>You don't get it, we hunters are actually le protecting nature and keeping the populations in balance, not compensating for our micropenises
>You don't get it, we hunters are actually le protecting nature and keeping the populations in balance, not compensating for our micropenises
I really think we should make hunting prohibitively expensive and regulatory. No time in history have peasants been allowed to hunt, it’s always been a noble privilege. That being said, some african countries have nothing to offer but big game and charge $250k for a permit and it’s a large part of their economy and funds conservation efforts
I understand that through some of these programs they actually pay for the protection of other animals and the Elephant or whatever being killed is essentially a sacrificial lamb to be slaughtered. I can also understand enjoying the thrill and sport of hunting but what I can't understand is trophy hunting, killing animals just for the enjoyment of it. I see videos of people killing any animal they can get their hands on. Especially these lazy gays that sit behind blinds all day or sit up in tree stands and use high power rifles or compound bows like cowards. Hunt the animal, use what is gives you and treat it with respect, otherwise you're killing for the sake of killing. What good does hunting a bear or another animal like that do? That example being I know for a fact they're not going to use the meat or anything like that.
Theres various “clubs” that involve killing one of each in a set of animals. Like super slam is killing one of each of the big game in America with a bow. Others are low value men who enjoy feeling powerful from killing a helpless animal, as they are complete losers in daily life and have no power. Thats why I think it should only be available to the upper class who already have power and this are hunting for food
>Thats why I think it should only be available to the upper class who already have power and this are hunting for food
Depends where you live I guess. Where I live plenty of poorer people hunt to stack their freezer with meat not for some power thing. It's simply much cheaper than buying meat. And it's fun. Here there's no limits on many animals, because shooting them is effectively pest control. You can live on wild boar and venison every day of the week if you can be arsed to go find some drag them back out of the bush and butcher them
>Where I live plenty of poorer people hunt to stack their freezer with meat not for some power thing. It's simply much cheaper than buying meat.
I understood the common consensus to be that this isn't true. The cost of traveling, equipment, licensing, and storage all mean hunting for food is far more expensive. That is, unless you're doing it all illegally I guess. Ive no idea.
If you are lucky enough to get a large elk on opening day and have bare-bones gear, there's no way it's more expensive than buying an equivalent amount of meat from the grocery store. An elk tag in Montana is 20 bucks.
Is the price overall, or is it higher for out of staters? Where im at non-residents pay over 200$ for big game tags.
Have you ever harvested a deer? Hunting Equipment is a large(ish) investment but once you have a kit put together, you don’t need to spend over 100$ Per year for hunting. Internet says a deer yields 50lb of venison. Beef can be anywhere from 3$ a pound to 5$ a pound. On the cheap end 50lbs of beef is 150$. Also game meat is fresher and not as polluted as factory farms. This is just 1 deer and many states you can harvest many more per year as they are severely overpopulated. If you are serious about hunting to fill freezers it is cheaper than supermarket meats.
Its also harder to process and easier to frick up. thats why most people shit on deer meat saying it taste bad. They have no idea what theyre doing and havent taken the time to learn to proper way.
I live on deer, elk, rabbit, bear, and turkey...its a shit ton of work. But its honest and pure and makes a man feel right in his soul versus whatever they ~~*sell*~~ at the goycery store
>drive for an hour to public land or private property you have permission to hunt on
>bring coffee and lunch
>have a $400 hunting rifle and ammo that costs 35 cents a shot
>shoot the first animal you can legally shoot, gut it, skin it, stick it in your ice chest and drive home
>have dozens of pounds of meat that's healthier than what you can buy from the store at a fraction of the cost
>lower income families have been feeding themselves for literally centuries by doing this
>"hurr durr, people who pay to trophy hunt exotic game or travel to places to hunt things that don't live in their area are representative of the 99% of hunters who have never done that"
>still not even considering that hunting an elk nets you literally hundreds of pounds of meat that would cost much, MUCH more if you bought it somewhere
If you don't know anything about the subject, maybe instead of telling people your ignorant opinion, you should be asking questions so you can make an informed opinion.
No joke. He thinks England in the 1100's is what the entire planet was like for all of history, apparently.
What's the name of that stock type again? It's sexy.
>too stupid to understand the thrill of the hunt and the challenge
>too stupid to understand self-sufficiency and survival
>obsessed with sex and his penis, feels inadequate in both regards, projects this inadequacy on others to compensate for feeling like a loser
>"stop enjoying things I don't like! REEEEEE!"
Tell me you collect Funko Pops and have onions face in every photo of you without saying you collect Funko Pops and have onions face.
>enjoy feeling powerful while killing a helpless animal
>too stupid to realize most large game, such as deer, pigs, and practically anything in Africa is dangerous and capable of killing you, people get gored to death by deer every year, and "peaceful" herbivores kill more people every year than "dangerous" predators like bears, lions, crocodiles, etc.
>too stupid to understand that even the ones who can't kill you aren't "helpless" because they have camouflage, move quietly, can run/fly quickly, have superb senses to detect you with, etc. and you have to outwit them and their natural defenses to kill one successfully
>only knows about nature from Hallmark cards and walking through a city park with paved trails, but still considers himself an outdoorsman
>projects the usual "to feel strong because they're losers"/"to compensate for their tiny penis" that losers, NPC's, and coomers always do
We get it, you're an urbanite who ruins the outdoors for everyone else by screeching that they're doing it wrong because they're not exactly like you. Please keep your stupid opinion to yourself.
>the thrill of the hunt
Stopped reading there
And that is why you will forever be a man-child who never grew up and stopped being a disappointment to his grandparents.
TMW you burn holes in your fricking pants because you're determined to take pipe pictures
Ask me how I know you're some nopipes zoomer
>"I need to kill a half dozen birds to feel alive"
Okay Patrick Bateman . . .
>inferiority complex and constant hate/frustration, he knows that if he had a gun and got pissed at someone he wouldn't be able to control his basedboy emotions and might shoot them
>would cackle maniacally over the power to take life if he had a gun
>incapable of imaging other human beings that aren't exactly like him because he has no internal monologue, projects his inadequacies and feelings of inferiority onto everyone around him, then uses that as an excuse to attack them
Uncle Ted and Unintended Consequences got you little shits nailed down.
No idea.
that an h&r?
Actually great posts.
you will always find bad apples anon, im sure the majority of hunters look down on morons who hunt just to kill something and nothing else. i think in reality not much trophy hunting actually happens and when it does, its usually a case of the money going to conservation efforts.
>what I can't understand is trophy hunting, killing animals just for the enjoyment of it
I get that when it comes to going to pay some dude to shoot a lion or something and stuff it. But I get trophy hunting when it comes to something like a big deer rack. Maybe you're a keen hunter for food. Maybe once in your whole life of hunting you see this absolutely incredible animal, so you stick its head on your wall so you can keep remembering it. I know guys with their sheds walls lined with hundreds of boar tusks too stuff like that. They've just done it to show what a keen hunter they are it's obviously big part of their life and keep a tally of all the big frickers they have caught, you know every one has been eaten not taken for vanity
Most of the canned hunts in africa, even the gross appearing big 5 hunts are the only reason those animals are able to be litterally guarded by armed combat patrols to prevent the poorest people on the planet who don't give a frick from killing themall for food with no reguard to the preservation of the species. We tried going hands on and GG the White Rhino.
What really is gay is that most canned lion hunts are just fat fund. Super needed though. Most of the time it's problem animals like some lions who will cannibalise other cubs etc. It's worth actually looking into the prices and preperation to see what goes in to hunting.
Same shit in north america btw. No preserves no animals would have made it to now. You want to help animals? Take up hunting yourself and go wipe some pests, get tags for the big stuff and eat better than anyone else.
Just don't be a fat frick like in OP demo pic though. That's unforgivable.
>Most of the time it's problem animals like some lions who will cannibalise other cubs etc
That's not a problem at all. It's how populations self-regulate.
Bear meat is good, people eat it. As for african hunting, someone I know said meat from elephants hunted is donated to locals so it is used and not thrown away. The trophy will then be the elephant's tail
It is true. The idea of meat being wasted in Africa of all places is insane.
Elephant feet are the best part. You cook it like a luau
>meat from elephants hunted is donated to locals
Africa needs more elephants and less locals.
I enjoy killing animals. It's natural.
Sure if you want to enjoy the act of it that's none of my business but killing these animals out in the wild for no purpose other than being a psycho is wasteful that's what I'm saying
You don't need to be a psycho or a sadist to enjoy a job well done.
Putting down predators and pests isn't wasteful and neither is bagging prey that's gonna feed and clothe you and your family.
The alternative is more plastic in the sea, ruined crops and dead livestock and kids.
>The alternative is more plastic in the sea, ruined crops and dead livestock and kids
No it's not. The alternative is total land protection and conservation.
this. I grew up in the country. me and everyone I know shot at all kinds of animals growing up from a young age. thought nothing of it, was instinct. city people have you believe we're mentally ill while they scarf meat down their throats lol
>thought nothing of it
Clear sign of low IQ
I have no problem with peasants hunting hare and pheasant, that's just joys of country life. What really bugs me is the burghers hunting large animals for showing off to their moron friends and colleagues. The snobbery and LARPing is just unbearable. So many inauthentic pomp and rituals. It just screams "new money", new being last hundred years or so.
I'm in Yurop tho, I'm talking about people with green hats and oak leaves bullshit on their costumes. yes, those are costumes and it's all just a moronic parade.
I sort of agree but old money people are homosexuals
Frick off spoon
You are the reason I encourage trophy hunting at all costs.
yup you're a gay
My town would be over run with dear. Frick you.
>No time in history have peasants been allowed to hunt, it’s always been a noble privilege.
You really need to look that up.
It's a brit, they have nothing and so don't understand how to use things that are well managed. Nation was detree'd by the bronze age. There are deserts with more wild forest than the UK.
well if he's a brit he's wrong
peasants asked the landlord for permission to hunt and did so regularly
poaching also common
And as a brit who lives in the netherlands, the uk is a a land of bountiful nature compared to this manufactured bullshit
>No time in history have peasants been allowed to hunt
Agree, they went to the medieval supermarket to buy meat.
>Agree, they went to the medieval supermarket to buy meat.
Equally moronic take. There were medieval marketplaces, and peasants would indeed buy and sell their wares there. Most peasants ate scrap cuts and offal, and only a little, to supplement their diet, which was mostly grains and roots. They couldn't afford prime cuts.
Most peasants couldn't afford proper riding animals, couldn't afford nor did they know how to craft a proper bow and fletch competent arrows, they wouldn't ever have had time to learn to shoot a bow or hunt, and indeed prime hunting grounds were reserved for the landed gentry.
You can literally just Google this and see that peasants were generally prohibited from hunting. I didn't need to, but you clearly do.
Of course, the take you're responding to is also moronic.
Furthermore, even though Theodore Roosevelt and other responsible hunters and taxidermists have done 100x more to preserve nature than all of the self-righteous hippies and vegans in human history combined, there is still a certain class of creepy weirdo "muh big game hunters" who always exhibit obvious physical and/or mental deficiencies, such as being morbidly obese, getting off on death, using hunting as a stand-in for their otherwise total lack of masculinity, etc. Hippies and the general public are right to despise this type of loser (even a stopped clock is right twice per day, you know), even if it's largely for the wrong reasons.
>medieval peasants ate nothing but gruel and scraps!
moronic. Even five seconds on youtube watching "what did medieval peasants eat" would tell you how horribly wrong you are.
>couldn't afford proper riding animals
No, just horses, oxen, donkeys, etc. for pulling plows and working.
>didn't know how to craft a proper bow and fletch competent arrows
Except that doing so was literally a cottage industry and most people made their own bows and arrows, made their own clothes, etc.
>would never have the time to learn to shoot a bow or hunt
The fact that Englishmen were required by law to own a bow and practice with it proves you wrong, and you seem to think the entire world for all of history was like Robin Hood, where no one may hunt the king's deer! You know Robin Hood is fictional, right?
>prime hunting grounds were reserved for the landed gentry
Well, no shit. What else is new?
>concedes hunters do more to preserve wildlife than tree-huggers, then goes right back to the "hurr durr, fat, beer-swilling, git-er-dun rednecks who just slaughter everything in sight and have tiny dicks" cope
Lemme guess, daddy never took you out into the woods when you were a kid and the TV was your babysitter.
>moronic. Even five seconds on youtube watching "what did medieval peasants eat" would tell you how horribly wrong you are.
I've been watching reputable history-centric YouTube channels for years, and the great majority of them (not that any are entirely authoritative) contradict this bizarre narrative that medieval peasants ate well and had it easy. They weren't as badly off as modernophiles tend to believe, but their lives were hard and their diets were poor.
>No, just horses, oxen, donkeys, etc. for pulling plows and working.
A beast of burden isn't necessarily a good mount. In fact, many famously aren't. But yeah, great sleuthing, Poirot. You totally caught me not knowing that peasants owned draft animals to pull wagons and plows.
>Except that doing so was literally a cottage industry and most people made their own bows and arrows, made their own clothes, etc.
Caught me again, except that I wasn't only talking about jolly old England, and also that was the case for only for only a portion of the entire medieval age. Poirot strikes (out) again.
>The fact that Englishmen were required by law to own a bow and practice with it proves you wrong
See above. Your moronic gotcha applies to one region for only a portion of the medieval period. It's the exception that proves the rule.
>prime hunting grounds were reserved for the landed gentry
Well, no shit. What else is new?
>concedes hunters do more to preserve wildlife than tree-huggers, then goes right back to the "hurr durr, fat, beer-swilling, git-er-dun rednecks blah blah
Yes, because that type of idiot absolutely exists too, they're very real, they're very visible to the public, and they give the rest of us a bad name. Why are you mad? You one of them, homosexual? Can't handle nuanced reality?
>Lemme guess, daddy never took you out into the woods when you were a kid
I'm a fly fisherman and bird hunter. I don't hunt deer, but most of my buddies do.
>strawman arguments
>providing no examples to the contrary
>argument is literally "no u"
>deflecting with "but my friends deer hunt!"
I'd offer a more thoughtful response but frankly you are pathetic.
Not him, but
>lituruhhly
>I'd offer a more thoughtful response but frankly you are pathetic
Not my problem that your one-dimensional brain can't recognize the difference between native boys hunting local fauna for both sport and food as a way of life passed down their patriarchal line, and creepy rich guys who want a trophy hanging in their parlor to show off to their bent acquaintances... a trophy that represents their ability to ride in a succession of six different vehicles and hire a professional organization to deposit them in the correct time and position to pull a trigger, often in preserve-like areas maintained by those very same organizations, and in which the the animals essentially live in a zoo. They are coddled the whole way along like big, fat babies.
That is killing for the sake of killing and for bragging rights, with heavy assistance, and is essentially shooting fish in a barrel. If you think that garbage has anything to do with sporting or hunting, then you are definitely one of them: a creepy, pathetic loser. "B-but native Africans would kill them off without creepy losers to throw money around" isn't actually a defense of them being creepy, pathetic, and losers, which they are.
Yeah, canned shoots (I refuse to call it hunting) are awful. But it's not exclusive to Africa, and not every African hunt is like that. Canned shoots in Africa are mainly a South African thing. Other African countries have lots of fair chase opportunities.
>Other African countries have lots of fair chase opportunities
If the hunt is genuinely sporting and doesn't (further) harm an ecosystem, then I have no issue with it. For example, Texas is full of feral hogs, and although professional hog hunters typically rely on heavy technological assistance such as off-road motor vehicles, using thermal/IR optics, employing super-fancy mass catch traps, and so on, they actually do cultivate a set of skills such as baiting, knowing where and when to best find the hogs, how to identify the sow and effectively kill off whole sounders, etc.
Frankly, I've never looked kindly on people bragging about their results from their use of guides, Sherpas, or anyone else who leads a person by the dick and shows them exactly where to go and what to do. That fishing guide as good as caught those fish, not you. That safari master as good as shit that lion, not you. That Sherpa summited, not you. You were a long for the ride.
Don't get me wrong, it's 100% okay to use guides to learn, or for fun, knowing you're only a casual. But people who take credit for the shit they catch/shoot/summit on their paid dick-leading expedition are dumb as frick. Buddy, your guide got all that shit, not you. YOU didn't do shit. On your social media post, post a picture of your guide and thank him for handing that shit to you on a platter because you swiped a credit card. You are there to learn and/or for recreation, not to take credit.
>No time in history have peasants been allowed to hunt,
Maybe in Europe where the natural environment has been virtually annihilated, and the people tend to be subservient. In the US, Australia and other parts of the World, people from all walks of life hunt. It's always been that way.
>I really think we should make hunting prohibitively expensive
Safari hunts for any of the Big Five are very expensive, and Governor's Tags in North America can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
you don't have the ability to enforce whatever rules you think should be in place. do you know how hard it is for game wardens to bust poachers? nature is fricking huge and there's tons of private land. i live in the woods and pretty much hunt whenever and whatever i want. no license. never checked in any kills. good luck stopping me ((you can't)).
>shoot male lion for 250k
>another male lion murders the pride and takes the females
>shoot male lion for 250k
>another male lion murders the pride and takes the females
>conservation
Kek
Reality:
>Hunters pay big bucks to hunt a small handful of animals, most are old mature males past their prime/breeding age
>Money is used to buy back land from private landowners, restock wild areas with animals from other areas and private game reserves, pay for anti-poaching operations, etc.
This is not even remotely what happens. They pocked the money, and maybe 10% goes towards conservation, but it would be better if Africans just ceased to exist and we just left those wild animals alone.
>This is not even remotely what happens.
I'm talking facts, and you're just regurgitating the propaganda you've heard from anti-hunters and the mainstream media. The proof is in the pudding. Countries with legal, regulated hunting and community conservation programs have seen increases in wildlife and huge areas of once private land being re-wilded and/or made public.
>it would be better if Africans just ceased to exist
Idiotic /misc/tard sentiment. Europeans virtually annihilated all dangerous predators (along with a substantial number of other megafauna species) from their continent to make themselves safe and make space for development. Now you want to tell Africans that they can't manage populations of dangerous predators like lions, or huge destructive animals like elephants? You think they care about the so-called "inherent value" of these animals the same way you do? Such a concept is a luxury for people in the developed World, who are also (generally speaking) the most detached from the wild. Let me make this as clear as possible:
If the local people have no incentive to keep the wild animals around, they will kill them all.
>"Now you want to tell Africans that they can't manage populations of dangerous predators like lions, or huge destructive animals like elephants? You think they care about the so-called "inherent value" of these animals the same way you do?"
Reminds me of this article written by a based zimbabwean.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html
>Europeans virtually annihilated all dangerous predators (along with a substantial number of other megafauna species) from their continent to make themselves safe and make space for development. Now you want to tell Africans that they can't manage populations of dangerous predators like lions, or huge destructive animals like elephants?
Yes. It's called learning from your mistakes and setting a better example for less evolved people.
>"lol, we made sure that we will live nice comfortable lives, but don't you dare harm a hair on the cute lions or elephantrinoooooooos!!!"
Dumb /misc/tard is dumb. They will never listen to your so-called "words of wisdom." They will kill every wild animal, chop down every tree and burn every bush if it doesn't have value. And they won't feel the slightest bit of guilt over it.
lol, good luck convincing people to adopt your warped, /misc/tard view of the World. Also:
>If we don't force them to behave
Give me a break. This isn't like the 19th century where European powers would just send a gunboat to quell problems in one if their colonies. None of the major European powers today would even contemplate doing such a thing, especially over animals being poached. There is a major war going on in Europe right now, with Russia being the greatest immediate threat to the whole of Western Europe, and the most they can bring themselves to do is send a few munitions and relief supplies.
>muh Russia
>muh /misc/
knew you were an NPC
>Says Asians and Africans are dumber than gorillas. Sucks vatnik wiener.
>Calls me a /misc/tard.
>Says Asians and Africans are dumber than gorillas. Sucks vatnik wiener.
This is objective fact in large part
>Sucks vatnik wiener.
Where did I do this? How delusional you must be
>This is objective fact in large part
>Source: /misc/ infographic no. 47469
>vatnik
way to out yourself
So by your logic it's okay for Africans to practice slavery because muh Europeans did it too
Apples and oranges.
Right, hunting animals to extinction is far worse than slavery
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of hippies in the first world telling other people what they can and can't do with their own wildlife. The finger pointing and sneering like a child is never going to work as a conservation strategy, it will only lead to the destruction of wildlife while Western NGOs rake in cash from soccer mom's and college kids. The only practical solution is to work with the people who actually live with these animals, and to give them real reasons to not only keep the animals around, but also increase their numbers and the number of wild areas.
There's no hypocrisy at all. Most of those people would agree that Europeans shouldn't have done it centuries ago. They didn't part take in it themselves. The second part of your argument has nothing to do with the first part.
There absolutely is hypocrisy. These braindead hippies want to treat all of Africa and Asia like a big zoo; forcing the people there to live amongst dangerous animals with no incentive to keep them around. How do you think those same people would react if you proposed to introduce wolves or bears into suburban Western Europe? Better yet, how would people in the UK react if they imported just fifty elephants and let them roam free throughout the countryside, or import a few lions into south London? Granted, the latter might help solve some of the knife and acid crime, but you get the idea.
>These braindead hippies want to treat all of Africa and Asia like a big zoo
Most of Africa and Asia is effectively a big zoo. The people there are barely more intelligent than the smartest gorillas. If we don't force them to behave they will do things that that make European colonizers look like angels (and they already do).
>These braindead hippies want to treat all of Africa and Asia like a big zoo;
As it should be.
>How do you think those same people would react if you proposed to introduce wolves or bears into suburban Western Europe?
I would be delighted as long as proper habitat is recreated.
>Better yet, how would people in the UK react if they imported just fifty elephants and let them roam free throughout the countryside, or import a few lions into south London?
Do you think that lions and elephants can survive anywhere?
>As it should be
Braindead /misc/tard. Why not make your backyard a big zoo too?
>I would be delighted as long as proper habitat is recreated
But it won't, because the overwhelming majority of anti-hunters like you would shrivel up at the thought of having to live near wild, dangerous animals. The first time a little kid gets bit by a wild, the majority of people (anti-hunting soccer moms included) would call for the animals to either be relocated or exterminated.
>Do you think that lions and elephants can survive anywhere?
They would not only survive, but thrive. There is tons of water and vegetation fir the elephants, and there are farms filled with livestock for the lions to eat. The cold wouldn't bother them. The European red fox thrives in Australia despite coming from a completely different climate.
>Braindead /misc/tard. Why not make your backyard a big zoo too?
I already did. I have native plants, ponds, bird nests and feeders, everything is designed to attract wildlife. I also have goats and dogs.
>because the overwhelming majority of anti-hunters like you would shrivel up at the thought of having to live near wild, dangerous animals
I already live 10 minutes away from a mountain range where wolves have temporary populations. The majority of pro-hunters would definitely have an issue with that. It's them who constantly complain about wildlife being an issue for livestock and farms.
>There is tons of water and vegetation fir the elephants, and there are farms filled with livestock for the lions to eat
No habitat, no suitable vegetation for the herbivores, no meat for the lions (the idea that a wild animal can thrive on livestock alone is completely moronic and I shouldn't have to explain why), excessively cold climate, land is too fragmented and urbanized.
>The European red fox thrives in Australia despite coming from a completely different climate
That's because foxes thrive eating rodents, frogs, lizards and other small abundant animals. Lions don't have the same luxury.
>I also have goats and dogs.
>I already live 10 minutes away from a mountain range where wolves have temporary populations.
Woohoo, you have some domesticated animals and bird feeders, and you live 10 minutes away from a handful of wolves that are probably skittish of humans. Now try living in a place where you have a very real chance of getting your head ripped off by a lion or leopard on your way to collect water. And if you even think about doing something about it, a hundred hippies will show up at your front door demanding you do nothing and just take it up the ass.
>No habitat, no suitable vegetation for the herbivores,
Bull. Plenty of trees and bushes for elephants to gorge on (not that the plants will last long. Elephants are notorious for stripping down entire forests).
>the idea that a wild animal can thrive on livestock alone is completely moronic
>Goes on to say foxes are thriving eating lizards and rodents
Foxes here gorge themselves on lambs and chickens. The idea that lions couldn't survive by eating slow-moving, easily hunted prey like sheep, cows and pigs is brain-numbingly foolish.
>you have some domesticated animals and bird feeders, and you live 10 minutes away from a handful of wolves that are probably skittish of humans
It's not my fault Black folk couldn't domesticate their wildlife or breed animals capable of guarding their herds. This doesn't warrant the extermination of all African wildlife.
>Elephants are notorious for stripping down entire forests
Brits stripped theirs first. All that's left is pastures and secluded lands.
>Foxes here gorge themselves on lambs and chickens
Those are a small part of their diet compared to wild critters, berries and roots. The majority of farmers are competent and know how to create enclosures for their animals and how to supervise them.
Then there's a minority of inept ones who leave their animals outside without supervision or protection, then complain about wolves, foxes or even birds of prey devouring them and demand their extermination.
>It's not my fault Black folk couldn't domesticate their wildlife or breed animals capable of guarding their herds.
Idiotic rhetoric. You try domesticating lions and/or leopards. I also thought you didn't want that to happen? Isn't your moronic way of thinking all about keeping the wild 'untouched' and 'pure.'? Domesticating wild animals en masse defeats that goal.
>or breed animals capable of guarding their herds.
They did and still do protect their animals themselves (see the Maasai). The only difference now is if one if them spears a lion protecting their cattle or even a family member, sheltered ignorant hippie morons and NGOs will attack them.
>This doesn't warrant the extermination of all African wildlife.
Give them a reason/incentive to tolerate the presence of wild animals, and they will not only not eradicate them, but will die to protect them from poachers. Ignore this, continue spewing racist rhetoric and wagging your finger at them demanding they leave the animals alone with no incentive, and I guarantee that there will be no positive outcomes for the wildlife. They really will be exterminated.
>Brits stripped theirs first. All that's left is pastures and secluded lands
Completely ignoring the point, and also wrong. Elephant over-grazing was an issue long before Europeans colonized Africa. The populations were kept in check by human hunters back then with no fuss. Now if they try to do something, hippies blow their gaskets.
>Foxes
Here in Australia, foxes are relentless and will burrow under fences and cages, and even tear through thin wire mesh to get at animals. If they can do it, what makes you think that a massive lion would have any trouble getting to livestock kept in a cage.
Also, if by
>Brits stripped theirs first. All that's left is pastures and secluded lands
you're referring to how the British virtually annihilated all of their wild areas, that only serves to further highlight the hypocrisy of Europeans screaming and soiling their panties over Africans who choose to manage their wildlife as they see fit.
>Isn't your moronic way of thinking all about keeping the wild 'untouched' and 'pure.'?
Species domestication and preservation of wild communities aren't mutually exclusive. You don't have to take every specimen from the wild to obtain a reliable breeding stock.
>Give them a reason/incentive to tolerate the presence of wild animals, and they will not only not eradicate them, but will die to protect them from poachers
If that was the case african megafauna wouldn't be endangered today. The only way to truly preserve nature for future generations is authoritarianism.
>Elephant over-grazing was an issue long before Europeans colonized Africa
Elephants have been around long before humans invented tools to hunt them. if their grazing was a problem for their environment they would have ceased to exist long ago as well as the plants that are most susceptible to their habits.
>If they can do it, what makes you think that a massive lion would have any trouble getting to livestock kept in a cage
The fact that it's massive. Small predators are the only ones that survive in anthropized environments.
>the hypocrisy of Europeans screaming and soiling their panties over Africans who choose to manage their wildlife as they see fit
It's called learning from your mistakes and stewarding lesser people. We gave africans medicine, cars and infrastructure, we will give them natural conservation too.
>If that was the case african megafauna wouldn't be endangered today.
The countries that have strong, regulated hunting and community conservation programs are the ones that are doing the best with wildlife management. Literally the only subspecies of black rhino (Southwestern) that is experiencing a significant population increase is in Namibia, where they are carefully managed through hunting.
https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/39318/45814419
>The only way to truly preserve nature for future generations is authoritarianism.
LMAO. The most authoritarian countries have the worst environmental outcomes (China, Russia, Norks). Absolutely laughable.
>Elephants
Elephants have evolved alongside hominids, and we (meaning homosexual sapiens and our ancestors) have been hunting them for almost that same amount of time. There isn't as much space for them today because their habitat has been shrinking dramatically in recent years, frankly because of the exploding human population in Africa. This is largely due to the fact that Africans have traditionally had large families due to high infant mortality, but thanks to modern medicine, this is no longer an issue. All that needs to be done is for the people to be educated on responsible family planning.
>the fact that it's massive.
Mate, I don't know what to tell you. An adult sheep is more than enough to meet the caloric needs of a full-grown lion.
>Small predators are the only ones that survive in anthropized environments.
You can find countless videos of massive black bears in suburban New Jersey neighborhoods. If they can manage there, big cats won't have any problems living on livestock farms. If you don't believe me, see picrel.
The cat in these posts was 176cm long. Larger than the average leopard.
>It's called learning from your mistakes
But they haven't learned from their mistakes. Of all the foaming at the mouth anti-hunters in the developed World, only a microscopic portion (if any) would be comfortable living with dangerous animals and re-wilding private lands the same way Africans do on a regular basis. Where people are given incentives to protect wild animals and expand their habitats, they will do anything in their power to protect that wildlife and habitat, even if it means dying at the hands of poachers.
>stewarding lesser people.
Again with the moronic racism. Good luck getting anyone with any real power to agree with you when your pitch is essentially 19th century colonialist rhetoric ('We must save Africa from the Africans.')
>you try domesticating lions and/or leopards
You mean like circuses have done since the Roman Empire? Funny how Black folk have lived in Africa for 100,000 years and never domesticated a single animal, but then white men showed up and almost immediately had trained elephants, lions, zebras, and other shit, just for the hell of it. Do you know how fricking dangerous an aurochs was? We domesticated that shit and bred them into modern cattle. Wild horses were as small and anti-social as zebras, we domesticated them and bred them into modern horses. We turned wolves into dogs. We turned ferocious wild boars into potbelly pigs, literal pets that children play with. We train bears, lions, and other dangerous shit to perform tricks in circuses and act in movies for our entertainment.
Meanwhile, fricking Tyrone got AIDS and monkeypox from buttfricking chimpanzees, and the only other extent of their relations with wild animals has been throwing sticks at them. We had to teach them to herd cattle, goats, etc. and the dumb motherfrickers still can't figure out how to run a farm without constant supervision and scolding, like they're 200lb moronic children.
Africans were farming livestock long before European contact.
>The replies to this post
They hated him because he told the truth.
>please regulate me s'more m'lord, this last sliver of freedom I posses is giving me anxiety.
Lindybeige just interviewed the bongiest bong to ever bong who volunteered to fight in Ukraine. He told this story about how his literally unarmed unit finds a deserted cargo container full of weapons and the first thing the bong does is ask if they have permission to take the loot. He doesn't get an answer because its a chaotic warzone and no one knows wtf is going on so the bong just remains unarmed like a pathetic peon. The average bong's bottomless appetite for servility is so disturbing. The revolutionary war makes so much more sense now.
Bongs will cope, seethe and writhe on the floor screeching but you are entirely correct. This island is full to the brim of servile bottom feeders whose genetics have been stamped with the idea that a fruity accent gives someone the right to tell you what to do. They cannot conceive of a scenario where the accent is missing, and thus they freeze up and cannot progress lest they accidentally trespass on m'lords good will. I hate these cretinous morons so much. I have a job offer in Houston and I'm going to take it. In ten years time, no one will ever know I manage to crawl out of this frothing cess pit. I will have an American wife, an American accent and my kids will sing the Star-spangled banner.
t. Bong
Bon voyage William
>The revolutionary war makes so much more sense now.
but of what nation, may I ask, do you think the revolutionaries were?
funny because pathetic people like you are always too useless to get a green card
wrong and right. On one hand, land managed for game fowl shooting is damaged by the "hunting". I would suggest to end grouse and pheasant shooting. On the other hand, deer are vastly overpopulated in scotland and prevent forest regeneration as they overgraze.
Animals deserve to die. They lost the evolutionary race. Roles reversed would be no difference.
TMW there's an alternate timeline where a lion with enough bodyfat for a whole pride sits proudly over the corpse of an athletic man it just killed without effort while another lion takes a picture
>and then The Twlight Zone episode "To Serve Man" happens
>wahh what did we humans ever do to deserve this
>bud whad if ALIEUMS!?
Vegan arguments
For various reasons there are many specie that I wouldn't harm, but I've been a hunter since I was 9 years old. So, forty-eight years. I have an uncommon and deep love for nature which guides me. There are many things about modern hunting culture of which I don't agree; I perceive some of these things as a symptom of spiritual disease (which has nothing to do with religion). In the end, I feel damn lucky to be a hunter, and I'll leave it up to other hunters to decide what and why they hunt.
I've wanted to learn how to hunt for a while. After researching it for a while I've developed the perception that I should start with small game. Can you offer any advice towards this goal? I wish I knew someone who could teach me, but I live and work in the most quittisentially sanitized urban yuppie world.
Buy a .22 rifle, like a Ruger 10/22, take it to the range, and learn to shoot with it. It's adequate for rabbits and squirrels. Small game is easier to gut and skin and carry home, but they're actually a lot trickier to shoot in many cases due to their small size, fast movement, and twitchy behavior. A .410 shotgun is also a decent small game gun, and could also be used to hunt doves. Most states have a hunter safety course that teach the basic safety rules, the legality of hunting, etc.
>>You don't get it, we hunters are actually le protecting nature and keeping the populations in balance, not compensating for our micropenises
These fat larpers are the reason Scotland has no trees. The highlands look like picrel with land rover tracks going across, built to facilitate "hunting" for rich c**ts ruining it for everyone else.
Estates feed the deer in winter so they survive, then come stalking season a bunch of larping pricks come along, shoot some deer then get back in the car, taking the "game" away.
Whenever any sort of woodland is planted, it has to be fenced off with barbed wire so the deer don't ruin it. Envirogays stop any sort of complete culling of deer arguing they're a part of the natural enviroment now.
But all of that is true, OP. The rich people that go out to Africa to shoot a lion or giraffe provide a large sum of money to the locals in order to hunt that animal. Said animal also needed to be culled anyway; normally due to age. Black giraffes are known to target and kill the calfs and older lions will do the same to their kits or young males.
As for harvesting game there is strict rules and regulations that change every year. Last year I could harvest a doe and a buck. This year I could only harvest a buck OR a doe with no option for a bonus tag. Larger game animals they tend to do lotteries only allotting a specific amount of licenses because that is the number to keep the population in check.
>The rich people that go out to Africa to shoot a lion or giraffe provide a large sum of money to the locals in order to hunt that animal
0% of which is actually invested in conservation.
>Said animal also needed to be culled anyway; normally due to age
Can you prove that the walrus in OP's pic is too old and needs to be culled?
You're an imbecile that doesn't understand hunting, conservation, poaching and poverty. Frick you.
I think we've established that the OP is a humungous cum gargling homosexual
>Reads lewis and Clarks journals where they describe setting up camp where I live, sending out a hunting squad that comes back with 10 deer and a buffalo 2 hours later.
>Hike 20 hours into a national forest that burned a few years ago in spring ( literally ideal grazing conditions)
> On my whole trip see one small herd of elk
>Go home and get told by keyboard warriors "Actually the populations are high and humans are needed to regulate the population because they have no natural predators"
Now granted this concept could be true, But in a lot of the US the populations are bordering on extinct compared to what they were 200 years ago. They eat grass people. Any field of grass or forest can support hundreds of grazing animals. How do you think in nature there were things that need to eat meat once a week that didn't die of not being able to find any animals to kill? Anyone who hunts big game, except for survival in green areas on the map is a homosexual and a looser. East coast people do actually have a genuine deer overpopulation.
>blaming modern day hunters for what gays 200 years ago did
I bet you also want to give out slavery reparation's and kiss their feet when you had nothing to do with it, gay.
>I bet you also (homoerotic fantasy explained in morbid detail)
Why do pro-hunting anons in this thread always do this?
Those are business men paying a lot of money to stand next to a dead animal they shot while sitting down in a car, or blind with cart service.
My grandpappy was one of the most based men I’ve ever met, and his philosophy was that you shouldn’t kill an animal unless either you’re going to eat it or it’s a pest, so that’s my personal rule too
That's my rule too which is why I don't support waterfowl hunting for the most part. They hunt in extremely sensitive wetlands and most of them are trophy hunters.
Hunting is so barbar.....
Step aside huntlets
>You don't get it, we hunters are actually le protecting nature
Yes, unironically. Hunters do more for wildlife conservation than any other group of people (pound for pound) by far. Since you seem to imply that you take particular issue with African hunts, here are just a small handful of sources on how hunting and conservation go hand-in-hand in that part of the World:
https://www.conservationforce.org/role-of-hunting
https://africageographic.com/blog/opinion-piece-timbavati-increases-conservation-levy-to-fund-anti-poaching-and-other-costs/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/a-hunting-ban-saps-a-villages-livelihood.html
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03736245.2017.1299639
https://sciblogs.co.nz/chthonic-wildlife-ramblings/2017/11/23/ending-trophy-hunting-elephants-conservation-success/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117237
https://www.perc.org/2019/09/06/conservationists-should-support-trophy-hunting/
https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/iucn_sept_briefing_paper_-_informingdecisionstrophyhunting.pdf
The meat from safari hunts can't be brought home due to biosecurity laws. Anything that isn't used by the hunting camp is either sold at market or (especially in remote parts of the World) donated to the local community. This acts as a significant disincentive to meat poaching. The fact that legal, regulated hunting can be a powerful conservation tool is not up for debate. Anyone who would deny this fact is either ignorant, or an animal rights nutter who is ideologically opposed to any utilization of animals by people. Even the WWF recognizes the utility of hunting as a conservation tool.
https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_policy_and_considerations_re_trophy_hunting__july_2016_.pdf
https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/wildlife_practice/species_news/wwf_and_trophy_hunting/
the ways hunters "help" conservation are unintentional and if they could save the money instead they would do it
I don't have a problem with hunting, but it's because I'm not gay, I'm not gonna argue they're heckin wholesome
>the ways hunters "help" conservation are unintentional
Full of shit. President Roosevelt was arguably the most passionate conservationist in American history, and he was also a mad keen hunter. Groups like Ducks Unlimited in the US and Field and Game Australia in my country have done more for wetlands conservation than any tree-humping group ever has or will.
how so? just by removing invasive or overpopulatred species, like coyotes?
Unironically yes. Even deer which are always teetering the line of overpopulation in the states if left unchecked will push out and kill by proxy smaller life forms in the forest by outgrazing them and taking their food source. It's the curse of removing dangerous predators from the land to make it safer for humans.
By paying for habitat monitoring and research, buying back private land and making it public, keeping numbers in check so that the animals don't starve, and a whole host of other programs.
>the people who are passionate about being out in nature and hunting wild prey would gladly annihilate all of nature and exterminate everything they could possibly hunt, they would never want to preserve it so they and future generations could continue enjoying it
>95% of funding for preserving nature coming from hunters is just coincidence
You sound like someone who defends shitting on the sidewalk in San Francisco.
>the people who are passionate about being out in nature and hunting wild prey would gladly annihilate all of nature and exterminate everything they could possibly hunt, they would never want to preserve it so they and future generations could continue enjoying it
Exactly. See
Going out in nature just to take stuff from it is not love. Hunters and anglers also brought lots of invasive animals to Europe and NA because they see little value in what our wilderness in its pure state.
>95% of funding for preserving nature coming from hunters is just coincidence
It's not something you voted for, it's something that's being imposed on you.
>You sound like (projection)
Not the gotcha you think it is.
>The mountain of evidence that clearly shows how hunters contribute the most to conservation of both wildlife and habitat
>"B-but, what about this one case in Scotland on private lands!"
>"Nooooooooooooo, not the heckin elephantrinooos!"
Boo hoo, you don't get to decide that, moron. It's simple economics. The animals are either an asset or a liability. If they are an asset, the locals will die to protect them and their habitat from poachers and development. If they're a liability, they will slaughter every single one of them without a second thought. Also, the countries that allow legal hunting (including the hunting of elephants) have the most, by far, and the populations in those countries are steadily increasing.
We are no different here in the West. If bears or wolves are killing a farmer's livestock and they have no way of recouping those loses, they will SSS.
Conservation in Africa is a myth. There has never been any tangible proof that safari money is actually being invested in the protection of animals and the environment, it just disappears in the dark.
Fairytales about circular economy and megafauna conservation are often spread so that hunters can feel good about themselves while doing nothing.
The poaching problem in Africa is greater than ever even though safari money keeps flowing and all the species people pay to hunt are still in the IUCN red list.
>the countries that allow legal hunting (including the hunting of elephants) have the most
They allow hunting because they have an abundance of animals, not the opposite.
>"There has never been any tangible proof that safari money is actually being invested in the protection of animals and the environment"
There are mountains of studies, journal articles, the IUCN's own data, countless documentaries and interviews with wildlife biologists, conservationists and government officials which clearly indicate that hunters' dollars are an invaluable resource for conservation.
>"all the species people pay to hunt are still in the IUCN red list."
Almost every large animal on Earth is on the Red List. Being on the Red List doesn't mean that the animal is threatened. Also,
>Cites IUCN
>He doesn't know
https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/iucn_sept_briefing_paper_-_informingdecisionstrophyhunting.pdf
>Almost every large animal on Earth is on the Red List. Being on the Red List doesn't mean that the animal is threatened
I'm referring to the red list of threatened species.
>https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/iucn_sept_briefing_paper_-_informingdecisionstrophyhunting.pdf
Dead link
Working link
https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/iucn_informingdecisionsontrophyhuntingv1_1.pdf
Case in point, the South-western Black Rhino (a sub-species of black rhino that was the subject of a huge controversy several years ago when a Texas hunter bought a permit to hunt one in Namibia for $375,000) was recently moved down from "Vulnerable" to "Near Threatened" on the IUCN Red List, and the population is increasing. Every other species of black rhino is either critically endangered or extinct. The only population that is increasing is the one that is managed through sustainable hunting.
https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/39318/45814419
Here is the WWF Position
https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_policy_and_considerations_re_trophy_hunting__july_2016_.pdf
/thread. I'm going to save this post for future anti-hunting bait threads.
Absolute units
Those arent hunters, those rich greedy homosexuals . Theyre doing more to destroy access and rights for hunters than any animals rights activists there is. Theyre everything wrong with the world
They pay, they get to play. The money goes where it needs to.
Both hit the mark clear. /Thread
End hunting in Africa and there is no longer a reason for the locals to keep the game around. It's a cycle that repeats over and over and over. Only the big game reserves will be able to protect their game, all the small ones will be poached out and all the privately owned hunting lodges will be slashed and burnt and turned into cattle ranches. Your problem isn't that you can't think. Your problem is that you confuse feeling for thinking.
As for hunting in North America. Bud, a good chunk of the hunting community bushwacks far harder than 90% of PrepHole ever has. Ain't not fricking trails in the backcountry.
>End hunting in Africa and there is no longer a reason for the locals to keep the game around.
This this this this this. This is very hard for people in the developed World to grasp, but the people who actually have to live around animals like lions and elephants don't have many nice things to say about them. The local people view them in simple terms: asset or liability. If they bring in some revenue, they have an incentive to protect the species and the habitat that they reside in. If they are not bringing in any revenue and their numbers are not being kept in check through sustainable hunting, they are going to exterminate them, usually with poison, or they will kill them all for bushmeat. Kenya banned hunting in the 1970s and has lost almost all of its wildlife outside of the national parks, and soon those will be targeted too.
>a good chunk of the hunting community bushwacks far harder than 90% of PrepHole ever has.
Also this. Just as an example, elk and mountain/alpine hunters often follow dedicated exercise and diet plans to prepare for their hunts due to how physically demanding they are.
Frankly, conservation efforts, no matter how good they are, wouldn't be needed if we didn't devour what is being conserved at all. Human civilization and its consequences have been a disaster to the ecosystem.
So have a nice day already and quit consuming resources/outputting waste then. homosexual.
>humans are... le bad! the world would be better if we were all extinct!
>ok, lead by example then
>noooooo, I have to consooooom my Funko Pops and troony porn! I'm too important to die, everyone else should just die!
How do I make sure all the other homosexuals like you follow my example?
Lead the way, and others will follow. Go ahead. You first. Show us how it's done. Or are you afraid of commitment/just an edgy nihilist teen?
I prefer to push everyone out the door and to lock it behind me. Make sure there are no stragglers. You included. Nothing wrong with humanity, but plenty wrong with our impact on the world. The Earth won't miss us, time for another Chicxulub.
>drive a truck, micropenis
>grill meat, micropenis
>own a firearm, micropenis
>play a physical sport, micropenis
>beat someone's ass, micropenis
>own construction tools, micropenis
>not woke, micropenis
>fed up with israelite shit, micropenis
>hunt, micropenis
It's all so tiring.
My wife used to make dick jokes every time she saw a truck, so I started saying that women only wear makeup if they're horse-faced trollspawn. Wasn't the most apt comparison, but it got the job done.
Why were you defending the dicks of those men?
>can't handle banter, micropenis
grow a pair you whiny pussy
its a cope from people who either dont have money (with regards to cars) or people who are meek (in terms of behavior).
Its not about insulting you, its about making them feel better about the fact that they cant afford a nice car or dont have the gumption to be disagreeable.
It's because they feel like inadequate losers and project their own inadequacy onto others as a coping mechanism. Like the fox and the sour grapes, if they don't have the money, time, dedication, or whatever else is required to invest in order to have something nice or achieve something, then it must be stupid or the guy who did invest in it must be a failure somehow. They focus on dicks because bugmen are obsessed with sex, being degenerate coombrains whose nihilistic approach to life makes hedonism and dopamine rushes the end-all, be-all of existence, and because they themselves are losers, they assume you must be a degenerate loser like them. It's all projection and a deep-rooted inferiority complex, and PrepHole is the place I've seen it the most outside of the usual leftist drivel in media and online. Every thread where people post about something they like (wool, vintage gear, milsurp, ultralight, whatever) or prove they actually go outdoors and visit exotic places (such as all the guys posting pics of Yuru Camp figurines on mountaintops and shit) instead of just LARPing online, trigger these bugmen. They feel inadequate. They feel envy. In the book Unintended Consequences, the main character has been lusting over a double rifle for African game for years, and his big dream was finally being able to afford that gun and go on safari. And the day he goes in to buy it, some little shit waiting to buy something makes a snide comment about what a stupid waste of money it is, and he remembers something his father told him as a kid about envious people attacking you for doing/having something they would never have the guts to do or could never afford to have, because if they're too miserable and pathetic to do/have it, then they're going to do their best to prevent the people who can do/have it from enjoying it. They're miserable, envious, shitty people who want to ruin everything everyone else likes just because they can. And here is where they all hang out.
It's like that shitty comic where the guy was insulting people who work out, saying they're sad and boring because they spend time lifting heavy pieces of metal instead of sitting on their ass and reading like him. These are people who have the dedication to keep themselves in physical fitness, research how to improve their bodies, study diets and stick to them strictly to achieve the desired results, and typically do athletic activity outside the gym such as rock climbing, mountain biking, sports, etc. Many of these people are listening to books on tape and studying shit like philosophy, history, or politics while they work out, and it's an entire thing where they exercise their mind and body. But he's too lazy and undisciplined to ever move his flabby carcass off the couch and eat something healthy, and his feelings of inferiority and envy make him lash out at those he sees as his betters and attack them. And you see that exact shit all the time on PrepHole, miserable little people seething at people who aren't miserable and pathetic, and trying to ruin everything so they feel bad too. Ted Kaczynsky's essay on leftist psychology is spot on with how these losers operate.
>such as all the guys posting pics of Yuru Camp figurines on mountaintops and shit instead of just LARPing online, trigger these bugmen
Funny how normal people who post outdoor pics without spamming their stupid Funko Pops never get shat on. Wonder why that is.
Can't get shat on for actually going outdoors, by people who don't go outdoors, if you never go outdoors.
>interesting natural feature out of focus because your stupid dollie that we've seen a million times needs to be shown again
And you wonder why you get mocked more than other anons who post their outdoor photos here
So go take your own pictures. Oh, wait, that would require you to get off your ass and actually do something instead of b***hing at people on the internet for doing what you're too lazy/cowardly to do.
Now let's hear you talk shit about this vintage gear/wool enthusiast, who is obviously enjoying himself in nature, from the comfort of your $500 gaming chair. C'mon, you envious bastard. You know you wanna.
good for him, nothing snarky to say about that. minus the moustache, what the frick is going on there.
Nice assumptions homosexual. I post photos here all the time without animegayging.
So do I. I didn't take any of those photos. But you seem really insecure about this, considering you're posting on an anime site. Why don't you post some of your photos?
>Why don't you post some of your photos?
Already have. Here's one more. No school-aged pedodoll needed.
Nice pic. And reverse image search doesn't reveal it anywhere else, so you actually took it yourself. Good job.
>school-aged pedodoll
There you go projecting again. I understand the line of thinking is "if I accuse other people of what I'm doing/thinking, then nobody will suspect me", but that's literally Guilty Behavior 101.
>bizarre narrative that medieval peasants ate well and had it easy.
Never said they had it easy, don't put words in my mouth. I said they weren't eating nothing but gruel and scraps. I do living history reenactments for tourists and I cook, I've eaten medieval peasant food, frontier pioneer food, etc. Unless there was a famine, they ate pretty well.
>great sleuthing, Poirot
I prefer Columbo. You're also not that great a detective since you didn't catch on that I was agreeing with you that riding animals were for the elite and beasts of burden for commoners. That's literally where knights came from: they could afford riding horses.
>the guy who keeps getting told that the entire world wasn't like one specific region in one specific time period immediately scrambles to prove what a bright boy he is when someone points out something about that specific time and period he's focused on
You're one of those people who's so obnoxious nobody likes to interact with him, but you think "heh, nobody wants to debate me cuz I'm so smart!"
>I've been called out for being a loser who projects his insecurities on others, maybe if I accuse him of the same thing, I'll look less silly
... are you even 18?
>I'm a fly fisherman and bird hunter
Very cool. What sort of fowling piece do you use? What kind of birds? I've only ever shot turkey with my drilling, I don't care for dove and there's no quail, pheasant, or anything else interesting in my area.
Not that anon, but here you go. From outback WA.
He looks kinda gay
This anon is possibly the most based anon on this board with the possible exception of that gas mask S.T.A.L.K.E.R. anon
opinions to be automatically disregarded:
>progressives
>vegans/vegetarians
>socialists
>communists
>women
>children
i don't even want to know how many boxes OP has checked.
absolutely based
Source? And why is the bottom of the screen like that?
It's from a hunting film. Can't remember the name. The effect in the bottom of the screen is a banner text background.
What? You should go back to elementary school and learn some reading comprehension.
Do I seriously have to remind you not to feed the trolls?
To end this:
>hunt for food is good
>hunt to pleasure is wrong
end of this homosexualtry
it should be both, with emphasis on food of course.
OP is being a disingenuous little c**t by comparing 'hunting' (as in you know, deer/boar/pheasant etc) with pointless and wanton killing of big game for fun.
it's below mid-wit tier posting, but it did accomplish his primary goal -- a whole frick ton of (you)'s.
We should be allowed to hunt humans
So many sociopath chuds itt
So many citidiot gays itt
I hate fat people. Worthless scum.
theres nothing wrong with hunting. its very common for natural reserves employ hunters to get rid of pests and exotic species
the only way hunting can be detrimental to conservation is when hunters target protected or vulnerable species
>the only way hunting can be detrimental to conservation is when hunters target protected or vulnerable species
And when that happens, it's called poaching.
ITT: seething poorgays and bunny frickers.