Alaska Magazine Cover Photo Controversial?

[font=Times New Roman]The May 2014 issue of Alaska Magazine boasted a wonderful cover image of harbor seals on ice taken by a well-known photographer. The photographer, whom I count as a friend, is well-known for his unique trips, workshops, and high regard and concern for wildlife and involvement in conservation issues.  Instead of a moment to savor, the moment faded quickly when letters to the editor arrived critical of the image and declaring that the photographer must have harassed the seals to get the shot and broken the Marine Mammal Protection Act. How? According to the letter writers the seals were looking at the photographer! And furthermore the bow of his kayak was visible in the picture, “a clear violation.” Oh, my. (As many of us know, and for the record, there is no regulatory approach distance established for seals.)[/font]

[font=Times New Roman] [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]First, no animal – unless dead or somehow severely impaired – would fail to look up if it heard or sensed something or someone approaching. Robin, ram, bird, bear, seal or elephant, all creatures will look if something is approaching them and then make a decision as to what to do. Bird watchers, photographers, wildlife watchers, all have had animals stop feeding or whatever, look up, assess the situation, and either leave or go back to whatever it was they were doing in the first place. In the situation depicted in the now controversial photo I personally detect no distress and suspect that the seals just flopped back down to rest after they assessed the situation. I base my judgment on nearly 50 years of wildlife photography in Alaska. I will say however, that absolutely no one knows what happened after the shutter clicked besides the photographer and his companions, if any. I take him at his word that the whole event did not result in harm to the animals.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman] [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]The magazine editor apparently contacted the NOAA Fisheries Services for comment. (NOAA is responsible for enforcement for the Marine Mammal Protection Act.) Spokesman Jon Kurland in Juneau was quoted as saying it was difficult to assess from the photo if “harassment had occurred” but that the animal’s “heads up posture reflected vigilant behavior,” which can be a sign of alertness to an impending threat. Harassment is illegal as we all know Kurland reiterated the basic rules. (However, this cover photo shows nothing other than animals looking up with the tip of a kayak extending somewhat into the foreground. It would be a huge stretch to label this proof of harassment.)  After explaining that there are no federal distance rules established for seals Kurland went on to be quoted as saying that “humans and animals should keep a respectful distance.”[/font]

[font=Times New Roman] [/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Much of the criticism levelled by the letter writers seems to be based on a false understanding of the law, as well as an unrealistic understanding of animal behavior. The photographer has 20-years of experience in Alaska and when he says he moves away from wildlife at the first sign of distress or discontent I, again, believe him. This whole incident is a good reminder to review the rules for approaching animals and be careful around wildlife so that our actions can not be misconstrued. To paraphrase the Bard, this event seems to have been a “tempest in a teapot.”[/font]

I don't think anything happening in Alaska politically is representative of conservation unless trophy hunting is considered conservation.

Tens of thousands of baby seals are slaughtered every year with clubs right in front of their mothers, and someone picks a beef cause a few seals lookup at the photographer.....

Paul

To give you an example of how distorted and unreasonable many people can be: My brother told me a story a couple of days ago of a photo with a hunter standing next to a (dead) Stegosaurus (or maybe a Triceratops)  that was published somewhere. Somebody had to write in to say how disgusting it was that the hunter had killed such a beautiful creature! How could he do such a despicable thing!!!
I have to believe that some of these people have never really been in the wild, other than through their TVs. They are totally ignorant of animal behavior and what animals behave like in the wild. When I hear that when you make a duck fly off, you are harassing it and making it waste energy, it reminds me of my youth. When I used to go to my uncles house on the Rio Grande, I would sneak up to the edge of a cliff about 100 yards above the river. As I would peek over the edge, the ducks in the river below would fly off. I was always amazed at their ability to spot me so far away and think I might be a threat. It was no fluke, but something I witnessed a few times over the years. Their reaction was far different than at a wildlife refuge or city pond. Animals adjust their reaction according to the perceived threat. When you spend enough time in the wild, you learn more about animal behavior than any book, classroom or verbal information can teach you.

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:To give you an example of how distorted and unreasonable many people can be: My brother told me a story a couple of days ago of a photo with a hunter standing next to a (dead) Stegosaurus (or maybe a Triceratops)  that was published somewhere. Somebody had to write in to say how disgusting it was that the hunter had killed such a beautiful creature! How could he do such a despicable thing!!!
I have to believe that some of these people have never really been in the wild, other than through their TVs. They are totally ignorant of animal behavior and what animals behave like in the wild. When I hear that when you make a duck fly off, you are harassing it and making it waste energy, it reminds me of my youth. When I used to go to my uncles house on the Rio Grande, I would sneak up to the edge of a cliff about 100 yards above the river. As I would peek over the edge, the ducks in the river below would fly off. I was always amazed at their ability to spot me so far away and think I might be a threat. It was no fluke, but something I witnessed a few times over the years. Their reaction was far different than at a wildlife refuge or city pond. Animals adjust their reaction according to the perceived threat. When you spend enough time in the wild, you learn more about animal behavior than any book, classroom or verbal information can teach you.

Joe

Joe, I sure wish we had wildlife refuges where the birds are tame in Oregon, everything is set up for the hunter here.

Mike in O wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:To give you an example of how distorted and unreasonable many people can be: My brother told me a story a couple of days ago of a photo with a hunter standing next to a (dead) Stegosaurus (or maybe a Triceratops)  that was published somewhere. Somebody had to write in to say how disgusting it was that the hunter had killed such a beautiful creature! How could he do such a despicable thing!!!
I have to believe that some of these people have never really been in the wild, other than through their TVs. They are totally ignorant of animal behavior and what animals behave like in the wild. When I hear that when you make a duck fly off, you are harassing it and making it waste energy, it reminds me of my youth. When I used to go to my uncles house on the Rio Grande, I would sneak up to the edge of a cliff about 100 yards above the river. As I would peek over the edge, the ducks in the river below would fly off. I was always amazed at their ability to spot me so far away and think I might be a threat. It was no fluke, but something I witnessed a few times over the years. Their reaction was far different than at a wildlife refuge or city pond. Animals adjust their reaction according to the perceived threat. When you spend enough time in the wild, you learn more about animal behavior than any book, classroom or verbal information can teach you.

Joe

Joe, I sure wish we had wildlife refuges where the birds are tame in Oregon, everything is set up for the hunter here.

I thought that I heard that Klamath was a great refuge for Snow Geese and other birds.

Joe

Refuges are just attractors for the hunters and most of the land is leased to farmers which is detrimental to the birds because the water needed to irrigate sucks the water from the refuge. Klamath especially has been contentious with the refuge trying to keep water on the land, farmers wanting to grow potatoes and Alfalfa (both heavy water crops), and the Indians wanting to keep the river flowing for salmon. Terrible bird die offs occurred last fall because of overcrowding and avian cholera. You are not going to sneak up on birds in Oregon.

Here's a link to the dinosaur photo. It was Steven Spielberg, and not a hunter. I will post another link when I find the comments.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/offbeat/som ... 1406646408

I think this is the original post, but I don't know how to get to the first comments posted:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 523&type=1


Joe

Here's a link to the dinosaur photo. It was Steven Spielberg, and not a hunter. I will post another link when I find the comments.

Based on the comments cited in the main article (my favorite: "Just because triceratops are ugly doesn't mean they shouldn't live! They are the rarest of all the rhinoceros species.") I have a feeling that the readers of the article were in on the joke and playing along with their comments.

John

Great fun...I just thought I would throw an aside about NWR. I was going to Hart Mountain Antelope Refuge NWR and remembered Antelope season starts on the refuge Aug 1 and the killing of different species goes on into the winter...hence no sneaking up on big game either. Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife sets the hunting rules on the refuge and are interested only in hunter's success, not the well being of the animals (some Refuge). Big Horn sheep are at historic lows, but the killing goes on. There have been proposals to kill all the Cougars instead of limiting hunting, again some refuge.

Mike in O wrote:Refuges are just attractors for the hunters and most of the land is leased to farmers which is detrimental to the birds because the water needed to irrigate sucks the water from the refuge.  Klamath especially has been contentious with the refuge trying to keep water on the land, farmers wanting to grow potatoes and Alfalfa (both heavy water crops), and the Indians wanting to keep the river flowing for salmon.  Terrible bird die offs occurred last fall because of overcrowding and avian cholera.  You are not going to sneak up on birds in Oregon.

The farmers that share-crop at Bosque del Apache have to leave a significant portion of the crops standing for the birds and wildlife.  Water is always a problem, especially in the desert southwest. For several years, we have been in an extreme drought here and the water is being fought for like never before.Cholera also affects the refuges here and I heard that at least 50 birds die daily from it on one refuge alone. Efforts are being made to pick up the dead birds quickly to help reduce the spread to other birds. The spread of this disease is partially because of the over population, and thus over-crowding, of Snow Geese. They are present in numbers that are way too high for the breeding grounds up north and, when they migrate, they are too numerous for the land they migrate to and through to sustain. Some people on this forum have stated that the number of Snow Geese at Bosque is way down, but I have seen no reduction at all! They do spread out to other places and refuges more now, but they still come through at different times of the winter. Some people never visit during late January or early February and never realize the numbers of geese that still come through.Cholera and other diseases are the natural forms of population control. Many states open seasons with unlimited bag limits to help reduce the population, but not with any great effect. Hunting is allowed on the refuge (Bosque del Apache) for certain species and, especially, for youth. It's easy to dislike hunting, if you choose to, but it is not something I am altogether opposed to without reservations.

Joe

John Guastella wrote: Based on the comments cited in the main article (my favorite: "Just because triceratops are ugly doesn't mean they shouldn't live! They are the rarest of all the rhinoceros species.") I have a feeling that the readers of the article were in on the joke and playing along with their comments.

John

That's true. I just wish I could find the sincere comments from the real "believers".

Joe

I am not against hunting per se, I just have a bone to pick with the NWR. Oregon is limited by having only one National Park and a few State parks where photography can be practiced without the animals fear of humans. The name of NWR could be changed to Federal Hunting Preserves. The original Refuge of the system (Malhuer in Oregon) was set up to protect the Egrets from the feather collectors. Now because of the general decline of health of the refuge system and funding shortfalls; hunting dollars are their main source of income and so who do think they cater too.

Mike in O wrote:I am not against hunting per se, I just have a bone to pick with the NWR.  Oregon is limited by having only one National Park and a few State parks where photography can be practiced without the animals fear of humans.  The name of NWR could be changed to Federal Hunting Preserves.  The original Refuge of the system (Malhuer in Oregon) was set up to protect the Egrets from the feather collectors.  Now because of the general decline of health of the refuge system and funding shortfalls; hunting dollars are their main source of income and so who do think they cater too.

Understood.

Joe

It is my belief after years of consideration that hunting is unethical. Not because the act of hunting itself is unethical or wrong or unnatural...but because we have changed so much as a species from anything that resembles a creature whose lives depend upon hunting that the very reason for hunting no longer exists for us. Its the sacrifice we make for security, survival for all, and an easier existence. Hunting now is almost universally for reasons other than for survival. Food it may be, but an alternate food source to what we have engineered is not the same as survival. I think we are creating new and different mechanisms that drive the very evolution of mankind and are entirely created by mankind. Hunting is a fundamental part of evolution of the wild world. Just about nobody lives in that world anymore. Not saying you won't find a guy here or there, but for 99.999999% of human civilization, the survival of the fittest on natural evolutionary terms, no longer exists.

Until we collectively stop letting profit override commonsense and decency when it comes to the natural world, it will continue to be eroded away. Our national philosophy has come up short and fails us just as it did by allowing slavery to continue at the time of the signing, even though they knew it wasn't right. And that bad philosophy policy sure came to a head. We can try and restore, manage, set up refuges, but in the long run, without a shift in attitude and priorities in our government, the inevitable will be scraps of the wild world on "isolated islands" of land only able to survive because there are a few who still care. And god forbid a world drought or something as every molecule of edible animal will be used for food. I mean there is a point where our civilization will overwhelm the natural world--we just can't go on expanding forever ---it's a finite place....What do people think??? That everything is infinite... They do...they really do.....and they have no idea about what is even going to be gone..


Hard to be a nature photographer because not many people see the worlds that we have...and it hurts...


Paul

Mike in O wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:To give you an example of how distorted and unreasonable many people can be: My brother told me a story a couple of days ago of a photo with a hunter standing next to a (dead) Stegosaurus (or maybe a Triceratops)  that was published somewhere. Somebody had to write in to say how disgusting it was that the hunter had killed such a beautiful creature! How could he do such a despicable thing!!!
I have to believe that some of these people have never really been in the wild, other than through their TVs. They are totally ignorant of animal behavior and what animals behave like in the wild. When I hear that when you make a duck fly off, you are harassing it and making it waste energy, it reminds me of my youth. When I used to go to my uncles house on the Rio Grande, I would sneak up to the edge of a cliff about 100 yards above the river. As I would peek over the edge, the ducks in the river below would fly off. I was always amazed at their ability to spot me so far away and think I might be a threat. It was no fluke, but something I witnessed a few times over the years. Their reaction was far different than at a wildlife refuge or city pond. Animals adjust their reaction according to the perceived threat. When you spend enough time in the wild, you learn more about animal behavior than any book, classroom or verbal information can teach you.

Joe

Joe, I sure wish we had wildlife refuges where the birds are tame in Oregon, everything is set up for the hunter here.

The Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is NOT setup for hunters.  But its not setup for photographers either. 

The birds on the west coast are a lot less tame than those in Florida, which are used to people constantly being around them.

SantaFeJoe wrote:

Mike in O wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:To give you an example of how distorted and unreasonable many people can be: My brother told me a story a couple of days ago of a photo with a hunter standing next to a (dead) Stegosaurus (or maybe a Triceratops)  that was published somewhere. Somebody had to write in to say how disgusting it was that the hunter had killed such a beautiful creature! How could he do such a despicable thing!!!
I have to believe that some of these people have never really been in the wild, other than through their TVs. They are totally ignorant of animal behavior and what animals behave like in the wild. When I hear that when you make a duck fly off, you are harassing it and making it waste energy, it reminds me of my youth. When I used to go to my uncles house on the Rio Grande, I would sneak up to the edge of a cliff about 100 yards above the river. As I would peek over the edge, the ducks in the river below would fly off. I was always amazed at their ability to spot me so far away and think I might be a threat. It was no fluke, but something I witnessed a few times over the years. Their reaction was far different than at a wildlife refuge or city pond. Animals adjust their reaction according to the perceived threat. When you spend enough time in the wild, you learn more about animal behavior than any book, classroom or verbal information can teach you.

Joe

Joe, I sure wish we had wildlife refuges where the birds are tame in Oregon, everything is set up for the hunter here.

I thought that I heard that Klamath was a great refuge for Snow Geese and other birds.

Joe

It is a great place to photograph in the Winter for Snow and Ross Geese, as well as a myriad of other species. Most of the refuges in the complex - especially Lower Klamath and Tule Lake refuges, have hunting areas segregated from the bird watching and photography areas. Plus they have quite  a number of photographers blinds set up (although not optimally sited for most)

pleverington wrote:Tens of thousands of baby seals are slaughtered every year with clubs right in front of their mothers, and someone picks a beef cause a few seals look up at the photographer.....

Paul

Hey Paul,
Just as you don't like or respect hunting, these people who are concerned with wildlife harassment have the right to question and condemn the actions of photographers as disturbing wildlife. Everybody draws a line in the sand somewhere, even though the lines are miles apart.

In a previous post about fish slinging to attract eagles, I wrote the following:

"There will never be consensus on this topic, but I fail to see how this is any different than ponds and bird or wildlife feeders used to attract  subjects to a blind or setup. Many people say that if you make a bird fly up during winter they are being stressed. How many of us drive down refuge roads and cause birds to fly???? Should we not even walk now because we may kill an ant or even a microorganism below our feet. Maybe we shouldn't use insect repellent because then the bugs can't feed naturally or insecticides because they kill something! Some people say that fishing is cruel because "Fish have feelings, too. They like to swim and jump and play like children do." Everybody must set reasonable limits to what we consider disturbing birds and animals, but I fail to see how this baiting is really going to affect the eagles in a detrimental way. They are scavengers to a large degree and opportunists!"


If you drink cows milk, you are partially to blame for the horrid conditions that milk cows live under and how about the calves that are taken away and used for veal cutlets and such. Same for chickens raised in cramped quarters to produce eggs or meat. And how about that Thanksgiving turkey that is bred for weight and can hardly walk? I think that wild animals can be hunted if numbers allow. I don't hunt, but I understand hunting. As I said before, Snow Goose numbers are such that disease is starting to reduce their population. Why not let hunters take some of the excess instead of nature. Natures way can be much crueler than hunting (if you consider hunting cruel). Our refuges are partially to blame for this excess. I would rather be a free flying or roaming animal or bird facing hunters than one raised to feed us! Now that's cruel!!!

Joe


Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:

pleverington wrote:Tens of thousands of baby seals are slaughtered every year with clubs right in front of their mothers, and someone picks a beef cause a few seals look up at the photographer.....

Paul

Hey Paul,
Just as you don't like or respect hunting, these people who are concerned with wildlife harassment have the right to question and condemn the actions of photographers as disturbing wildlife. Everybody draws a line in the sand somewhere, even though the lines are miles apart.

In a previous post about fish slinging to attract eagles, I wrote the following:

"There will never be consensus on this topic, but I fail to see how this is any different than ponds and bird or wildlife feeders used to attract  subjects to a blind or setup. Many people say that if you make a bird fly up during winter they are being stressed. How many of us drive down refuge roads and cause birds to fly???? Should we not even walk now because we may kill an ant or even a microorganism below our feet. Maybe we shouldn't use insect repellent because then the bugs can't feed naturally or insecticides because they kill something! Some people say that fishing is cruel because "Fish have feelings, too. They like to swim and jump and play like children do." Everybody must set reasonable limits to what we consider disturbing birds and animals, but I fail to see how this baiting is really going to affect the eagles in a detrimental way. They are scavengers to a large degree and opportunists!"


If you drink cows milk, you are partially to blame for the horrid conditions that milk cows live under and how about the calves that are taken away and used for veal cutlets and such. Same for chickens raised in cramped quarters to produce eggs or meat. And how about that Thanksgiving turkey that is bred for weight and can hardly walk? I think that wild animals can be hunted if numbers allow. I don't hunt, but I understand hunting. As I said before, Snow Goose numbers are such that disease is starting to reduce their population. Why not let hunters take some of the excess instead of nature. Natures way can be much crueler than hunting (if you consider hunting cruel). Our refuges are partially to blame for this excess. I would rather be a free flying or roaming animal or bird facing hunters than one raised to feed us! Now that's cruel!!!

Joe


Joe

Two cruels don't  make either of them right Joe. Your dead on right  that to raise animals in squalid conditions is not right and is cruel. Hey ....here's an idea...why not fight animal abuse and misuse on all fronts Joe?  Why is it that because the sport of hunting might in some ways be the lessor of two evils when procuring meat based food that it then makes sport hunting all beautiful? And why is it exactly that animals need culling and control in the first place? Why do we even have to manage them. Where's the responsibility in that?

Joe I'm way beyond these simplistic arguments that i hear hunters use, and now you. It's all wrong...deflections and diversions......Where's the responsibility I ask?

My point is what a complete and diametrically opposed view on seals where slaughter on one hand is accepted even by law, yet simple unintentional harassment is made the bigger issue. Sure fight on all fronts...just seems a little itty bitty out of whack to me when one takes a few steps back to look at  the whole picture.

OK you don't hunt, yet you eat the chicken, beef, and turkey don't you? You drink the milk right? You have eggs with your toast and bacon for breakfast maybe yes??  And just WHY are there too many snow geese Joe?

You can buy milk only from those that treat their cows humanly ...can you not Joe?  You can buy your chicken from growers that raise those chickens that have a life free ranging can you not Joe??  No excuses. Either quit eating meat or do it in a responsible conscientious way that matches your own moral thinking. To do otherwise makes a prostitute out of you...your choice..


Hunters today are NOT in it for survival Joe.. They want to get something that is gone..and no longer entitled to them as they have chosen a much different existence before and after their hunting excursion that shuts out nature. Name me one state that will accept a predator to exist if it can in any way harm people. There are none, unless those animals stay away from people completely. The natural world where we actually become a part of it is NOT accepted, even by the sport hunter. Right then and there we take our selves out of the natural loop and then dictate to nature "We now control the horizontal.....We now control the vertical.."

OK let me go here for a minute....

We kill other people right? I mean even if you yourself do not kill we  all collectively support a military that may or may not kill for right or for wrong, but will kill on our behalf. You pay your taxes,,,, your a part of the game. Ok fine we say.  Everbodies alright with that..

You might have to kill another person to defend your life, or your family's lives, or a friends life...everybody's ok with that right?

You might kill someone not on purpose. Could be a work accident, could be a car accident, everybody understands...

You might have to kill for mercy. Not acceptable by law, but for reasons of humanity and suffering people mostly will understand.

Now what if you  kill for some selfish pleasure? There was no other reason to kill than for some satisfaction on your part like for greed,  or maybe  lust, or maybe ego, or maybe thrill, or maybe a sick kick, or maybe some delusional thought that you were doing what is "natural". Maybe you heard voices..maybe your religion dictated...maybe you thought you were playing out the circle of life. Nobody would accept that including you...right?.

But when hunters who do not hunt primarily for food,  and are out there for the kick or the thrill or the delusional believe it makes them closer to nature it's OK......
 
There is nothing much more intense in my opinion than killing as far as a stimulation. There is one thing actually, but only a woman knows and can experience it. Birth.....


OK fine ....big debate on the horizon here ...but maybe you DON"T know hunting as much as you think you do.

Again here's the  problem....
The world we have created, and make no mistake we have transformed the natural Earth into a creation of our own desires and imaginations, has no room for nature in it's true form. In fact we  have redrawn the lines in the  sand  as you say so that nature is very much separate from us and is destined for the scrap heap of evolutionary experiments. We could very possibly live and exist without nature given enough technology and planning. Now what? When ethics are compromised as they are with sport hunting for one example, we are all in danger of losing it all.

I know, I know, there's this program to help nature and wildlife, and there's that program, and successes here and successes there, but we are still losing the war aren't we? Slowly but steadily we are losing.

Just last week I think I found something to help explain my perspective. It's Richard Dawkins identification and it's evolutionary implications of what  he calls memes. Nobody will really listen to me I know that, but people and yourself might give some weight to what the many, many, very professional scientists who have come out and embraced the principle and have made tangible the true meaning and power of memes to shape our world. Not the natural world...our world.


None of us live in the natural world anymore. The animals still do. We have no right to pretend in whatever delusion one might pick that we are a part of them anymore. Taking responsibility for procurement of ones own food and circle of life beliefs are delusions. The only person that can make those claims and be totally legit is someone who "drops out" of this society we all live in. Everything short of that is a travesty  IMO....


Paul

Hey Paul,


As I said " Everybody draws a line in the sand somewhere, even though the lines are miles apart."        Yours and mine are continents apart!!!


 You said:  "And why is it exactly that animals need culling and control in the first place? Why do we even have to manage them. Where's the responsibility in that?"...And just WHY are there too many snow geese Joe?


If the Snow Geese are being catered to by planting crops, making more refuges and places to protect them artificially, and the numbers are such that disease is taking them out, I fail to see your thoughts on the subject as being logical. Either they are controlled by disease (which may spread to other birds) or they need some other form of culling, like hunting. That has become the "responsibility", like it or not.

You said:  Joe I'm way beyond these simplistic arguments that i hear hunters use, and now you. It's all wrong...deflections and diversions......


You may think it's simplistic, but there's a lot more to wildlife science than heartstrings.

You said:  My point is what a complete and diametrically opposed view on seals where slaughter on one hand is accepted even by law, yet simple unintentional harassment is made the bigger issue. Sure fight on all fronts...just seems a little itty bitty out of whack to me when one takes a few steps back to look at  the whole picture.

If you think about it, these same people who are calling this out as harassment are probably deeply involved in the outcry about seal hunting, especially baby Harp seals. Why in the world would you come to the conclusion that "simple unintentional harassment is made the bigger issue"? Both issues are of concern to them, I can reassure you, and harassment is surely not the "bigger" issue!


You said:   OK you don't hunt, yet you eat the chicken, beef, and turkey don't you? You drink the milk right? You have eggs with your toast and bacon for breakfast maybe yes?? You can buy milk only from those that treat their cows humanly ...can you not Joe?  You can buy your chicken from growers that raise those chickens that have a life free ranging can you not Joe??  No excuses. Either quit eating meat or do it in a responsible conscientious way that matches your own moral thinking. To do otherwise makes a prostitute out of you...your choice..


My line stops way before worrying about things like that!  I really don't care!!!! So now you can call me a beast with no conscience (or your word for it, if you so choose), because that is my "moral thinking."

You said:  Hunters today are NOT in it for survival Joe.. They want to get something that is gone..and no longer entitled to them as they have chosen a much different existence before and after their hunting excursion that shuts out nature. 

Many hunters like venison, wild goose, elk, moose, bear and other meats. That's their right to acquire those meats legally, even though you don't like it. It has nothing to do with subsistence hunting or any primitive way of life. Most hunters I know love the outdoors just as much, and probably more, than most photographers I know. They spend just as much time in the woods before and after the hunting seasons, too. I wouldn't call that  "shutting out nature". Regarding "They want to get something that is gone and no longer entitled to them" , they are still entitled to hunt as long as the law permits it, like it or not. 


You said:   OK let me go here for a minute....

We kill other people right? I mean even if you yourself do not kill we  all collectively support a military that may or may not kill for right or for wrong, but will kill on our behalf. You pay your taxes,,,, your a part of the game. Ok fine we say.  Everbodies alright with that..

You might have to kill another person to defend your life, or your family's lives, or a friends life...everybody's ok with that right?

You might kill someone not on purpose. Could be a work accident, could be a car accident, everybody understands...

You might have to kill for mercy. Not acceptable by law, but for reasons of humanity and suffering people mostly will understand.

Now what if you  kill for some selfish pleasure? There was no other reason to kill than for some satisfaction on your part like for greed,  or maybe  lust, or maybe ego, or maybe thrill, or maybe a sick kick, or maybe some delusional thought that you were doing what is "natural". Maybe you heard voices..maybe your religion dictated...maybe you thought you were playing out the circle of life. Nobody would accept that including you...right?.

But when hunters who do not hunt primarily for food,  and are out there for the kick or the thrill or the delusional believe it makes them closer to nature it's OK......
 
There is nothing much more intense in my opinion than killing as far as a stimulation. There is one thing actually, but only a woman knows and can experience it. Birth.....


I say that's pretty perverse to even make such a comparison, way beyond my comprehension and bordering on.........something I'd rather not say!!!!!!!!!!!


You said:   OK fine ....big debate on the horizon here ...but maybe you DON"T know hunting as much as you think you do.


That's a really presumptuous statement for someone who doesn't know me personally! I owned an archery business for several years, worked in sporting good and archery stores for several more and had a boss who had 90 mounted trophies on the wall of his store. I hunted from the time I was pretty young until 1993. I was a professional hunter and guide and venture to say I know quite a lot about hunting and the mindset of hunters and fishermen. I gave it up because I like to photograph animals and see them alive much more than I enjoyed hunting. The experiences I had while hunting are far more memorable than the ones I have had photographing the wild. I ventured much farther into the wild and saw wildlife in a much more natural state, not like the kind you can watch and photograph all day long, but truly wild and alert animals. Many of them have not presented themselves to me since I started to shoot with a camera.  As an aside, I also studied Wildlife Management and Forestry at NMSU.

You said:   Again here's the  problem....
The world we have created, and make no mistake we have transformed the natural Earth into a creation of our own desires and imaginations, has no room for nature in it's true form.

No room for nature in it's true form??? What world do you live in? There are plenty of wild places that seldom see a man or development. The west and north are much bigger than you seem to realize. The deserts and mountains harbor many places where wildlife remains, for the most part, undisturbed and in a natural state. This is true for other countries, as well.

You said:   None of us live in the natural world anymore. The animals still do. ..


So many animals do NOT live in the natural world anymore! They have adapted to civilization in so many places. Deer, raccoons, skunks, foxes, coyotes, bears, squirrels and so many other "wild" animals live in the cities now and some have learned to live off our trash and gardens, not to mention small pets. The big problem, as I see it, is that we have encroached on their homes and not the other way around. The human population has increased to the point that the animals don't have much choice. As I said above though, there are still plenty of remote places in this world that remain wild and undisturbed. 


Joe