I’m in Berkeley, CA. This is urban territory, but I wouldn’t swear by the urbanity of a lot of Berkeleyans. I live in the transitional area where the flats become the hills. No dear here but far too many in the neighboring urban residential hills – you can say – because nobody is allowed to shoot them there. Back a while, they had too many on Angel Island in SF Bay and brought in hunters to drastically reduce their number there.
I eat meat and am not into animal rights. When I was young I had an uncle who hunted occasionally. That period is the last time I’ve ever had venison.
Guns have never appealed to me and I’ve never owned one. During basic training in the US Army, I fired one a few times at a rifle range. I think essentially all guns not used by police or the military should remain only at shooting ranges. In the woods and wildernesses, I only like to hike and camp.
Yes, I think fox hunting, as its always been presented to me at a distance, as a tribe of equestrians and a large pack of dogs chasing one fox to exhaustion, is most ridiculous in respect to consideration as a sport, right in there with bullfighting, cockfighting and dogfighting. But killing animals for sport, in general, is not exactly my idea of an appealing sport anyhow.
I have never talked to any English or Scottish people about fox hunting, so I don’t know their range of emphases on the perpetrators and the victims, but I would guess its usually a combination of the two.
I can’t figure someone who makes such a statement without informing us as to what such a positive thing might be. Preventing overpopulation in chicken houses? The only foxes I’ve seen around here are not native gray fox, but rather, imported red foxes.
So, who do you shoot with all those guns? I usually stay away from those rednecks up at Tahoe. . .and hike into the back country (but not during hunting season).