# Hunker Down Boys!...here come the Great Locavore Hordes!!!



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Jinx,

Very interesting article. I like the term adult onset hunting. As many know I am not a hunter. I grew up, and currently live, in the suburbs of Los Angeles. An LA suburb can be larger than many cities in other parts of the country, and they are connected to other suburbs, that are connected to still more suburbs, until 50 miles later, you wonder whether the housing communities are ever going to end. While there are hunters in the suburbs, they are well hidden among the masses. Archery has provided me exposure to the hunting community. It has been very educational.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

Sounds like our VT department of wildlife marketing stratagem is target our transplant hipster population to pay for overpriced hunting and fishing licenses that were once bought by the local population that can no longer afford to live in this now 60% second home state.
Hope they don't shoot each other, or me


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I say good for them. The more people who are aware of where their food comes from, or can come from, the better. Lots of people these days weren't raised in the country nor were they raised in a hunting family. I think it's actually encouraging that people who didn't grow up with the hunting tradition are not so far removed from reality that they can conclude that there's a lot of good meat running around out in the woods and all they have to do is hunt and kill it. 

You know what they say; kill a deer, save a cow...:wink:


----------



## picapica (Oct 17, 2014)

Great article! Here in Portland, a local camp and outdoor program is running hundreds of kids and adults a year through survival, tracking, awareness, stealth, archery, stone tool making, bow making and arrow making classes. They are located in an old machine shop/warehouse just a few minutes from downtown. If family members and neighbors are no longer available to be the mentors that we need to learn these skills, thank goodness people like the teachers and authors mentioned in the article and organizations like Portland Trackers Earth are stepping forward to do it.


----------



## martha j (May 11, 2009)

in the last 30 years in my area of small town USA you can't find a place TO hunt anymore as it's grown up with houses now .

30 yrs ago you could hunt anywhere around here as we all knew each other.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

picapica said:


> Great article! Here in Portland, a local camp and outdoor program is running hundreds of kids and adults a year through survival, tracking, awareness, stealth, archery, stone tool making, bow making and arrow making classes. They are located in an old machine shop/warehouse just a few minutes from downtown. If family members and neighbors are no longer available to be the mentors that we need to learn these skills, thank goodness people like the teachers and authors mentioned in the article and organizations like Portland Trackers Earth are stepping forward to do it.


Texas Parks & Wildlife sponsors a similar program for deer hunting - Texas Youth Hunting Program. Volunteers take a kid on hunt day and escort and sit with them in the stand - bullet stays in escort's pocket till needed  One friend has volunteered for the program as an escort and had a blast doing it.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Well?...I can certainly get behind the promotion and expansion of hunting skills and woodsmenship but here's the up front that troubled me...

*"and state wildlife departments are offering introductory deer hunting classes in urban areas to recruit newbies who want to kill their own local, sustainable and wild meat in what some say is an ecologically friendly way."*

I guess it was the combination of the words...recruit...newbies...introductory...own local.....urban areas?

and it's been my growing impression that any time SWD's *offer* "classes"?....it's not because they want an urban neighborhood full of happy hunters.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> I guess it was the combination of the words...recruit...newbies...introductory...own local.....urban areas?
> 
> and it's been my growing impression that any time SWD's *offer* "classes"?....it's not because they want an urban neighborhood full of happy hunters.


It's because the world has changed. So many are not raised by hunting parents and grandparents. Yes, they need "classes". Someone is at least taking what's present and looking at the future - the future of all hunters. You need less tinfoil in your life


----------



## tim2970 (Jan 10, 2010)

GBUSA said:


> Sounds like our VT department of wildlife marketing stratagem is target our transplant hipster population to pay for overpriced hunting and fishing licenses that were once bought by the local population that can no longer afford to live in this now 60% second home state.
> Hope they don't shoot each other, or me


Agreed


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

martha j said:


> in the last 30 years in my area of small town USA you can't find a place TO hunt anymore as it's grown up with houses now .
> 
> 30 yrs ago you could hunt anywhere around here as we all knew each other.


That's the thing that came to mind for me. There may be fewer hunters but there isn't anyplace to hunt unless you have big money to spend on a lease or something. It sure isn't an economical way to get meat. They're letting those people in for a big disappointment.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> That's the thing that came to mind for me. There may be fewer hunters but there isn't anyplace to hunt unless you have big money to spend on a lease or something. It sure isn't an economical way to get meat. They're letting those people in for a big disappointment.


My feelings exactly MGF and like I stated above?...

*"and it's been my growing impression that any time SWD's offer "classes"?....it's not because they want an urban neighborhood full of happy hunters"*


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

I say more power to them. All of us started somewhere and the more people who get outdoors and enjoy nature like they have never seen it before, the better. Of course, all of them won't become hunters for life but neither did all the kids when I was growing up. We had plenty places to hunt and guns of our own at ten or twelve years old. Some just didn't have the interest. But, how many of us enjoy our hunting today for the experience of watching the forest come alive in the morning as much as we do shooting a deer? I do, there's nothing quite like that to form a lasting relationship with mother nature. 
And then, there's the added benefit of winning more people over to our side of the fence at a time when so many seem to be turning anti hunting simply because it's something they have never experienced. Maybe if more have the opportunity at least some of them might see it differently.
I just read a book , "A look at Life From A Deerstand" It's a religious book and the author connected everything to his personal connection with God that he often reflected upon during his hunts. Whether a person is religious or not doesn't matter when it comes to hunting. It's still a great time of solitude in the woods to think about life in general. To enjoy life at a little slower pace which is desperately needed in the hectic world we live in today. I can't imagine that some would not be converted.


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

Thats great for hunting


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

As somebody who grew up with fishing experience via my dad, but no hunting, and wanted to get into hunting, but lacked both access and willing, qualified mentors who had the time to show me the ropes so to speak (I have one friend who tried, but my experience with him made me wonder how much he knew in ratio to what he claimed that he knew), I would be thrilled if they offered this in California. I'm glad that my local park ranger volunteered to teach the Hunter Safety Education course, but any hands on and person to person hunting knowledge exchange, or demonstrations, would be appreciated just as much. I'm even happy to _pay_ for it.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Anything that sheds positive light on hunting is good news to me. People used to be proud of the game they shot and display antlers on the way home accordingly. Now people almost hide them because of a few that think steaks come from stores and create a stink.....


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

I'll believe it when I see it-I hope so though.Hunting for meat is hardly practical money-wise.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Didn't read the article but this was brought up in a few magazines on the newsstands. I think it's great. I think that it will help get folks into hunting and soon they might start realizing how much habitat destruction is going on these days. I also think it's great that it gets folks away from the whole trophy hunting aspect. I don't see anything wrong with hunting for trophies, but I don't think that every hunter who takes to the woods should have that kind of mentality. I hunt for meat. One deer produces $200-500 worth of meat if you compare it to the prices of "organic, grass fed" beef, and it won't have any of the chemicals they pump into cattle.

I think we could use some more folks who understand and appreciate the challenge of fair chase in pursuing table fare. It might be the difference between available hunting land in the future and nothing. I also think it's a lot better than some of the "deer hunter" types that seem so prevalent, at least here in PA. Guys who get together with their buddies the night before rifle at camp, get so drunk they can't see straight, then head out early in the morning with high powered rifles trying to kill something for the sake of bragging rights. We certainly don't need more people like that.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

kegan said:


> It might be the difference between available hunting land in the future and nothing. I also think it's a lot better than some of the "deer hunter" types that seem so prevalent, at least here in PA. Guys who get together with their buddies the night before rifle at camp, get so drunk they can't see straight, then head out early in the morning with high powered rifles trying to kill something for the sake of bragging rights. We certainly don't need more people like that.


Another thing that used to urp me to see a lot of, and one I had been guilty of myself, was seeing folks clear last year's meat by throwing out 90% of what they took that year to make room for this year's hunt. The intention was there, just the time to cook v. restaurant and fast food wasn't balanced.

It takes a lot more planning than just the hunt, clean, and fill freezer. These folks will need to dedicate to eating it instead of grabbing quick meals, which our society is more geared around - most urban folks these days would have a hard time eating a freezer of beef.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Sanford said:


> Another thing that used to urp me to see a lot of, and one I had been guilty of myself, was seeing folks clear last year's meat by throwing out 90% of what they took that year to make room for this year's hunt. The intention was there, just the time to cook v. restaurant and fast food wasn't balanced.
> 
> It takes a lot more planning than just the hunt, clean, and fill freezer. These folks will need to dedicate to eating it instead of grabbing quick meals, which our society is more geared around - most urban folks these days would have a hard time eating a freezer of beef.


Maybe I should write a cookbook- none of my wild game meals take me more than half an hour. It would actually take me more time to drive to a fast food joint than it would to cook. Although I don't make any promises about my culinary prowess:lol:


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

I like it! Good for them.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

kegan said:


> Maybe I should write a cookbook- none of my wild game meals take me more than half an hour. It would actually take me more time to drive to a fast food joint than it would to cook. Although I don't make any promises about my culinary prowess:lol:


And then you have the other extreme. One friend I shoot with, and one who would be called a classical urban hunter, became interested in the "Guts and Grease" diets of Native Americans. He now strives to eat the whole deer, and I mean the whole deer - right down to intestines that cannot be eaten without treating first


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Sanford said:


> And then you have to other extreme. One friend I shoot with, and one who would be called a classical urban hunter, became interested in the "Guts and Grease" diets of Native Americans. He now strives to eat the whole deer, and I mean the whole deer - right down to intestines that cannot be eaten without treating first


More power to him! I think that stuff makes better compost for the garden, though


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

MGF said:


> It sure isn't an economical way to get meat.


I take a slight issue with the "sustainable" being thrown around. If everyone hunted, we'd run out of meat pretty darned fast. 

I read somewhere a little while back, can't recall exactly where, that stated all of North America can only sustain about 20 million people without modern agriculture.

If you really want affordable, SUSTAINABLE, quality meat- raise your own livestock. If you can't where you live, I'm sure there's some co-op type hippie thing floating around they could join...

But, what really makes me chuckle, is the irony of it all. I mean, 100 or so yrs ago, it was very common and accepted to hunt, have some chickens, slaughter animals, etc... it was just life. Then, modern ag rolls around, and it became socially unacceptable to do that. Only "poor" or "country hick", underprivileged, types people would participate in such activities. Now, as recently as the past few years, there's been a resurgence of keeping backyard livestock, chickens and dairy goats, mainly- and the "hipsters" get to walk around with their air of moral superiority for having the care of providing their own food. Now they are jumping on the hunting band wagon. There was a similar article posted recently in the hunting forum, I think somewhere in the pacific northwest, about hipsters going hunting.

Even Mark Zuckerberg was under fire for stating that he will only eat meat from animals he personally slaughtered.

It all goes round, full circle...there is nothing new under the sun...

BM


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

kegan said:


> Maybe I should write a cookbook- none of my wild game meals take me more than half an hour. It would actually take me more time to drive to a fast food joint than it would to cook. Although I don't make any promises about my culinary prowess:lol:


4 Minutes in the George Forman grill with a little Johnny's Seasoning and those venison steaks are fit for a king. FWIW: There was no shortage of hunters in the hill here in So. Idaho last season - I'd say that I saw more people out than ever before.

Oh, and the guts stay on the hill - coyotes need to eat too.


----------



## picapica (Oct 17, 2014)

When I lived in Montana, it was indeed possible to find a "hippie thing" floating around. You bought a cow from a local rancher and split it with your neighbors.
No tie-dye or hipsters involved, but it was locally sourced and you knew what it had eaten all of its life. ; )


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> And then you have the other extreme. One friend I shoot with, and one who would be called a classical urban hunter, became interested in the "Guts and Grease" diets of Native Americans. He now strives to eat the whole deer, and I mean the whole deer - right down to intestines that cannot be eaten without treating first


intestines?, Do you mean sausage? LOL

I eat livers and hearts and we use some of the fat from animals that have fat. But, I need limb line bait and stuff too. 

The issue with some wild game (like rabbits and squirrels) is that you can't survive on it unless you eat everything. Too much protein and not enough fat. It can kill you.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> intestines?, Do you mean sausage? LOL


You might call them that 

_According to John (Fire) Lame Deer, the eating of guts had evolved into a contest. “In the old days we used to eat the guts of the buffalo, making a contest of it, two fellows getting hold of a long piece of intestines from opposite ends, starting chewing toward the middle, seeing who can get there first; that’s eating. Those buffalo guts, full of *half-fermented, half-digested grass and herbs*, you didn’t need any pills and vitamins when you swallowed those.”15_


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

What I see is a flash in the pan program that will cost the taxpayers and the Locavores then will die off as soon as they realize their venison wound up costing them $100lb....and it took most 3 too 5 years to actually bag one....meanwhile?... the program director's will continue collecting their weekly salary for years...that's what I see coming...and long with a bunch of newbies taking sound and shadow shots.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bill, we could each get a second job to help pay for it. LOL

All I know is that, in many areas of the country, it's pretty darned hard to find a place to hunt where you have much chance of bagging a deer. I don't introduce anybody to hunting because I don't have anyplace to take them. I wouldn't bother hunting anymore except I got hooked on it a few decades back when there were places to hunt and I just can't let it go.

The buyer (including the tax payers) definitely need to beware.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

I'm all for the VT dept of wildlife management running hunting & fishing workshops like they already do for hunter safety.
My opposition only lies in taxpayer funding and the blowing of smoke up folks keisters by telling them it's more efficient, or more cost effective than the raising of livestock. Don't pitch it as a better way. One can always do both, but I'd personally take a few hundred pounds of prime rib over 80 pounds of venison from a tick ridden deer any day of the week.

And yes, Vermont has hundreds of food cooperatives, and farmers markets.
You can choose from meat, poultry, vegetables, grains and whole foods.
Not to mention all the other home made stuff from blown glass, soap to wool and wooden spoons.
I like the pie's 😉


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> What I see is a flash in the pan program that will cost the taxpayers and the Locavores then will die off as soon as they realize their venison wound up costing them $100lb....and it took most 3 too 5 years to actually bag one....meanwhile?... the program director's will continue collecting their weekly salary for years...that's what I see coming...and long with a bunch of newbies taking sound and shadow shots.



Exactly!

Run out and buy that rifle and gear.
Then buy the bow and gear. Perhaps a muzzleloader to up your percentages of a kill in yet another offered season.
$100 bucks a pound sounds about right.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Hunting is *big* business these days...including for the government.


----------



## drenalinhunter1 (Feb 6, 2009)

Really, this is great. Aldo Leopold wrote, "There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is supposing that* breakfast comes from the grocery*, and the other is that heat comes from the furnace." Like many others on this thread have said, it is good that people are showing interest in knowing where there food comes from. Those who become so detached from what life is, are in danger. I eat venison at least once a week, and honestly wish I could more often. It is great to know where my food comes from, and what it eats. As long as they learn the importance of ethics, and what it means to take an animal's life, i'm all for more people getting into the field.

Jeff


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

It's profitable for Pennsylvania. The PA Game Commision's salaries, the state game lands, every bit of it is paid for by hunters. No "taxpayers" are paying for the hunting classes here (except that hunters pay taxes too.)

The article makes it clear what the new hunters odds of success are (15-18%) so I don't know where the "telling them it's more efficient, or more cost effective than the raising of livestock" statement comes from. And the "overpriced" hunting license - isn't a hunting license $25 in VT?

Also, I have a hard time picturing "hordes" of any kind of people in VT, let alone hordes new hunters. Each of the nearby counties around here all have more people than Vermont.


----------



## jack mac (Feb 8, 2011)

JINKSTER said:


> What I see is a flash in the pan program that will cost the taxpayers and the Locavores then will die off as soon as they realize their venison wound up costing them $100lb....and it took most 3 too 5 years to actually bag one....meanwhile?... the program director's will continue collecting their weekly salary for years...that's what I see coming...and long with a bunch of newbies taking sound and shadow shots.


I think it is a great program and paints hunting and hunters in a positive light. Many hippsters are educated young professionals and have plenty of money. They are not hunting as a cheap alternative to store bought meat but are in fact more interested in knowing exactly where their food came from. They pay more for everything from milk to meat to ensure local organic food. I applaud the education as I could have used some direction getting started myself. Not everyone has a family member or even a close friend to show them the ropes. Every hunter should be glad that a program like this exists even if it proves to be short lived.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> Bill, we could each get a second job to help pay for it. LOL
> 
> All I know is that, in many areas of the country, it's pretty darned hard to find a place to hunt where you have much chance of bagging a deer. I don't introduce anybody to hunting because I don't have anyplace to take them. I wouldn't bother hunting anymore except I got hooked on it a few decades back when there were places to hunt and I just can't let it go.
> 
> The buyer (including the tax payers) definitely need to beware.


Yep...



GBUSA said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Run out and buy that rifle and gear.
> Then buy the bow and gear. Perhaps a muzzleloader to up your percentages of a kill in yet another offered season.
> $100 bucks a pound sounds about right.


Yep...



MGF said:


> Hunting is *big* business these days...including for the government.


and Amen! LOL!

Folks?...I have nothing against new hunters having access too proper instruction and i definitely don't have anything against stimulating interest in what many of us have enjoyed for much of our lives but?...I smell a rat in the soup with this one...as it seems to me that what's truly getting promoted here is "The Program"...and the other thing that waives a red flag to me these days?...is new labels and terms associated to such...I mean...maybe I live a reclusive life in a small world (and I'm almost certain I do....as I kind of struggle for that these days! LOL!)....but...up until I stumbled upon this headline?....I'd of had to ask somebody...

*"WTH IS A LOCAVORE?"* :laugh:

So when I see new taxpayer funded programs making web headlines with new terms and labels identifying certain niche segments of groups of people?....

I question it.

Then again?...I just got back from the grocery store...(no lie)...where I was in line behind a father with 3 young boys....everyone of them wearing $100 nikes....

as pops there pulled out his "Food Card" to pay. 

I guess I'm just not one of those Big Government liberal types but hey?...we're all different...don't believe me?...just watch the way I shoot! :laugh:

Hunt Safe Folks! (and wear lots of orange next season) L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## picapica (Oct 17, 2014)

I suspect (based on what was mentioned in the story) that Vermont is simply offering the hunter education classes that are required to get a first time hunting license in some new, urban locations. 
The VT Fish and Wildlife Dept web page says the classes are free and all materials are provided by the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department and the U.S. Wildlife Restoration, Division of Federal Aid, with funds derived from a tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. 

Does anyone here from Vermont know the actual details - is it actually a special class developed just for this promotion?


----------



## trs (Sep 24, 2010)

I know several guys who got into this lifestyle a few years ago and have seen nothing but positive things from them. I actually prefer them over the APR guys because the real trophy to them is the meat which they are quick to make sure it's handled properly.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

trs said:


> I know several guys who got into this lifestyle a few years ago and have seen nothing but positive things from them. I actually prefer them over the APR guys because the real trophy to them is the meat which they are quick to make sure it's handled properly.


Okay...it's official...apparently?...I am in fact living under a rock...so I give...wth are....


*"APR guys"?* 

if ya took the "P" out of the middle I'd understand. :laugh:


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

Arrowwood said:


> It's profitable for Pennsylvania. The PA Game Commision's salaries, the state game lands, every bit of it is paid for by hunters. No "taxpayers" are paying for the hunting classes here (except that hunters pay taxes too.)
> 
> The article makes it clear what the new hunters odds of success are (15-18%) so I don't know where the "telling them it's more efficient, or more cost effective than the raising of livestock" statement comes from. And the "overpriced" hunting license - isn't a hunting license $25 in VT?
> 
> Also, I have a hard time picturing "hordes" of any kind of people in VT, let alone hordes new hunters. Each of the nearby counties around here all have more people than Vermont.


Now the article says more rewarding. But what is rewarding to an under paid Vermonter trying to put food on the table to feed his family?
The psychological rewards of the hunt with a 15 - 18% chance to put meat on the table.
Or raising a couple cows and chickens on his 3 acres of pesticide free land?

Yeah it's only $25 bucks.
Then it's only another $25 for the fishing license.
Or a combo for $40.
I'm sure you can buy in for a whole bunch more if you want waterfowl and archery, etc..etc..
But hey it pays for all the nice hiking trails and lake access that VT fish and wildlife maintain, and that all the tourists get to come hike and canoe/kayak without having to pay a dime. We'll just let the hunters pick up the tab.

I'm just playing devils advocate here. I have my own land and can set up different types of food plots and attract whatever animals I desire. I can hunt my land without having to buy a VT hunting license under VT fish and game laws.


----------



## trs (Sep 24, 2010)

JINKSTER said:


> Okay...it's official...apparently?...I am in fact living under a rock...so I give...wth are....
> 
> 
> *"APR guys"?*
> ...


APR = antler point restrictions which goes along with Quality Deer Management ( QDM ). They are the guys who cannot enjoy hunting unless they see 10 deer every sitting and have the opportunity to shoot a trophy deer every year. 

What I like about the lacovores is that they want to go after the deer that live and feed on browse and not agriculture land. This is to limit the exposure to Genetically Modified Organisms ( GMO )that the deer may be feeding on in the agriculture fields . They are also concerned about what hunters are feeding the deer in food plots and automatic feeders in order to grow larger antlers which I never considered until they brought it up.

While I don't live this lifestyle I got exposed to it through a friend who introduced me to several people who wanted to learn more about archery.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I'm having a tough time seeing much wrong with it. I've met folks who wanted to get into hunting without any help. It's tough. Likewise, what's wrong with people learning how much you have to work for the result? No, you won't be able to go out for an hour and bad a deer. Isn't that the point though? They may spin it however they want to draw people in, but hunting is still hunting. Some stay, some don't. The more folks are exposed to what it really is the better. I think if someone is coming in with their goal being to just get some table fare, that's not such a bad thing.

I hunt for meat, and so far I've never had to put more into hunting than what I get out of it. I know I'm lucky. However a couple years ago I worked at a deer processor during rifle season. I will never be able to do that again. The number of people who didn't know how to field dress a deer (and didn't care, because they took it to the processor to deal with) was repulsive, but not as much so as the people who didn't know how to shoot or where to shoot for a clean kill- or the people who just didn't care about it and just cared about the trophy. 

I'm never a fan of wackos running through the woods with high powered rifles, but I honestly think that these hippie-types are the least of our worries as far as the sake of hunting is concerned.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Kegan hit the nail!

The whole point of the article had nothing to do with economics and solving the poverty equation for Vermont's hungry. The whole point was people "wanting" more connection with the meat on their table. Who knows, they may even come to hate hunting as much as the rest of veteran hunters  

Some see positive action in it and welcome others to what they also love to do while some will see a cloud of black helicopters in everything. Can't please everyone, even if you do the right thing sometimes.



kegan said:


> I'm never a fan of wackos running through the woods with high powered rifles, but I honestly think that these hippie-types are the least of our worries as far as the sake of hunting is concerned.


Hip urbanites are more likely to the be the safest, most informed, and most trained in comparison to what walked public hunting grounds when I last set foot in them.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

I get it. Nothing wrong with some extra resources to help folks learn about hunting. The rest is just marketing strategy.
But I can't help if I see the irony in it too.
This state has chased out the hunter demographic with high taxes and lack of jobs while it was chasing out industry and growth in favor of green everything and retiring urbanites. 
Now they need to enlist a new hunting demographic, so they pitch hunting as the new organic process for these farmers market folks to tap into.
That's cool. It's also kind of funny and kind of sad too.
It is what it is.


----------



## picapica (Oct 17, 2014)

It's a national movement - 
The 2014 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference ran a session at its Denver meetiing titled “Food for Thought: Increasing Return on Investment by Reaching Out to Recruit New Adult Hunters”
42% of Minnesota's new Apprentice License buyers are from urban locations.
In Wisconsin, if three new hunters list a mentor as their “recruiter,” the mentor will receive a license of his or her choice at half-cost the next license year. The state also selected 16 groups to receive grants totaling $133,000 to educate and develop new hunters.
New Canaan, CT works with local police to place bow hunters on private property in the city.
8 cities in Arkansas also host urban hunts. You take a training program, attend a special "urban" orientation session, and pay a $50 fee that also gets you an Arkansas Bowhunters Association membership and covers liability insurance.
I don't believe its sad; a decline in hunters and hunting will only lead to fewer conservation $$ available, less access to land, fewer education programs, a dwindling understanding of the tradition, and further spread of "nature-deficit disorder" in the general public. There needs to be overlap between those who follow Richard Louv's principles and those who revere Aldo Leopold's!


----------



## Soule Ronin (Nov 24, 2014)

If it turns one kid into a woodsman, its worth it.
Growing up in NYC, the first time I saw a Bow in real life was the day my dad took me out to a giant dump in Queens NY, and showed us the Recurve he had hidden in the back of our coat closet with the rifles. I remember he hit a telephone pole at what seemed like miles away. It was magical. I inherited the bow, and fell in love with Archery. Soon after, I began goin to sleep away camp and was the only kid in camp who had his own Bow set up for Archery. (My first Samick takedown). 
Camp, made me into a wilderness and all things outdoors lover. 
Sometimes, us kids from the cities just need a taste of what the good life is like for it to completely change our lives. Somebody donated money to a scholarship fund to send poor kids like me to sleepaway for the whole summer.
I wound up going to that camp for 15 yrs as a camper and staff member and today I'm an alumni who donates generously. Its an effect that grows forward exponentially.

Soule Ronin


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Sounds like a great program! I suffered from adult onset hunting (well, kinda, I did some bird hunting as a kid) and it took a lot of frustration to figure out what I was doing. Classes and education sound like the right direction for a state wildlife agency to go.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

picapica said:


> It's a national movement -
> The 2014 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference ran a session at its Denver meetiing titled “Food for Thought: Increasing Return on Investment by Reaching Out to Recruit New Adult Hunters”
> 42% of Minnesota's new Apprentice License buyers are from urban locations.
> In Wisconsin, if three new hunters list a mentor as their “recruiter,” the mentor will receive a license of his or her choice at half-cost the next license year. The state also selected 16 groups to receive grants totaling $133,000 to educate and develop new hunters.
> ...


It's hard to imagine having less access to land than I have now. Conservation dollars to be used for what? I'm not sure who I trust to pass on the "tradition" or who should be paying for it. I'm pretty sure that I don't trust government to do anything except suck up everything they can get for themselves...just because that's what they always do.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I read the article again and it really doesn't answer any of my questions...like who pays for it and how much.

So, who is teaching them to hunt? Please don't tell me it's the state. Who's collecting the fees?...probably the state. Nothing new there.

If (I said if) this is tax payer funded, what are the deliverables, who is held accountable and how?

No black helicopters needed. Just tell me if it's public money and, if so, what is the public going to get out of it and who gets their head chopped off if it doesn't go down that way?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Hey!...here's a hunt'in place just 40 miles west of me! 

and all I have to do is buy a lakeside or hammock cabin for $750,000-$1,000,000 or if I'm feeling froggy?...go for a $2,500,000-$3,500,000 Ranch home!

http://pinecreeksportingclub.com/?st-t=google_*

anybody wanna split one?...100 ways?..for $10 grand each? :laugh:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Hey!...here's a hunt'in place just 40 miles west of me!
> 
> and all I have to do is buy a lakeside or hammock cabin for $750,000-$1,000,000 or if I'm feeling froggy?...go for a $2,500,000-$3,500,000 Ranch home!
> 
> ...


Maybe the "state" can help you out with some of their billions.


----------



## picapica (Oct 17, 2014)

MGF, Here's what the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Dept web page says about their hunter training classes:

_Who needs to take the course? _
All first-time hunters, bowhunters, and trappers must successfully complete the course before getting a license of that type. 

_How much does it cost? _
It's free. All materials are provided by the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department and the U.S. Wildlife Restoration, Division of Federal Aid, with funds derived from a tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. 

_When are courses available? _
Courses are taught throughout the year, with the peak seasons in late summer through early October. 

They go on to say: "Hunter education is always looking for volunteer instructors. The work is demanding and the hours are often long and inconvenient, but instructors love their work because they know they are contributing to the future of hunting and trapping" They are required to take an instructor certification course.

There appear to be no black helicopters involved, just hardworking volunteers that probably have a sincere desire to pass along their knowledge, enthusiasm and hunting ethic.
I'm sure somewhere deep down in the state's web page there is an outline of the F&G Dept's annual budget if you dig deep enough or make a request.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

picapica said:


> There appear to be no black helicopters involved, just hardworking volunteers that probably have a sincere desire to pass along their knowledge, enthusiasm and hunting ethic.


You know, my dad retired nearly 20 years ago and has been a TPW volunteer ever since at the State Park. Most of the year he's building trails, campsites, and packing firewood, but on the 2 weeks a year they close the park for hunters, he's taking folks to and from their state-built and state-owned blinds in his state-owned Gator. He'd get a good chuckle at the thought of someone thinking he's wearing a uniform of and working for the "enemy"  He even listens to Rush on the radio and probably couldn't fathom that notion!


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

The tax on firearms, archery equipment and the state owned blinds and gator are the "black helicopters" (not my term).

Those taking the course or using the blinds should be paying for it...not everybody who buys archery equipment.

The hunter-ed courses make a good discussion in themselves. I took my kids through the Illinois course. As I recall, only a relatively small potion was hunting specific. Most of the content was general outdoor safety.

It wasn't a bad course but why isn't it required for or paid for by other users of those same outdoors...like hikers? Again, most of the course would have been just as applicable to them.

I just more tax and spend BS...a black helicopter would be a refreshing change.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> You know, my dad retired nearly 20 years ago and has been a TPW volunteer ever since at the State Park. Most of the year he's building trails, campsites, and packing firewood, but on the 2 weeks a year they close the park for hunters, he's taking folks to and from their state-built and state-owned blinds in his state-owned Gator. He'd get a good chuckle at the thought of someone thinking he's wearing a uniform of and working for the "enemy"  He even listens to Rush on the radio and probably couldn't fathom that notion!


Personally, I hate trails and the built campsites in state forests and campgrounds. I don't use them...but I do pay for them. In regard to taxes, it's just another part of our very messed up tax system and jungle of bureaucracy.

Edit: I don't listen to Rush on the radio.


----------



## Soule Ronin (Nov 24, 2014)

MGF said:


> Personally, I hate trails and the built campsites in state forests and campgrounds. I don't use them...but I do pay for them. In regard to taxes, it's just another part of our very messed up tax system and jungle of bureaucracy.
> 
> Edit: I don't listen to Rush on the radio.


Of all the money that the State, Fed and politicians steal and spend poorly I think these things are what tax dollars should pay for. If we could stop all the theft and misappropriation of funds elsewhere then we could actually be taxed less and still have a surplus to pay for programs and resources like these.

Soule Ronin


----------



## coxral (May 10, 2011)

I think it's a grand idea! Hunting is putting meat on the table and learning before, during and after. I like the idea people wanting their food local and fresh (as can be) and getting it themselves. On the down side, crap, now more hunters in the woods! Lol!


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Soule Ronin said:


> Of all the money that the State, Fed and politicians steal and spend poorly I think these things are what tax dollars should pay for. If we could stop all the theft and misappropriation of funds elsewhere then we could actually be taxed less and still have a surplus to pay for programs and resources like these.
> 
> Soule Ronin


Thank you...if there ever was a rose colored sunglasses bright side to this?...you just nailed it...even changed my perspective a bit...thanks! :thumbs_up


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Jinks, what's so bad about getting more people into hunting for meat?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

kegan said:


> Jinks, what's so bad about getting more people into hunting for meat?


Wrong question. We're not asking whether or not it should be done. We're asking who should do it and who should pay for it.


If you do it out of the goodness of your heart with your own money, it's GREAT! If on the other hand you take the funds, along with enough to pay salaries and perks to yourself (and whoever else), from somebody else by force it's another matter. Doing something nice with money you steal doesn't make the theft nice.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Soule Ronin said:


> Of all the money that the State, Fed and politicians steal and spend poorly I think these things are what tax dollars should pay for. If we could stop all the theft and misappropriation of funds elsewhere then we could actually be taxed less and still have a surplus to pay for programs and resources like these.
> 
> Soule Ronin


ok but right now, depending on specific situation, most of us pay more than half of every dollar we earn in taxes...if we consider all taxes paid to all levels of government. 

Just cut it. Cut the easy stuff first if that what gets it done. This is an easy thing. Nobody can even claim to "need" it. Send that part of the government home to learn real work. Let me keep that part of my dollar. I earned it and I need it.


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

This is just the regular hunter safety course they offer to any resident who wants to hunt.
They're just looking to offer it in our larger cities in the hopes of drumming up some more business. No biggie.
My local archery shop owner volunteers his time to run a hunter safety course. I'm sure it's a mostly volunteer base program.
I think the article is kind of bollox and made more out of it than it really is. Like that's anything new 🙊


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

100 years of beyond the pale taxation and government abuses has gone a long way in desensitizing us.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

"Regular hunter safety course". My home state didn't have any such thing until the eighties (I think). I never had to take one. They wouldn't have been able to get away with such a requirement , say, 50 years ago. They probably couldn't get away with such a requirement now if they charged at the door what the course actually cost. If folks had to hand over $100 at the door they might not think it's such a good idea. Leading you to believe that you're getting something free is how they get you to go along with it. It's not free. They just took the money from somebody else or took it from you when you weren't looking.

I want to know what it's done and how much it's really cost...just plain old cost/benefit analysis. Something that government is NEVER required to do.

From where I sit (with nowhere productive to hunt anyway) we have a huge industry actively selling hunting which is to be expected. We also have the government actively selling hunting (we pay the cost of sales) and we're all going to get crammed onto the same little state WMA where there already aren't any deer. Such a deal.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

kegan said:


> Jinks, what's so bad about getting more people into hunting for meat?


Kegan...God love ya Bro and you know I do but unfortunately?...imho?...this is one of those issues that would place you yourself in one of those biased "special interest groups" and through no fault of your own but your good works....and I understand and not "downing you" one bit...it's just the way it is.

And now lets get real here folks...and answer this honestly..

How many of you think that if you asked the stereotypical, life-long, old school hunter what he thought about the Gov promoting a program that would school hundreds (if not thousands) of urbanites (in many states if not all states) in the skill and art of deer hunting so they could sell a whole bunch of licenses and fulfill their flash in the pan desire to top their dinner tables with wild game meat (impress their friends) and label themselves as being one of the cool new buzz term/label "Locavore" as a good idea?...do you think that old school, life-long hunters response would be a positive and supportive one?...or?...do you know this?

That he would question EVERYTHING about it...with an emphasis on asking who did the studies of what sort of impact this will have on our existing deer herds, GMA's..."Lease Fees"?.....and how accurate were those studies and done by who?...also...this isn't just venison we're talking about here....this is all encompassing "game meat" they want their tables topped with...so did these studies include the impact it would have on all game species?....and/or?...is this just the Gov once again prostituting our natural resources to promote and profit from a band of new hybrid preppers that like to call themselves "Locavores"?...and who's lobbying for this?...Firearm, Archery and "Hunting Gear/Outdoors Equipment" manufacturers who undoubtedly see a spike in sales out of this?...and are they promoting this by using the media to showcase and debut some back room created mentality to generate a veritable army of new generation folks who think it would be cool to don themselves with the label "Locavore" just so other folks think them "just so cool" and what a new spin on life fad this is?...or are they are nothing more than some bored urbanite attention *****s who will devastate our woodlands and lay waste too herds of deer, elk, moose and bear...emptying the skies of game fowl, fulfilling their sudden impulse to role play out yet another modern day fad because they've already said everything they ever had to say on FB, Twitter and Net Forums...and there's no more cool apps for their IPhones and doing such has left them dry and seeking yet another form of entertainment and self identity with the new buzz label "Locavore"?...cause back in my day we were just folks who either needed and/or loved to hunt...and not always "just for the meat"...but to enjoy the woods and the wildlife in it which we care very much about preserving for obvious reasons....so what impact will these Locavore's have?

Because that's what I think the old school hunter would have to think, question and say about it...and I could be wrong...but I don't think so...not at all.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I don't think Bill. It's just marketing and they've identified a possible new market.

That's not so bad but this is government doing the marketing at our expense with, I'm sure, some monetary urging (pay offs) from real hunting related business. This all works out great for everybody except "we the people". LOL maybe they even use some black helicopters but, more likely, just jet airplanes stocked with lobster and good booze.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

MGF and Jinks, here in PA the Game Commission gets all of their funding from licenses, fines, and the like. They get nothing from the government, and nothing from tax payers. With all the other BS expenses the government wastes money on, the more folks interested in preserving the wild places the better.

Jinks, I love you bud, but you haven't hunted in years and yet you're idealizing a group that doesn't exist. I'm hardly a "special interest group". Heck, everyone I've met who has been brand new to hunting I've steered towards a crossbow. No one wants to learn how to hunt, and shoot a longbow, and tune and so on and so forth. I'm just looking at this from a hunter from PA. My dad took me hunting a grand total of once when I was 14. He was barely a big game hunter, and was self taught, from tracking, to stalking, to butchering. First deer I killed I butchered myself with "Naked into the Wilderness" being the only guidance I had. When I got into hunting my dad knew zero about bowhunting and so when I started I taught myself pretty much all of that. Your dad and his buddies taught you, and that's great, but that doesn't happen anymore and if it does, it's not the same thing. Around here hunting is either something people sit in their wood lot if the weather isn't too bad during rifle for a buck (just for bragging rights, never for table fare), something they do with their buddies at deer camp which involves more drinking than preparation, or for the small pocket of serious shooters something that people take seriously and even then, most of them do it for trophies. So why are bragging rights bad when you provided meat for yourself nut perfectly ok when it's about antlers or how many animals you've killed? This is what's being passed on anymore around here.

Rifle hunting trumps bowhunting locally ten to one. My parent's have been shot at, threatened, had their house hit with bullets, and had all sorts of horrible comments and threats made to them by "hunters" long before this locavore crap. People who only want to kill a buck and don't give a crap about the meat. These are the people you're idealizing? I've overheard plenty of conversations during hunting season, everyone wants that buck, and often the ends justify the means (the ends only ever being bragging rights). One guy at Home Depot was bragging a couple weeks ago that he got his by hitting it with his truck. Jinks, you make these comments about hunting but haven't done it for years. That's fine, but this rude matter-of-fact approach is nonsense. A drop in numbers is a drop in interest. At least here, hunters are the only reason we have state game lands, and the only reason they're kept up. No hunters, no game lands. I would love for it to be "a few good men and women" as much as anyone else but that's what we're getting and guess what, there won't be any money to keep these places going without new hunters coming from somewhere. We'll lose our lands to the maniacs who want to tear it up for resources and development. Those are the kind of people who do harm, not some new age hippie who wants to eat bambi.

I've met plenty of people who want to get into honest hunting but they don't know how or where to go. Hunting is dwindling and this made up group you keep talking about, if they do exist, hasn't done a damn thing to help anyone else out. Whom have you taught how to hunt? I'm a self taught hunter who only cares about meat on the table. Not a lot of folks like that left. I guess that makes me a locavore too, huh? Thing is I was lucky enough to be born on a little plot of land that had some deer and squirrels to hunt. Other folks aren't so lucky, and have to turn to game lands. Well, if trends continue their won't be game lands, and then there won't be hunting. That's fine for someone who doesn't hunt, like yourself, but as a hunter I'd hate to see that happen.

Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

What you speak of Bill has already been going on for years and it is promoted thru hunting TV shows and by hunting celebs 

The only difference is that this push has to do with meat and not horns 

With today's disassociated family units and children not having mentors in the outdoors but some goof on a hunting show pushing products hopefully this push will be more educational and educate people where their meat comes from


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Kegan you are wise beyond your years my oh so smart little brother  

Call me over the holiday and say hi to your better half and family


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

kegan said:


> MGF and Jinks, here in PA the Game Commission gets all of their funding from licenses, fines, and the like. They get nothing from the government, and nothing from tax payers. With all the other BS expenses the government wastes money on, the more folks interested in preserving the wild places the better.


I don't completely disagree but license fees are, essentially, a tax. Who is your "game commission"? Is it part of DNR under the department of the interior? Heck, now days, it's liable to be under the Department of Homeland Security like our police, fire and EMS. LOL

It's a lot of work because they try real hard to cover the trail but I say "follow the money". With government it ALWAYS comes down to the money (and/or power).


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JParanee said:


> What you speak of Bill has already been going on for years and it is promoted thru hunting TV shows and by hunting celebs
> 
> The only difference is that this push has to do with meat and not horns
> 
> With today's disassociated family units and children not having mentors in the outdoors but some goof on a hunting show pushing products hopefully this push will be more educational and educate people where their meat comes from


The other difference is who's doing the pushing.

I completely agree that activities like hunting are good for the family and can be good for the "wild places" because it can result in an understanding and appreciation of them.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

The hunting industry will capitalize on the meat hunters side just like they do on the trophy hunters side and we will see shows and products devoted to such 

It's the way it is  

As much as I hate to see more people in the woods chasing my deer  Kegan is right , the old guard is dying off and not purchasing licenses etc 

With out funding only the land and the animals will suffer 

If the whole world believes meat is grown in plastic wrappers the world will certainly be worse off for it


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

Buffy and Muffy have their first deer down. Muffy says "Now we have to do WHAT to it? EEEWWWWWWWWWWW."


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

JParanee said:


> What you speak of Bill has already been going on for years and it is promoted thru hunting TV shows and by hunting celebs


No argument there Joe...and is a huge reason why I've lost my appetite for hunting shows and the last thing many of the best hunters I ever knew wanted to become was...

"A Celeb"



JParanee said:


> The only difference is that this push has to do with meat and not horns


and too me?...this has nothing to do with meat or the horns...it has to do more with and about..."The Push"? 



JParanee said:


> With today's disassociated family units and children not having mentors in the outdoors but some goof on a hunting show pushing products hopefully this push will be more educational and educate people where their meat comes from


as I'm reminded of my recorded distaste for ambush bows? LOL!...and no one will easily convince me that becoming a "Locavore" will have anything to do with family units re-uniting themselves with children coffing up the $50 to participate in this program only to run home and inform their parents that they now need $1,000 worth of hunting gear so mom doesn't have to feed them that crappy hamburger helper anymore! LOL!

I figure this way...If the FDA can't convince folks they're eating chit?...what chance does the DFW have? :laugh:

As I swing by the grocers meat department and see genetically altered rib-eyes on sale for $7.99 a LB while the greenwise hormone and anti-biotic free open range black angus for $11.99 LB sits there turning green and rotting in the cases.

Joe...we both know, love and care for people "in the business"....and everybody knows that promoting hunting is good for businesses...I just don't feel it's the right way to go about promoting it. That's all.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> Kegan...God love ya Bro and you know I do but unfortunately?...imho?...this is one of those issues that would place you yourself in one of those biased "special interest groups" and through no fault of your own but your good works....and I understand and not "downing you" one bit...it's just the way it is.
> 
> And now lets get real here folks...and answer this honestly..
> 
> ...


I see your point Bill but as a lifelong hunter my opinion is that it's a good thing. With all the waste of taxpayer money this program seems like a good thing, and it sounds like it may not all be taxpayer funded. I'm not sure if they have the program in Minnesota, or if they do how it's funded, but for me the bottom line is people are showing an interest in a healthy pastime.

I for one don't believe the urbanite newbie hunter is going to be any more of a danger in the woods than some of the idiots out there now. They might stumble around not seeing or shooting anything, but then so are half the people I see hunting now, especially during gun season, and some of them have been doing it all their life.

If license sales go up, local businesses get more traffic, sporting goods retailers make a few sales, seems ok to me. I'd guess most of the new recruits you are speaking of will not last, but if they want to try I'm all for it. Nobody owns the deer, or we all do, either way I think it's a good thing that people who are interested have an introductory program. Not everybody was lucky enough to grow up in a hunting family.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Easykeeper said:


> I see your point Bill but as a lifelong hunter my opinion is that it's a good thing. With all the waste of taxpayer money this program seems like a good thing, and it sounds like it may not all be taxpayer funded. I'm not sure if they have the program in Minnesota, or if they do how it's funded, but for me the bottom line is people are showing an interest in a healthy pastime.
> 
> I for one don't believe the urbanite newbie hunter is going to be any more of a danger in the woods than some of the idiots out there now. They might stumble around not seeing or shooting anything, but then so are half the people I see hunting now, especially during gun season, and some of them have been doing it all their life.
> 
> If license sales go up, local businesses get more traffic, sporting goods retailers make a few sales, seems ok to me. I'd guess most of the new recruits you are speaking of will not last, but if they want to try I'm all for it. Nobody owns the deer, or we all do, either way I think it's a good thing that people who are interested have an introductory program. Not everybody was lucky enough to grow up in a hunting family.


EK...you KNOW I have all the respect in the world for you...so please...without taking offense..(as none is meant)...keep an open mind and see if you can wrap your head around and agree with this....

I easily fell into adopting that same mentality you mention above....where it's very appealing to know that the money is being far better spent as compared to the gross corruption we see in today's mainstream...until?...I caught myself and realized...

"That's just judging it on and against a real bad (if not evil) curve."

Recognizing there's a huge difference between tax dollars "Better Spent" and tax dollars "WELL SPENT".

Today?...The lines between right and wrong have become grossly blurred....too the point that the judgement of good folks has as well....whereby there is so much that is SO wrong?...until such time that MANY THINGS that are just a little wrong?...seems to slip by us all.

Just because something is in fact the lesser of many evils?...doesn't make it right...and imho?...this one stinks to high heaven.

But that's just my opinion...which many will probably think stinks too! :laugh:

But like yourself?....at least I'm willing to stand up and voice it.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

You make a good point Bill. I think there's room for conscientious hunters on both sides of this one. 

Have a great Thanksgiving...:turkey:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JParanee said:


> The hunting industry will capitalize on the meat hunters side just like they do on the trophy hunters side and we will see shows and products devoted to such
> 
> It's the way it is
> 
> ...


I kind of agree. Even many hunters don't have a clue. I don't know if it's the urban origins of the hunters or the "sport"/"trophy" hunting thing but they have this idea that animals should be "mature" when you kill them (doe or buck). None of the meat that you buy (or would buy) is very mature. None of it is allowed to move around very much. Both age and movement (developed muscle) makes for tough nasty eating. there's more. room to move (enjoy life) results in all sorts of injury and expensive losses.

I think maybe we should consider requiring a class and a license to buy meat in the store. The world would be just a little bit different if folks really knew where food comes from and how.

Cities and city living (even for people in the "country") has just resulted in much that's "good".


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF, taxes are centuries old. The real problem with taxes are that they jade ones perspective of his fellow man. Jesus had the best response for tax whiners of his day and to keep one from becoming a cynic on social issues.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> I kind of agree. Even many hunters don't have a clue. I don't know if it's the urban origins of the hunters or the "sport"/"trophy" hunting thing but they have this idea that animals should be "mature" when you kill them (doe or buck). None of the meat that you buy (or would buy) is very mature. None of it is allowed to move around very much. Both age and movement (developed muscle) makes for tough nasty eating. there's more. room to move (enjoy life) results in all sorts of injury and expensive losses.
> 
> I think maybe we should consider requiring a class and a license to buy meat in the store. The world would be just a little bit different if folks really knew where food comes from and how.
> 
> Cities and city living (even for people in the "country") has just resulted in much that's "good".


And here is where I feel that if the FDA actually DID their jobs and upheld long standing rules instead of bending them for the conglomerate owned meat generators we used to know as "Family Farms"?...there would be no such thing as a "Locavore Discussion" taking place. :laugh:

Wait...that's not funny...as most of the world won't import or eat U.S. Food....check it out....

**************************************************************

U.S. Meats?:

*Ractopamine-Tainted Meat*

The beta agonist drug ractopamine (a repartitioning agent that increases protein synthesis) was recruited for livestock use when researchers found that the drug, used in asthma, made mice more muscular. This reduces the overall fat content of the meat. Ractopamine is currently used in about 45 percent of US pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle, and an unknown percentage of turkeys are pumped full of this drug in the days leading up to slaughter. Up to 20 percent of ractopamine remains in the meat you buy from the supermarket, according to veterinarian Michael W. Fox.

Since 1998, more than 1,700 people have been "poisoned" from eating pigs fed the drug, and ractopamine is banned from use in food animals in no less than 160 different countries due to its harmful health effects! Effective February 11, 2013, Russia issued a ban on US meat imports, slated to last until the US agrees to certify that the meat is ractopamine-free. At present, the US does not even test for the presence of this drug in meats sold. In animals, ractopamine is linked to reductions in reproductive function, increase of mastitis in dairy herds, and increased death and disability. It’s also known to affect the human cardiovascular system, and is thought to be responsible for hyperactivity, and may cause chromosomal abnormalities and behavioral changes.

*Where it's banned: 160 countries across Europe, Russia, mainland China and Republic of China (Taiwan)*

****************************************************************

But what about them U.S. Chickens?:

*Arsenic-Laced Chicken*

Arsenic-based drugs are approved for use in animal feed in the US because they make animals grow quicker and make the meat appear pinker (i.e. "fresher"). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated these products are safe because they contain organic arsenic, which is less toxic than the other inorganic form, which is a known carcinogen.

The problem is, scientific reports surfaced stating that the organic arsenic could transform into inorganic arsenic, which has been found in elevated levels in supermarket chickens. The inorganic arsenic also contaminates manure where it can eventually migrate into drinking water and may also be causing heightened arsenic levels in US rice.

In 2011, Pfizer announced it would voluntarily stop marketing its arsenic-based feed additive Roxarsone, but there are still several others on the market. Several environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the FDA calling for their removal from the market. In the European Union, meanwhile, arsenic-based compounds have never been approved as safe for animal feed.

*Where it's banned: The European Union*

********************************************************************

Okay....so beef, pork, chicken and turkey are out so?....maybe I'll stick with U.S. Fish?:

*Farm-Raised Salmon*

If you want to maximize health benefits from fish, you want to steer clear of farmed fish, particularly farmed salmon fed dangerous chemicals. Wild salmon gets its bright pinkish-red color from natural carotenoids in their diet. Farmed salmon, on the other hand, are raised on a wholly unnatural diet of grains (including genetically engineered varieties), plus a concoction of antibiotics and other drugs and chemicals not shown to be safe for humans.

This diet leaves the fish with unappetizing grayish flesh so to compensate, they’re fed synthetic astaxanthin made from petrochemicals, which has not been approved for human consumption and has well known toxicities. According to the featured article, some studies suggest it can potentially damage your eyesight. More details are available in yesterday’s article.

*Where it's banned: Australia and New Zealand*

********************************************************************

Alright...so now that I've exhausted meats of any sort?...how about I just become a vegan?

No need to even hunt up anything on that one as the FDA approved use of pesticides to become genetically induced into all major vegetable crops this way?...the stockholders are never disappointed with any crop failures due to insect infestation...cause even the bugs won't eat this chit.

*******************************************************************

Okay...now that I ate all this toxic crap?...can I at least get something to wash my anti-toxin meds down with?....but just don't reach for a....

*Flame ******ant Drinks*

If you live in the US and drink Mountain Dew and some other citrus-flavored sodas and sports drinks, then you are also getting a dose of a synthetic chemical called brominated vegetable oil (BVO), which was originally patented by chemical companies as a flame ******ant.

BVO has been shown to bioaccumulate in human tissue and breast milk, and animal studies have found it causes reproductive and behavioral problems in large doses. Bromine is a central nervous system depressant, and a common endocrine disruptor. It’s part of the halide family, a group of elements that includes fluorine, chlorine and iodine. When ingested, bromine competes for the same receptors that are used to capture iodine. This can lead to iodine deficiency, which can have a very detrimental impact on your health. Bromine toxicity can manifest as skin rashes, acne, loss of appetite, fatigue, and cardiac arrhythmias. According to the featured article:

"The FDA has flip-flopped on BVO's safety originally classifying it as 'generally recognized as safe' but reversing that call now defining it as an 'interim food additive' a category reserved for possibly questionable substances used in food."

*Where it's banned: Europe and Japan*

or a......freaking glass of milk?....

*Milk and Dairy Products Laced with rBGH*

Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is the largest selling dairy animal drug in America. RBGH is a synthetic version of natural bovine somatotropin (BST), a hormone produced in cows' pituitary glands. Monsanto developed the recombinant version from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria and markets it under the brand name "Posilac."

It’s injected into cows to increase milk production, but it is banned in at least 30 other nations because of its dangers to human health, which include an increased risk for colorectal, prostate, and breast cancer by promoting conversion of normal tissue cells into cancerous ones. Non-organic dairy farms frequently have rBGH-injected cows that suffer at least 16 different adverse health conditions, including very high rates of mastitis that contaminate milk with pus and antibiotics.

"According to the American Cancer Society, the increased use of antibiotics to treat this type of rBGH-induced inflammation 'does promote the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the extent to which these are transmitted to humans is unclear,'" the featured article states.

Many have tried to inform the public of the risks of using this hormone in dairy cows, but their attempts have been met with overwhelming opposition by the powerful dairy and pharmaceutical industries, and their government liaisons. In 1997, two Fox-affiliate investigative journalists, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, attempted to air a program exposing the truth about the dangers of rBGH. Lawyers for Monsanto, a major advertiser with the Florida network, sent letters promising "dire consequences" if the story aired.

Despite decades of evidence about the dangers of rBGH, the FDA still maintains it's safe for human consumption and ignores scientific evidence to the contrary. In 1999, the United Nations Safety Agency ruled unanimously not to endorse or set safety standards for rBGH milk, which has effectively resulted in an international ban on US milk.4 The Cancer Prevention Coalition, trying for years to get the use of rBGH by the dairy industry banned, resubmitted a petition to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD, in January 2010.5 Although the FDA stubbornly sticks to its position that milk from rBGH-treated cows is no different than milk from untreated cows, this is just plain false and is not supported by science. The only way to avoid rBGH is to look for products labeled as “rBGH-free” or “No rBGH.”

*Where it's banned: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, EU and Canada*

**************************************************************************************

and you can glean all of that and more here....

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/10/banned-foods.aspx

I think I just turned myself into a spring water drinking Locavore! :laugh:

Happy Thanksgiving and L8R, Bill.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> MGF, taxes are centuries old. The real problem with taxes are that they jade ones perspective of his fellow man. Jesus had the best response for tax whiners of his day and to keep one from becoming a cynic on social issues.


Well, the Bible suggests that the majority of people are lost. Social issues are already a lost cause. The Bible recommends being in the world but not of the world.

That sounds pretty cynical, doesn't it?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Wow and you guys make fun of me for getting a lot of my protein from whey


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> And here is where I feel that if the FDA actually DID their jobs and upheld long standing rules instead of bending them for the conglomerate owned meat generators we used to know as "Family Farms"?...there would be no such thing as a "Locavore Discussion" taking place. :laugh:
> 
> Wait...that's not funny...as most of the world won't import or eat U.S. Food....check it out....
> 
> ...


 You have to be careful of what you read and how.

Meat producers are always struggling to produce more efficiently so they can stay in business and sell you meat. I work for a pork factory. We just had another virus come through that caused DEVESTATING losses. Why wouldn't they try to address the problem with drugs...or whatever technology has to offer.

I work on the equipment so I really don't know all that much about the business. What I do know is that the lack of profitability is a risk to my livelihood. 

I also know that the FDA is a major driver behind how business is done. If you raise pigs on the range living and eating "naturally", they'll cost a fortune and be laden with parasites and disease! Is the FDA going to stand for that? And bacon will cost you $100/pound. How much of that are you going to buy?

To my knowledge, the company I work for does it's best to produce a good product at a reasonable cost. We eat what we produce. That doesn't mean that current thinking or the "state of the art" is as good as it could be or that it isn't going to change. Only that it's the best that we have now.

Everything is highly competitive and there are a LOT of taxes to be paid before you can pay yourself or an employee. you can buy anything you want. The only question is how much you're willing to spend.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> MGF, taxes are centuries old. The real problem with taxes are that they jade ones perspective of his fellow man. Jesus had the best response for tax whiners of his day and to keep one from becoming a cynic on social issues.


Of course. Government and kings have always sucked the life out of people. Some amount of taxes of some type are, no doubt necessary. That doesn't make all taxes "good" or acceptable.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bill, I was in the automotive business until it left the country. I was in the electricity metering business until it left the country. Now, I'm using my experience and education to make about 1/3 of the money in far more difficult working conditions but all the taxes and prices have gone up.

The politicians are still living like rock stars! They NEVER have a tough time. In my world chit rolls down hill. If the boss has trouble, you have trouble. What happened to this "we the people" thing? Aren't we supposed to be the boss? Why do new have trouble and these bums keep living like rock stars?

Do you think I'm "jaded" or a little P***ed? Did you figure that out on your own or did you have help? LOL


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> You have to be careful of what you read and how.
> 
> Meat producers are always struggling to produce more efficiently so they can stay in business and sell you meat. I work for a pork factory. We just had another virus come through that caused DEVESTATING losses. Why wouldn't they try to address the problem with drugs...or whatever technology has to offer.
> 
> ...


Well I guess the only question I have to that is....

*"Well then how does the other 3/4ths of the world who refuse to import or eat our meats do it?"*

Also...no disrespect meant whatsoever but...your viewpoint is coming from the perspective of a person who's lively hood depends on such practices?...and why?...why are viruses threatening the business that employs you?...could it be because their immune systems are nearly non-existent due to the genetically tainted if not flat out toxic feed they use to produce such a product?....which brings me back full circle to the emboldened question above. 

Not trying to be slick here....this is a serious issue...and the way I hear it?...the big boys and know all's are very concerned that the world VS population has reached a tipping point...I feel that what we're seeing and discussing here is the results of a battle that began long ago when supplying this nation with an appropriate amount of properly grown and raised food products became an issue...and it's now our war too lose.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> Bill, I was in the automotive business until it left the country. I was in the electricity metering business until it left the country. Now, I'm using my experience and education to make about 1/3 of the money in far more difficult working conditions but all the taxes and prices have gone up.
> 
> The politicians are still living like rock stars! They NEVER have a tough time. In my world chit rolls down hill. If the boss has trouble, you have trouble. What happened to this "we the people" thing? Aren't we supposed to be the boss? Why do new have trouble and these bums keep living like rock stars?
> 
> Do you think I'm "jaded" or a little P***ed? Did you figure that out on your own or did you have help? LOL


Your preaching to the Choir Baby! :laugh:

I knew long ago that the folks at the white house weren't eating the same chit we pay top dollar for....but they excuse themselves of any liability by making available to us all these "Whole Foods" type grocery chains offering up farm grown and raised organics...AT 3X's the Co$t!!!

when it's all folks can do to afford putting the bo-bo crap on their dinner tables.

Meanwhile the fat cats figure...."Well we gave you a choice!" ukey:

And it's not just your companies pigs that are dying off from viruses....how many new cripling if not deadly diseases and mental disorders have hit the headlines in this country over the past few decades?...why is it that almost everyone you see appears run down?...and either shook up or clinically depressed and/or exasperated with life in general?

This isn't the America I recall growing up in as a child...this is a he11 hole filled with corruption, disgruntled rioters, insane assassins and illegal immigrants aka Freaking Lawless non-taxed Criminals sucking the life out of the last true Americans still dragging themselves out of bed to report to work each morning!

Okay...I gotta stop...blood pressures going up...wonder why....maybe it's something I ate? :laugh:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Well I guess the only question I have to that is....
> 
> *"Well then how does the other 3/4ths of the world who refuse to import or eat our meats do it?"*
> 
> ...


I can only speak to part of that and I'm no expert.

Our entire work area is a designated "disease control area". Meaning that we drop our clothes at the door and don clothing that never leaves the control area. Employees that keep pigs at home must shower on their way in the door. The whole farm is essentially a quarantined are.

Some of us have to go outside while working but we can NOT enter our vehicles and, at minimum, our shoes are rinsed and disinfected before re-entering the building...which can only happen at designated and properly equipped entrances.

Nobody knows the source of these viruses. There is no cure or proven vaccine. It's devastating for the business so if it could be avoided by simply feeding something different, I think we would.

Again, I don't know so much about the feed or the drugs but I know about the isolation and environmental controls. As a matter of necessity, we work hard to keep these pigs healthy. Anything we do is done with the intention of improving their health. we're a breed and wean place. We have a bunch of sows. We breed them, wean the piglets and ship them out. Our productivity measure is pigs/sow/year. Every still born , infant mortality or pig that otherwise doesn't et fat , healthy and bring a big price at market cuts into the bottom line.

Do you really think that these big farms don't work closely with government agencies to determine "best" practice? This is food. About 100 different government agencies are straight up your back side. though, the drug and chemical companies pay taxes and make campaign contributions too.

I don't know about the 3/4 of the world you mention but I think much of the world is starving and we feed much of the rest of the world. Don't we? I just wish the low lives would turn down our money the way they apparently turn down our meat.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

MGF said:


> I can only speak to part of that and I'm no expert.
> 
> 
> Do you really think that these big farms don't work closely with government agencies to determine "best" practice? This is food. About 100 different government agencies are straight up your back side. though, the drug and chemical companies pay taxes and make campaign contributions too.


This is important. Guys like me may be driven to resist the government but there is NO money in it. Making money requires that you play the game. I'm pretty sure that we don't feed you anything that the government hasn't demanded you eat.


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

Kegan, may have touched on something earlier concerning funds. I know in my state tax dollars are not commingled with the dollars of the Department of Natural Resources. Our DNR is self-sustaining thru license sales, fees, fines, etc.

If this organization is working with DNR’s and Game & Fish Departments, they “may” be getting all the funding thru the Pittman-Robertson Act via the Dept. of Interior. If that’s the case, it’s not costing the non-hunting taxpayers a penny. Those funds are already available and just waiting to be sent to the DNR’s and G&F departments.

While the formula for the allocation of those funds is not solely based on the number of hunting license sales, it is a huge part of it. Every state is loosing hunters (and license sales revenue) in mass. If this program increases the number of hunters (and license sales), it will greatly enhance funding to the states for wildlife management.

If, indeed, the P-R Act is involved with this, then it’s a great program and has tremendous potential, and the non-hunting taxpayer isn’t invested in it at all. 

Just say’n.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Jim Casto jr., I would add one other thought to that. Even as a non-hunter, I still pay the 11% excise tax that exists to fund into said Fund with every archery related purchase I make. So, even though that's also some of the aforementioned "taxation without participation" gripe seen here, I applaud the program. One does not have to be a hunter to benefit. Hunters keep shops in business, and having more shops open benefits all.


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

.... and you are certainly correct. All archery items, ammunition, etc., etc., etc., for use in non-hunting activities are indeed taxed under the P-R Act. I tried to edit my post after reading it, but I timed-out. (Wish they'd change that--we all write things we'd like to change.)

Glad you understood the point of my post, just the same.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Jim Casto jr., I would add one other thought to that. Even as a non-hunter, I still pay the 11% excise tax that exists to fund into said Fund with every archery related purchase I make. So, even though that's also some of the aforementioned "taxation without participation" gripe seen here, I applaud the program. One does not have to be a hunter to benefit. Hunters keep shops in business, and having more shops open benefits all.


That's the argument used for all taxes...that it benefits everybody. It doesn't really. It's the redistribution of wealth. It benefits targeted groups or, sometimes, nobody at all. That goes back to my original point. Lets see a *cost/benefit analysis*.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Jim Casto Jr said:


> Kegan, may have touched on something earlier concerning funds. I know in my state tax dollars are not commingled with the dollars of the Department of Natural Resources. Our DNR is self-sustaining thru license sales, fees, fines, etc.
> 
> If this organization is working with DNR’s and Game & Fish Departments, they “may” be getting all the funding thru the Pittman-Robertson Act via the Dept. of Interior. If that’s the case, it’s not costing the non-hunting taxpayers a penny. Those funds are already available and just waiting to be sent to the DNR’s and G&F departments.
> 
> ...


Why would I want more funding for the state's wild life management?

The fact that the non-hunting/fishing public doesn't invest but yet benefits (that money buys and maintains even lands that we can't hunt on) is exactly the problem (stuff I don't need or use).

Most specifically in this case, those taking the class aren't paying anything. Somebody else gets stuck with the bill. The hunting problem that a lot of us have is no decent place to hunt. Why would we want to pay to get more people hunting?

You want to put on a class? Fine. Let people pay at the door. Then you have funding and accountability...the value of the program has to stand on it's own.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Jim Casto Jr said:


> All archery items, ammunition, etc., etc., etc., for use in non-hunting activities are indeed taxed under the P-R Act.


Yeah, and if you add up what the ATA reports as archery equipment use, and take the recreational, competition, and self-protection crowd in firearms, I would venture that the actual hunting crowd is in minority to the contribution. To me, they are all shooting sports, outdoor sports, on the whole. So the tax is earmarked for wildlife and land management, who cares, it's out of the gripe of general fund taxpayers and benefits the whole country in natural resource preservation. 

I still have to pay archery organizations and clubs to play. On the same note, I don't expect the state is required to buy me a hunting lease if I decide to hunt and can't afford my own land sufficient for that or can't afford a good lease. Life ain't free, and neither are my hobbies 

If they print up some material and let volunteers work to recruit new users and contributors, that's just good business sense in a declining market. With all the new folks I help each week, I guess I'm paying and working the system at the same time. Never expected a personal return on that investment either except what fun I get out of it.

I agree with you, just let it grow.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Yeah, and if you add up what the ATA reports as archery equipment use, and take the recreational, competition, and self-protection crowd in firearms, I would venture that the actual hunting crowd is in minority to the contribution. To me, they are all shooting sports, outdoor sports, on the whole. So the tax is earmarked for wildlife and land management, who cares, it's out of the gripe of general fund taxpayers and benefits the whole country in natural resource preservation.
> 
> I still have to pay archery organizations and clubs to play. On the same note, I don't expect the state is required to buy me a hunting lease if I decide to hunt and can't afford my own land sufficient for that or can't afford a good lease. Life ain't free, and neither are my hobbies
> 
> ...


It's free for the people who want to take a hunting class from the state. It's free for those who don't shoot, fish or hunt to use the land that shooters, hunters and fishermen pay for. Why the hell isn't the government going to help me pay for a lease? They're giving everybody else something for free WITH MY MONEY!

It's fine if you don't mind paying it. I do mind. The force is the problem. I especially mind on a day like today...pay day, when I look and see what they took. Of course that's not all they take. I have to pay more tax on the things I already bought/"own" and taxed again on each dollar as I spend it. How many times do that really have to tax you on the same dollar?

If I could keep some of what they confiscate and squander, I might be able to afford a hunting lease. I don't need it for free. All I need is to be able to keep a reasonable portion of what I earn!


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

So, what can you do to protect what you earn?

It's not always possible but I've been doing some bartering for archery supplies. I make a knife or something and trade it to a dealer for the batch of arrows (or whatever I need). No money changes hands and we just cut the tax man out of the whole thing.

We all need to work a little harder to increase the depth and breadth of our barter and encourage a good black market. Anytime you deal in currency you get screwed...every time it changes hands.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> It's not always possible but I've been doing some bartering for archery supplies. I make a knife or something and trade it to a dealer for the batch of arrows (or whatever I need). No money changes hands and we just cut the tax man out of the whole thing.


You are doing it for nought, then. The tax was already "paid" when the shafts or goods were made - it's built into the price of the arrow shafts already. It's paid at the manufacturer level, which by a uniform "tax wedge", means it pretty much all passes down to the end consumer as final cost.

As for your paycheck, those are different taxes and future benefits.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> You are doing it for nought, then. The tax was already "paid" when the shafts or goods were made - it's built into the price of the arrow shafts already. It's paid at the manufacturer level, which by a uniform "tax wedge", means it pretty much all passes down to the end consumer as final cost.
> 
> As for your paycheck, those are different taxes and future benefits.


LOL, I wish folks would stop calling them "benefits". If they were really benefits, they wouldn't need to FORCE me into it. The pay check is different taxes but then there are all the taxes and fees every time you spend a buck.

It's not all for naught because we deny the tax man his sales taxes, It reduces the income tax and the property tax that shop keepers have to pay on inventory every spring.

Barter is the way to go.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> It's not all for naught because we deny the tax man his sales taxes, It reduces the income tax and the property tax that shop keepers have to pay on inventory every spring.
> 
> Barter is the way to go.


He could have done the same thing even if you had paid cash. It still requires adjusting the books or not reporting a sale. Inventory is recorded when he writes a check to buy the stock and not when he sells it. At the end of the year, he either accurately reports how much inventory left the store or not, which would mean a book adjustment. If inclined, anyone can cheat a system like that, barter or not. 

Barter is just the exchange method. Tax reporting is on the honor system.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Well now...after doing about 10 minutes worth of net research?...I've gleaned quite a few things about the "Locavore Movement" which I'll share here as follows....

Finding #1: It appears that the "Locavore Movement" started life in the SF Bay Area in 2007...and the founders were thrilled that the term "Locavore" wound up accepted into Websters Dictionary in a mere 3 years by 2010...but apparently the net spell check hasn't because a red line appears underneath it every time I type the term. LOL!

Finding #2: It also appears that the primary purpose of adopting and promoting "The Locavore Mentality" was in an effort too..."Reduce Food Miles"...theory being?...the less miles the food has to travel to get too it's table top destination?...the less harmful greenhouse gasses that are emitted into our atmosphere. (so I'm guessing these folks won't be purchasing or utilizing any 4 wheelers....okay....maybe an electric one but even much of the electrical power comes at an environmental impact...not to mention the production of plastic and rubber products that go into making one. LOL!)

Finding #3: It also seems that the locavore movement was more about getting folks into raising backyard chickens, home gardening, patronizing local farmers markets and keeping the local economy stimulated instead of paying for food products produced elsewhere.

Finding #4: It appears a handful of otherwise no-name chefs have adopted and are heavily promoting this locavore mentality for use as a "career springboard" in an effort to bring themselves to the forefront of a culinary art form that previously did not exist.

Finding #5: Outside of one (or maybe two) primary articles (which are linked too and debuted from numerous websites)?....the linking of the "Locavore Lifestyle" too hunting as we know it?...is extremely thin. (Yet it was thick enough for some state agencies to grasp onto the idea and attach themselves too it.) 

My Summation?: A flash in the pan fad generated by some greenies in cali that the gov will skim a few bucks off the top of...while it lasts...if it isn't over already. :laugh:

But I guess it isn't because here's one commentary from a worldly wine expert I found extremely amusing in an ironic sort of way! :laugh:

***************************************************************

*" And then there are the “others”. The ones that think they are “on trend” by being deliberately obscure; ignoring local wines that might simply be too easily understood and accessible.

And then . . ., ooh baby, then . . . . there’s my particular bete noir; the hypocritical locavore.

The bloke (and it’s ALWAYS a bloke) who forages the weeds from his median strip and blends them with the whey from the cow he keeps in his yard and the salt he pans from the Alexandria canal . . . oh god, it’s all so painfully LOCAL and ON TREND, it might just make you grow a beard.

But when I see his drinks list, I really want to hurt a hipster because, yep no surprises here, 90% of his wine list has traveled halfway round the world, in big clumsy, heavy bottles with stupid waxy tops and contents that look like the urine sample of a man with just one functioning kidney.

I’m sorry but I call a big, fat, BS on that sort of behavior."*

****************************************************************

Conclusion?: My bad...I don't think we have much to fret about....except maybe the Locavores teaming up with PETA! :laugh:

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> He could have done the same thing even if you had paid cash. It still requires adjusting the books or not reporting a sale. Inventory is recorded when he writes a check to buy the stock and not when he sells it. At the end of the year, he either accurately reports how much inventory left the store or not, which would mean a book adjustment. If inclined, anyone can cheat a system like that, barter or not.
> 
> Barter is just the exchange method. Tax reporting is on the honor system.


That's not really the way it works. The amount you pay for stock is money out. The monetary value of sales legally needs to be reported as money in. Stock that is not purchased, not sold and otherwise goes away is just a loss in yield. How do you pay a fixed percentage of sales taxes on a knife coming in? What if you give the merchandise away? You can do that.

In the case of cash, it goes someplace. If you put it in the bank, they see it. If you spend very much of it, they see it. A knife? You just strap it on your belt and cut stuff with it. The government is none the wiser.

I owned a store. One year at property tax time the land lord offered to let me out of my lease. Instead of paying property tax on inventory, I loaded a bunch of it into the garbage dumpster. No tax paid. Sounds silly but I wasn't going to be able to sell it. It was already paid for so that money was gone. In order to NOT pay more tax, I needed to stop possessing it. The government can dig their pound of flesh out of the garbage if they want it that bad.

Honor has nothing to do with taxes because this government has no honor.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Back to keeping up hunter numbers and tax payer funded marketing of such...

I just came back from the local state Wild Life Management Area.

There were 57 deer hunters signed in though I got here before most of the evening crown showed up and a bunch of small game and bird hunters (I don't remember how many). You may as well go hunting in the Sears parking lot!

So here's what happens. A guy (or gale) takes up hunting, beats their head against the wall for a year, two or three, and gives it up realizing that it's a waste of time...no place to hunt where there is game.

The state has the same answer that some other businesses have and that is to constantly recruit new people and soak them for a bunch of cash before they give up.

Here, we see that that the state uses our money to recruit the new suckers. The state collects the license fees and we get ... what do you think?...we get NOTHING! No place to hunt, the money is gone to fancy food and booze for the politicians and bureaucrats and the newbs we recruited are gone.

Why do you think hunter numbers keep dropping? It's because there isn't any place to hunt, especially, for all these city folks. For every hunter on the internet that kills a deer (or 4 or 5) every year, there's another thousand or so who would love to hunt (if they had some place to hunt) but have quit because there isn't.

This is just another one of the government's con games. It's all BS and they're using our money to keep it going.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> That's not really the way it works. The amount you pay for stock is money out. The monetary value of sales legally needs to be reported as money in. Stock that is not purchased, not sold and otherwise goes away is just a loss in yield. How do you pay a fixed percentage of sales taxes on a knife coming in? What if you give the merchandise away? You can do that.


Maybe with illegitimate books it's not how it works  You might not have known how to keep books, but that's another matter for local taxing authorities to deal with.

Cash is an asset. When you buy inventory, you trade the cash asset to take in the inventory asset. IOW, you traded cash for inventory so you book your trade in assets as same value, just now inventory instead of cash. You are taxed on inventory for property tax.

If you throw it away, you simply write it off as disposed of, but that doesn't relieve the tax burden, as it's usually done in some form of "averaging" of inventory held over the entire year.

When you sell, you just reduce inventory (asset) and cost out the purchase price. That goes to taxation on sales and income, not property. If you skip the sales tax by not recording the purchase in barter, your inventory purchase by cash is still recorded by you, and if not, by the one you bought it from. See, the barter didn't hide the money trail at all.

Honor and and I guess "knowing how" to track it definitely has something to do with taxes being paid.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Maybe with illegitimate books it's not how it works  You might not have known how to keep books, but that's another matter for local taxing authorities to deal with.
> 
> Cash is an asset. When you buy inventory, you trade the cash asset to take in the inventory asset. IOW, you traded cash for inventory so you book your trade in assets as same value, just now inventory instead of cash. You are taxed on inventory for property tax.
> 
> ...


I don't know where you get this but our property tax on inventory was based on inventory taken on (or by) a specific date. No averaging. You simply have money out and money in. When money out doesn't result in money in and there's no inventory, there's nothing to report. 

Lets get back to talking about forcing hunters, shooters and fishermen to buy classes for wanna-be hunters who are never going to have a place to hunt. It's kind of like Amway or something.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

These "students" might be getting a free class but they're going to get suckered out of the cost of a bunch of tags and a lot of expensive equipment. Then, they're not going to kill a damned thing and they're going to give up. Then we're going to keep paying for the state to find a fresh bunch of suckers.

So, the DNR bureaucrat says to himself "Self, we need more revenue to keep this fancy lifestyle going". Some big hunting gizmo manufacturer says "Hey DNR Bureaucrat, we need more customers."

The DNR bureaucrat says "I know! I can take this money that hunters are paying for wild life management and a place to hunt and use it, instead, to get new hunters that I'll cram onto the same little piece of property where there isn't any game anyway."

And some of the shooters and even some of the hunters think it's "good" that they're "promoting" hunting...even though very few are really doing any hunting.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> I don't know where you get this but our property tax on inventory was based on inventory taken on (or by) a specific date. No averaging. You simply have money out and money in. When money out doesn't result in money in and there's no inventory, there's nothing to report.
> 
> Lets get back to talking about forcing hunters, shooters and fishermen to buy classes for wanna-be hunters who are never going to have a place to hunt. It's kind of like Amway or something.


I get this because most all work about the same. What you are referring to is that some will allow you take the higher of two numbers, the balance at first 1/4 of the year (Jan, Feb, March) or the "averaging" of in-and-out throughout the year. Many other methodologies out there as well - that's a state and local thing.

Look, one of my companies is small business consulting. What I find is that many to most do not need help till they need it - they have the whole thing figured out till they don't, and they don't know they don't know till the letters start coming in the mail  I can't blame them, as entrepreneurship could be stiffled if they paid too much attention to details on a daily basis. Usually, the better in business do what they need or want and pay later plus fines. It just works better for them.

Before this, I was talking about non-hunters paying the more of it as well, maybe even more if you take into consideration that the pleasure craft industry pays to the same fund. Your tax dollar into the wildlife fund, yours personally, would not add up to an annual hunting lease anyway. I buy a ton of archery equipment and I know mine wouldn't.

Because you can't afford to hunt doesn't mean these other folks can't afford it. That's the projection going on that's just some folks assumptions to downright ridicule of others not like himself.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford...if they're in such a position to afford to be able to hunt, SURELY, they can pay for their own hunting class?

Why would you take money from somebody like me who can't afford to hunt and give it to them? They're doing ok, right? Surely you're not going to try to say that I somehow benefit from this are you?

LOL, I made the same mistake again...I bent over without checking behind me and I got it right up the backside.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> I get this because most all work about the same. What you are referring to is that some will allow you take the higher of two numbers, the balance at first 1/4 of the year (Jan, Feb, March) or the "averaging" of in-and-out throughout the year. Many other methodologies out there as well - that's a state and local thing.
> 
> Look, one of my companies is small business consulting. What I find is that many to most do not need help till they need it - they have the whole thing figured out till they don't, and they don't know they don't know till the letters start coming in the mail  I can't blame them, as entrepreneurship could be stiffled if they paid too much attention to details on a daily basis. Usually, the better in business do what they need or want and pay later plus fines. It just works better for them.
> 
> ...


Consulting? What the small business needs is adequate sales without excessive taxes. I had a steady line of "consultant"s coming in the door and they always wanted to take money out. We live in the age of the "middleman". Everybody wants to make a fortune for telling you how but none of them ever want to do it.

I could write a book...maybe a volume of books.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF, it's free to everyone as it has always been, even before someone dug this up to make something out of it because they thought it wasn't "proper" users making use of it. Which is stupid, because what these folks are saying and doing is just like many of "hunt for meat folks" I've read here time and again. It's, as always, taught by volunteers. No one has ever complained before this about free hunter education by some states.

The fact that you don't need it is irrelevant. If you brought up some kids or grandkids and they needed it, it would still be free.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> Consulting? What the small business needs is adequate sales without excessive taxes. I had a steady line of "consultant"s coming in the door and they always wanted to take money out. We live in the age of the "middleman". Everybody wants to make a fortune for telling you how but none of them ever want to do it.
> 
> I could write a book...maybe a volume of books.


I could show that all my contacts that are hunters consider a good paid-for lease each year to be pocket change. I can't think of a one that ever complained about having to pay to play when it came to that - though, talking them down on some write-offs for it is a challenge sometimes  I'll give them your number, though


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

You're all doing a good job of convincing me. As a life long shooter and sometimes/wanna-be hunter, I really can't afford to play the game. Having some quiet place to sit, see and maybe shoot a deer is probably beyond my means. ok, but why do I have to pay for somebody else's hunting?

I don't think You're going to grow hunting this way.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Don't say "always". This hunter-ed stuff is fairly new. Why can't all these folks who can "afford to hunt" pay at the door? Why do they have to get something for nothing?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> I could show that all my contacts that are hunters consider a good paid-for lease each year to be pocket change. I can't think of a one that ever complained about having to pay to play when it came to that - though, talking them down on some write-offs for it is a challenge sometimes  I'll give them your number, though


I feel better now. Thanks.

The lease is pocket change but I have to pay for their hunter-ed course? That sounds like a government thing. LOL


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> Don't say "always". This hunter-ed stuff is fairly new. Why can't all these folks who can "afford to hunt" pay at the door? Why do they have to get something for nothing?


I don't know about other states, but I took it the first year it was starting here in Texas. It wasn't mandatory, but was to be by the next year or two, so we got an early jump. 

It was a little book and my friend's father who volunteered to host it. Got my card from TPW - 40 YEARS AGO!!! 

I remember the page on "don't mix alcohol and gunpowder"! I always wondered who or why one would mix the two together, and that's how green this 54 year old man was then


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> You're all doing a good job of convincing me. As a life long shooter and sometimes/wanna-be hunter, I really can't afford to play the game. Having some quiet place to sit, see and maybe shoot a deer is probably beyond my means. ok, but why do I have to pay for somebody else's hunting?
> 
> I don't think You're going to grow hunting this way.


That's just sad...but oh so true...what I recall of my fathers hunting days when I was but a lad?...went something like this.....

Hunting was something real men did to supplement the family fridge...a time when a decent working used shotgun could be had for $20 and a nice recurve at the flea market for 1/2 of that...and Mom didn't mind because they brought home meat that didn't have to come out of her food budget so she could save for new kitchen cabinets one day...nor did she mind him buying a cheap, used oar driven wooden boat and filling it with old hand carved decoys because both brought home plenty of ducks and even a few geese...which made for a different flavor of bird from the usual dove, pheasant and grouse he normally got in the woods...she didn't mind putting up with the at times constant barking of his two beagles either because when teamed up with pops and his shotgun?...rabbit was what's for dinner...the duck boat was carried down a gully across the street by him and a friend and launched in the finger canals that laced the jersey salt marshes...bird, squirrel and rabbit hunting was done by loading the dogs and the shotgun in the car and looking for a large patch of woods where it would be safe to shoot, hunt and not pi$$ anybody off...which rarely happened because everyone knew the where, when, how and why of things and did much the same themselves...enter the mutual respect of mind your own [email protected] business and let other folks get on with their lives the same way you would want them to treat you....I don't recall how much hunting & fishing licenses cost back then but it couldn't of been much because the only time I heard Dad complain about buying one was when the man behind the counter informed him he needed a "Migratory Bird Stamp" to go with his hunting license if he wanted to shoot ducks...that was in the '60's....










and now?....

FF too 1987....I was 29 years old and back from a few years up north after my discharge from the Marine Corps when Pops expressed and interest in hunting again...but even though we lived in south florida?...we knew the lottery for GMA's down here was more like a bad ******* circus with small deer and not many of them...our first excursion saw us paying $300ea to travel 500 miles north to a lease club in Lumpkin, Ga...where a out-of-state license cost us $150ea....5 years later?...the club dues was up too $500ea and the licenses jumped to $200....which is when we found a real nice lease club in Eufala, AL...where once again the lease fee's were $300ea and a 10 day out-of state license was $75 ( I think)....a couple years later?...club fees went up too $350ea....then $475....then the liability insurance went up and now it was $600ea....and by the 2005 hunting season?...club fees were up too $700ea (and this was considered "a working mans club") and a 10 day OOS license was $125.....and that was the last year we went...as not only had the cost gotten out of hand?....but my pops here was turning 70 years old....the bitter cold mornings were hard on his old south florida retired bones....as was the rigors of 10 days of straight up hunting....and I knew when I took these pics that I was taking them "For Memories Sake"...because I also knew what I was witnessing that year?...was in fact THE END of a long running hunting era for me and my Dad...and here he is...getting ready to set out what would be his last stand...and still wearing his same 50 year old Dunham boots...(no lie...1/2 century old boots he bought new)....










and y'all have seen this one a few times before....again?...I took it for fond memories sake...of all the fine years I spent sitting that very tree...










and?...the last deer I ever shot...in the last 10 minutes of the last day of the last time I went hunting...in 2005...10 years ago.....and still wearing a freaking wrist watch so I could keep track of legal shoot times!...that ported .444 marlin was LOUD! LOL!










and out of a club of 12 members?....on 1,100 acres?...I was the only one to score in the entire first week of modern gun...and only 2 others even seen a deer...and the last few years?...the state of AL had limited that county (and many others) too...."at least 3 points on one side".

Now I can't imagine what the fees have risen too today...as the last time I gave up my $825 to hunt 10 days was 10 years ago....and of course the trip itself (including travel and food expenses) undoubtedly cost me every bit of $2,000....at least....which means that particular venison cost me approx. $50LB....10 years ago.

Now what were we talking about again?...oh...that's right...loca sumpins...and if you'll excuse me?....I think I need to go throw myself down on the bed for a good cry...depressed...and missing...American Hunting....as it once was. 

PS...if anybody wants to invite me next year?...my warren & sweat climbers are still in the shed. 

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I never heard of such a thing until the 80's or so When my young cousin told me that he had to take it before getting a license. I took the course later with my kids.

I was struck by how little of it really had to do with hunting. I got the impression that they have trouble with hikers freezing. LOL well there was the part about not sneaking up on turkey calls.

Not long ago, when looking for my son's hunter safety course card, I found our bow hunter course cards. I don't even remember going to that one. It must have been a good class.

It's all a bunch of BS.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> I never heard of such a thing until the 80's or so When my young cousin told me that he had to take it before getting a license. I took the course later with my kids.
> 
> I was struck by how little of it really had to do with hunting. I got the impression that they have trouble with hikers freezing. LOL well there was the part about not sneaking up on turkey calls.
> 
> ...


Yep..I had to pay and take the NJ bow hunters safety course (with my two uncles) so the 3 of us could even purchase our Archery Licenses...I thought it was cool at the time...until I could see one of my uncles almost broke into tears fearing he was going to fail the practical shooting course with his recurve....they gave him one last chance to put 3 in a paper plate at 20yds and he just made it with the last shot just "nicking" the edge...if it didn't?...he lost his money...and no archery hunting permit for him until next season...but in hindsight?...now it seems to me that the 2-3 blowhards running the class of 30 or so weren't there because they loved doing it...it seemed to me it was more of an ego fest for them and undoubtedly they knew someone and it was a paid 2nd gig for them...but at least the government wasn't in our bedrooms and telling us how we can and can't raise our children....yet.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Hunting was something real men did to supplement the family fridge... L8R, Bill. :cool2:


I would venture to say that a majority of seasoned hunters here pay good money to get on game. By being able to do that, I would venture to say that supplementing their food budget is not first priority I would venture to say they consider themselves "real" men. If you were trying to put down a new hunter, as one mentioned in the article, they "are" trying to supplement their fridge, even if they don't financially lack in their food budget. In the end though, I think the hunt, the prize, and the meat to eat is a common denominator, and being real man or not has nothing to do with current economics of hunting v. 1985.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Sanford said:


> I would venture to say they consider themselves "real" men. *If you were trying to put down a new hunter,* as one mentioned in the article, they "are" trying to supplement their fridge, even if they don't financially lack in their food budget.


Dear God Sanford...I ain't even got the words man...well?...I do but...just never mind.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

JINKSTER said:


> Dear God Sanford...I ain't even got the words man...well?...I do but...just never mind.


Jinks your whole thread has been a slam on other folks trying to get into hunting. All you're doing is picking out the bad and ignoring how much is good about it and how much more they have in common with why your dad hunted.

You've been making these comments about other hunters and hunting in general for a while and frankly, it's really starting to get ridiculous. Your last deer was ten years ago- well, a lot has changed. You clearly aren't heading afield to fill the freezer every fall so why do you have such a problem with others doing it?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> Jinks your whole thread has been a slam on other folks trying to get into hunting. All you're doing is picking out the bad and ignoring how much is good about it and how much more they have in common with why your dad hunted.
> 
> You've been making these comments about other hunters and hunting in general for a while and frankly, it's really starting to get ridiculous. Your last deer was ten years ago- well, a lot has changed. You clearly aren't heading afield to fill the freezer every fall so why do you have such a problem with others doing it?



Kegan, you and I are likely one percenters. We are blessed to live where woods actually exist and wild animals still wander around available for the taking and it's practically free. I suspect it's not so for 99% of the population so those people pay thru the nose if they want to hunt. Just might put a bad taste in the mouths of some who seem to have been eliminated by lack of access.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

kegan said:


> Jinks your whole thread has been a slam on other folks trying to get into hunting. All you're doing is picking out the bad and ignoring how much is good about it and how much more they have in common with why your dad hunted.
> 
> You've been making these comments about other hunters and hunting in general for a while and frankly, it's really starting to get ridiculous. Your last deer was ten years ago- well, a lot has changed. You clearly aren't heading afield to fill the freezer every fall so why do you have such a problem with others doing it?


Okay Kegan....go ahead...buy and play into the spinmaster works of Sanfords accusations of reading crap into my words that were never said...I've done nothing but promote hunting and archery during most of my adult life and I got the balls to lay my own personal truths out there and for what?...done everything from serve as a range officer to vice president of local clubs...coached and taught archery to literally dozens of local Boy Scouts yet over me not agreeing with tax dollar support for some stupid flash in the pan fad of a Locavore movement suddenly I'm hunting and archerys worst enemy?...and when or where did I ever say I had a problem with others filling their freezers?...NEVER...that's when...and at this point I can't figure out if your drunk posting or just lost your dang mind thinking you might lose a few bow orders by not defending the locos against the oh so evil and diabolical me.

It's official...the world has gone too he11.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Kegan, you and I are likely one percenters. We are blessed to live where woods actually exist and wild animals still wander around available for the taking and it's practically free. I suspect it's not so for 99% of the population so those people pay thru the nose if they want to hunt. Just might put a bad taste in the mouths of some who seem to have been eliminated by lack of access.


I think Kegan kills his deer on his parent's land.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Yep..I had to pay and take the NJ bow hunters safety course (with my two uncles) so the 3 of us could even purchase our Archery Licenses...I thought it was cool at the time...until I could see one of my uncles almost broke into tears fearing he was going to fail the practical shooting course with his recurve....they gave him one last chance to put 3 in a paper plate at 20yds and he just made it with the last shot just "nicking" the edge...if it didn't?...he lost his money...and no archery hunting permit for him until next season...but in hindsight?...now it seems to me that the 2-3 blowhards running the class of 30 or so weren't there because they loved doing it...it seemed to me it was more of an ego fest for them and undoubtedly they knew someone and it was a paid 2nd gig for them...but at least the government wasn't in our bedrooms and telling us how we can and can't raise our children....yet.


I took my kids through a hunter's safety course because by that time, it was a requirement. I want to say that I had to pay something but I don't really remember. I thought it was a decent course for "city people" (those unfamiliar with the potential hazards) getting ready to venture into the fall/winter woods. 

I found the cards so I guess I also took my son through a state bow hunter course. As I said, I really don't remember that at all but I'm pretty certain that there wasn't any shooting. I would remember that.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Bill Kegan does not drink 

And I don't think it fair to say he is worried about bow sales in the least 

His book is filled 

I just think he is exposed to many more archers than you and has a better understanding of who is getting into the sport 

I see the bashing on here by a few 

Calling them yuppies etc 

Here is a little story for you 

Here is a pic of a friend of mine 

He is much like Kegan in that he came from a non hunting family and had no guidance in hunting as a young fellow 

I meet him many years ago when he was attending Lehigh University in my town 

We actually meet at a dog type event and I saw a lot of promise in this young man 

As a dog handler and an outdoorsman 

He spent the next 4 years of his college life eating and working dogs at my house and I dumped a lot of my love of hunting into him 

Roll the clock ten years ahead and this young fellow has become very successful to the point of buying an 800000 dollar converted house barn in Chester County that sits on a wonderful piece of land that is a whitetail paradise 

This was his first buck with any kind of weapon 










Yes he choose to use a crossbow but in time I can see him picking up a bow 

He has also become quite a hog Hunter with his dogs and also raised at one time the champion catch dog in the open class 










I also took him shark fishing for the first time and he has grown to be a hell of an angler 

This yuppie is one hell of an outdoorsman 

This mentality that if you were not taught by your dad or grandpa who might of actually in some cases taught you wrong (you youself just said your uncle almost cried when he could not keep three arrows in a pie plate) or if you are smart enough to secure a good place to hunt on private land that you are not a real Hunter is silly at best 

Some of these young people deserve to be in the woods more than some of us that were born there 

I commend them for seeing a life style they want to pursue and doing it 

I know you guys don't mean any real offense with you comments but I can see how some would find it not in the best humor 

Not trying to fan a flame


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Btw 

One of my roundest memories was going thru my hunters safety course with my dad 

Sure I knew the stuff prior 

I still belong to that club and my instructor while very old still hangs out there


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Here is a city folk as some of you put it  

His name is Ray Iglesious 

So far he has killed three deer this year on public land 



















He is one of the best shots I know and kicked ass this past year by winning the Muzzy Shoot in his class and the Eagle eye at Denton 

As far as I know he is self taught and does not come from a hunting or shooting family


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Seriously gentleman stop pissing on people that come from different backgrounds than you 

It does not make them look bad


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

MGF said:


> I think Kegan kills his deer on his parent's land.


That's right. I killed a couple where we live now, but other than that all my hunting is there, where I grew up and taught myself how to do it all. I'm lucky.

Joe, thank you for the additional examples of how things are very different for a lot of folks getting into hunting any more.

And no, I don't drink.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Joe,

That's why I wrote it this way


> "city people" (those unfamiliar with the potential hazards)


I'm sure there is plenty of room to criticize my skill at composition but, do you see the quotes ad the parenthetic? ...is that the right word?

There are certainly people who live in a city but spend time in the outdoors...and there are people who live in the country but live as though they were in a city and never venture outdoors.

So, let me try again. I thought it was a good course for those unfamiliar with the potential hazards. Is that better?

The course was filled with priceless bits of wisdom like..."make sure you wear adequate clothing" and "Here's how you use a compass" .

My father never took any such class but somehow managed to survive. I put my children through it because it was a legal requirement. They already knew how to dress themselves and were fairly accomplished at navigating around the state forest using map and compass.

It was a long drive, took the whole day and I think the kids were mostly bored. It was just something that we had to do to get them a hunting license.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

kegan said:


> That's right. I killed a couple where we live now, but other than that all my hunting is there, where I grew up and taught myself how to do it all. I'm lucky.
> 
> Joe, thank you for the additional examples of how things are very different for a lot of folks getting into hunting any more.
> 
> And no, I don't drink.


And I?...hope you accept my most profuse apologies Kegan...I had no right...and the only excuse I have is that the Father-In-law passed away the weekend before last and this Thanksgiving Holiday weekend so far?...has been filled with in-fighting in the Family too the point it took it's toll even on Thanksgiving dinner at my Daughters house..and I haven't been right since...hope you accept my apologies. L8R, Bill.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

MGF said:


> Joe,
> 
> That's why I wrote it this way
> 
> ...


Your a good dad and that is much better put  

Ask your kids they might tell you they remember the day differently 

They might of been bored but I am sure they remember the way you took time out of your schedule to take them and mentor them 

Your kids were lucky to have a dad like you 

But with today's families being so disjointed and many kids being raised in a family unit missing a dad I don't think it is a bad thing 

Most single moms don't know anything about the outdoors 

Thanks MGF for taking my criticism the way you did


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JParanee said:


> Your a good dad and that is much better put
> 
> Ask your kids they might tell you they remember the day differently
> 
> ...


I don't know if I was a "good" dad but I was a single custodial dad and I tried. If I wasn't working the two kids and I were together. We flew kites, played ball, fished and climbed trees at the local quarry, walked the course at the archery range or drove out to the state forest and scouted for deer. Didn't do much actual hunting but a lot of scouting. All stuff you could do in and around the suburbs of Chicago without really spending any money. 

I don't think single moms need to know anything about the outdoors. What they need to do is spend their time and energy with their children.

Maybe we should require a class in "family" or something.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Like I said you sound like a good dad  

We all could use a little class in family some days


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JParanee said:


> Like I said you sound like a good dad
> 
> We all could use a little class in family some days


Now days my main job is that of a grand dad (I got a promotion).


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Joe, kids get over your mistakes and flaws. You can get away with a lot as long as you're there.

My experience is that years down the road (my kids are both pushing 30), they remember who was there and who wasn't. It's one of the few things in life where you get points for trying.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Believe me with three daughters I'm always trying


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

The locavore concept has merit. It's good that some law maker dreamed up this idea. It shows we've still got some clout in the legislature. I'd be more concerned if nothing was done while the hunter population dropped off. There will always be people who take a momentary interest in something testing the waters to see if it suits them. To keep up interest and the ability to continue ourselves we should adopt a more accepting attitude regardless the source of the person's interest. No one was willingly born outdoors or raised in a barn so we're all city slickers to one degree or another compared to people from the days of covered wagons and no toilets.


----------



## scout4 (May 18, 2010)

picapica said:


> Great article! Here in Portland, a local camp and outdoor program is running hundreds of kids and adults a year through survival, tracking, awareness, stealth, archery, stone tool making, bow making and arrow making classes. They are located in an old machine shop/warehouse just a few minutes from downtown. If family members and neighbors are no longer available to be the mentors that we need to learn these skills, thank goodness people like the teachers and authors mentioned in the article and organizations like Portland Trackers Earth are stepping forward to do it.


This is not what Jinks article is about. Its about "greedy" state game commissions making more money period!
scout4


----------



## Soule Ronin (Nov 24, 2014)

JINKSTER said:


> Thank you...if there ever was a rose colored sunglasses bright side to this?...you just nailed it...even changed my perspective a bit...thanks! :thumbs_up


My Pleasure Jinkster.
I was born a city boy with the soul of a woodsman/country boy.
I still live in the city, but get to the woods as much as possible (less now with two small kids). Having spent my entire summers in the woods as a kid I feel blessed. But the reality of it is without certain programs that supplied scholarship funds for my siblings and myself we never would have had the opportunity to grow into the kind of people we are today because of the experiences and skills we learned in the mountains.
Personally, I have very traditional and conservative viewpoints (not very popular in NYC), and I always laugh when I see or hear people in the city talk of being "Wildlife conservationists" or "environmentalists" in one breath, but put down hunters and country folk with the next. (Can you say Paradox)
I enjoy educating them on the facts about who the "Real" environmentalists and wildlife conservationists are. "The Hunters, campers, farmers and rural residents". I site examples of how hunters do more for Deer and other Game in one off season of feeding, providing vitamins, and healthy ennvironments for the game than most so called "Wild life Conservationists" do in an entire lifetime.
City folk are just ignorant in so many ways that often they just need a little light shown upon their ignorance and they'll be more than willing to take up a more wholesome and honest lifestyle.
They may not move into the woods, or buy a barn, but they can become serious lovers of the land and its creatures. (and when I say serious I don't mean the skinny jean wearing hipsters whose only claim to conservationist fame is a summer cold calling for the Sierra Club).
Its also that ignorance that allows the politicians and gov. officials to continue to steal/mis-spend resources that are meant for the people. Every person we convert to a Hunter, woodsman, etc. is another person who will help fight to protect our 2nd amendment, rights to hunt on private & gov. land, and traditional values.
In the service, it doesn't matter where in the US the guy next to you in a trench grew up. All that matters is he's a fellow American, a fellow soldier, and that he's got your back.
That is exactly how "All" hunters, and Outdoorsmen should feel and how they should treat other responsible enthusiasts.
It makes me happy to see so many here with the same opinion, but it also angers me to see so many elitists making comments that stink of the same ignorance I encounter from citified wannabes.

Soule Ronin


----------

