and the Cherokee, seem to have it better figured out. I have an Oglala Sioux friend who I've had this very kind of discussion with, and as he describes it, his people did use basically what they needed, though they would trade with Whites for things as well.

There was also more hunting for skins among native people to trade to Europeans for the rifles and other goods they brought (Even the famed tomahawk of the Cherokee was produced in Europe.). Though certainly not on the scale that US market demand would later see. Then you look at the Osage oil barons before they got screwed out of their rights. I think there's something about exploitation that is hardwired into us as human's. Being programed by evolution to eat everything and anything to not starve combined with the intelligence to innovate makes us exploit any opportunity.

And I don't know any people who uses every part of every animal; even lions, tigers, and bears don't always eat the bones of their kills.

Sometimes I wish I used more of my kills. But intestines are such a pain to clean, and I can only make so much lengua, menudo, and pâté out of tongue, stomach, and liver.

Today, we have the technology to grind up the bones and use them for natural fertilizer, so perhaps we should do more of that, too, as just one example.

Yeah, the pics of cow spines vegans like to use to shock people about how gelatin is made actually make me feel better that the parts are being used. If there is any bit of profit to be made out of byproducts, someone will exploit it. Ranchers like to boost weight on pigs by sending them to processors while pregnant. But then the processors will just sell the fetal pigs for dissection in educational setting. I wish I had thought of making stock from the fetal pigs I found in the sow I hunted last year.

I guess this is all part of that larger discussion of, what do we do to keep our footprint to a reasonable minimum, and what defines "reasonable"?

Yep, how many of us actually want to go back to living in caves spending every waking hour scavenging to not starve to death? A lot of us want to go back to those "simpler times", but anyone who lived in that time of yore would laugh at us for the prospect of giving up our convenience to live like that. (Granted, I say this as I have posole for breakfast that was made from scratch including harvesting the meat and canning the stock and enchilada sauce.)

CowboyT wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:31 am Just came back from Florida. Seems they're having increased issues with alligator/human encounters, due to all those expensive developments being built in alligator habitat. Then the people who spend all that money on all those nice houses get scared of the alligators--who were already there--and want them removed.

I'd go harvest some, but my freezer is still full and I haven't gotten boots made yet from the last one I harvested. Also, screw those people.