Perhaps you have seen it already, or perhaps someone posted about it, but here is a positive article by the NYT on hunting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11...ing/25hunt.html?_r=2

I'll be dadgum! Who'd a thunk it.

I'm shocked that this came from the NY Times. While reading this I realized that I take hunting and eating game for granted and that city people didn't grow up with the same opportunities that I did.

Dick Cheney could school them on shotgun safety!!!

Wonder how they got that one past the editor?

That's really encouraging, but this sentence tells me the main subject doesn't really "get" hunting yet.....

quote:

Mr. Landers, who tries to take Virginia’s full limit of six deer a year, agreed. For the cost of the necessary licenses, $36.50, he said he can stock his freezer with nearly free protein.

The protein may be free but the time and equipment used to get it seem to cost more and more as your hunting vistas expand. I figure my deer meat, if you include the cost of my land, is somewhere in excess of $1000/pound......and worth every penny of it.

Good to see that. Someone teaching city people responsible outdoor/hunting skills. Probably helps that he's origionally a city guy too, they're probably more apt to listen to him.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
That's really encouraging, but this sentence tells me the main subject doesn't really "get" hunting yet.....

quote:

Mr. Landers, who tries to take Virginia’s full limit of six deer a year, agreed. For the cost of the necessary licenses, $36.50, he said he can stock his freezer with nearly free protein.

The protein may be free but the time and equipment used to get it seem to cost more and more as your hunting vistas expand. I figure my deer meat, if you include the cost of my land, is somewhere in excess of $1000/pound......and worth every penny of it.

Just can't please ya can we?

The relevant point is that one of this country's major papers, which has a documented and historic disagreement with hunting and gun ownership, has come out in a positive way about the sport of hunting.

Pointing out the cost of all the equipment isn't really rlevant to the point the paper was making. Every pastime has certain costs assigned to it, but that doesn't impact the validity of the sport itself.

Instead of being negative, try to be a little positive about this story. It's pretty impressive that the paper even ran it.

quote:

Just can't please ya can we?

The relevant point is that one of this country's major papers, which has a documented and historic disagreement with hunting and gun ownership, has come out in a positive way about the sport of hunting.

Pointing out the cost of all the equipment isn't really rlevant to the point the paper was making. Every pastime has certain costs assigned to it, but that doesn't impact the validity of the sport itself.

Instead of being negative, try to be a little positive about this story. It's pretty impressive that the paper even ran it.

MAC,

Very well put.

+++++1

quote:

Originally posted by Zoboomafoo_dude:
Wonder how they got that one past the editor?

They sent him hunting with Dick Cheney!

John

quote:

Originally posted by buffybr:

quote:

Just can't please ya can we?

The relevant point is that one of this country's major papers, which has a documented and historic disagreement with hunting and gun ownership, has come out in a positive way about the sport of hunting.

Pointing out the cost of all the equipment isn't really rlevant to the point the paper was making. Every pastime has certain costs assigned to it, but that doesn't impact the validity of the sport itself.

Instead of being negative, try to be a little positive about this story. It's pretty impressive that the paper even ran it.

MAC,

Very well put.

+++++1

++++++++2
Also did anyone notice the story was about someone from San Francisco!

As far as the Cheney comments, he shot a attorney, considered by many here in Texas to be in the same catagory as a coyote.

AnotherAZwriter:

Before you guys out in what's left of real hunting states think the NY Times is switching its views about hunting - Whoa! Listen to a New Yorker who has read the NY Times every day of his life since he could read newspapers. Please notice that the article is about securing food -and, lo and behold, the Times now recognizes that game animals can be food? Fine, so far. Now show me where the Times approves of people using firearms to KILL animals -and doing it in the pure sport of hunting - or, more important, where the Times article supports the emotional and spiritual aspects of hunting (like the shot a hunter passes up as one simple example) This article was for readers -bored and trying to decide what next to "take up". If any of you guys think the NY Times has changed its views on hunting or the mere possession of guns -think again. Believe me!

Hello GPeters375, I don't think anyone is naive (spell?) enought to think the NY Times is changing it's tune. We, at least I, are amazed that the article made it all the way to print!

Rae59:

I never thought of that point you make about publication at all. Put it down to not seeing the forest for the trees.

quote:

Originally posted by MAC:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
That's really encouraging, but this sentence tells me the main subject doesn't really "get" hunting yet.....

quote:

Mr. Landers, who tries to take Virginia’s full limit of six deer a year, agreed. For the cost of the necessary licenses, $36.50, he said he can stock his freezer with nearly free protein.

The protein may be free but the time and equipment used to get it seem to cost more and more as your hunting vistas expand. I figure my deer meat, if you include the cost of my land, is somewhere in excess of $1000/pound......and worth every penny of it.

Just can't please ya can we?

The relevant point is that one of this country's major papers, which has a documented and historic disagreement with hunting and gun ownership, has come out in a positive way about the sport of hunting.

Pointing out the cost of all the equipment isn't really rlevant to the point the paper was making. Every pastime has certain costs assigned to it, but that doesn't impact the validity of the sport itself.

Instead of being negative, try to be a little positive about this story. It's pretty impressive that the paper even ran it.

You seem to be looking for an argument where none exists. Perhaps you didn't read my, "That's encouraging" in the first sentence.

Nor was my response meant to be summary of what was already written. I got the point and saw no reason to repeat it as you have.

My response was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I see that you are humor challenged and can't be pleased. So......... on ya.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by MAC:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
That's really encouraging, but this sentence tells me the main subject doesn't really "get" hunting yet.....

quote:

Mr. Landers, who tries to take Virginia’s full limit of six deer a year, agreed. For the cost of the necessary licenses, $36.50, he said he can stock his freezer with nearly free protein.

The protein may be free but the time and equipment used to get it seem to cost more and more as your hunting vistas expand. I figure my deer meat, if you include the cost of my land, is somewhere in excess of $1000/pound......and worth every penny of it.

Just can't please ya can we?

The relevant point is that one of this country's major papers, which has a documented and historic disagreement with hunting and gun ownership, has come out in a positive way about the sport of hunting.

Pointing out the cost of all the equipment isn't really rlevant to the point the paper was making. Every pastime has certain costs assigned to it, but that doesn't impact the validity of the sport itself.

Instead of being negative, try to be a little positive about this story. It's pretty impressive that the paper even ran it.

You seem to be looking for an argument where none exists. Perhaps you didn't read my, "That's encouraging" in the first sentence.

Nor was my response meant to be summary of what was already written. I got the point and saw no reason to repeat it as you have.

My response was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I see that you are humor challenged and can't be pleased. So......... on ya.

Aw gee Tex,

Guess you missed the on my post huh? Typical, poke a little fun at the big bad Texan and they get all pouty.

And you call me humorless? Well, Back at Ya

Oh, guess you also failed to see that my post got some thumbs up from some other guys. Funny, didn't see any given to you. Run along now.

For many years Nelson Bryant wrote articles in the NYT on hunting and fishing (many of which I enjoyed greatly, even moreso since much of what he wrote about was fairly local to me, i.e., Martha's Vineyard). I am glad anytime I see some more positive light shed on hunting, so I'll take it.

The increased interest in hunting by urbanites is something I see frequently in my customers. While fixing their furnaces, I make conversation. I'm often surprised at the Prius driving leftists who want to learn about hunting, gardening, and farming. Michael Pollan's book was read by a lot of people. There is a real hunger for natural food in this country. These are the same people I am marketing my pastured chicken to.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
That's really encouraging, but this sentence tells me the main subject doesn't really "get" hunting yet.....

quote:

Mr. Landers, who tries to take Virginia’s full limit of six deer a year, agreed. For the cost of the necessary licenses, $36.50, he said he can stock his freezer with nearly free protein.

The protein may be free but the time and equipment used to get it seem to cost more and more as your hunting vistas expand. I figure my deer meat, if you include the cost of my land, is somewhere in excess of $1000/pound......and worth every penny of it.

The only negative I see with this article is they might raise the prices of the tags!