The characterization of the birds which are released in hunts such these as “tame,” is substantially (and probably deliberately) incorrect. I assure you the instincts of the released birds are so nearly indentical to the instincts of wild birds as to be indiscernable. The characterization of the birds as “wandering about aimlessly” is also factually incorrect. These birds have all the instincts of birds born in the wild - they cover, they run, they fly in exactly the same manner. There’s also an assertion that wild birds “learn” something in nature that penned birds are denied. This, too, is incorrect. The damn things just aren’t that smart; they’ve got tiny little brains and function almost wholly on instinct. Finally, the claim has been made several times that no, or little, skill is required to shoot these pen-raised birds. That, too, is false. A person without experience in shooting of this type is unqualified to make such a judgment - particularly so when that judgment is rendered on the basis of the above inaccuracies.
The only difference between the “canned” hunts in which I’ve participated, and a “natural” hunt, is that you know there are (or sometimes were) birds in the field you’re hunting. That and your credit card balance is gonna be quite a bit inflated at the end of the day.
It may also interest the more objective folks here, that hunt clubs are a major contributor to wildlife conservation. They donate a significant portion of the money used to release birds into the wild in depopulated areas - the ringneck pheasant being an excellent example. The rise in popularity of these hunt clubs is a direct response to the over-hunting and mismanagement of wildfowl in the earlier portions of the 20th century. So, describing “natural” hunts as somehow more noble, is yet another inaccuracy perpetrated by the detractors of hunt clubs and managed hunts. It’s the “natural” hunts that have made the existence of the hunt clubs financially viable.
Which explains the popularity of these clubs - how? There are literally thousands of them across the United States. And tens of thousands outside the United States. “Almost universally” looked down on is absolutely false.
But… but… you’ve ignored his link to the hysterical rantings of a bleeding heart apologist for a left-leaning news rag. Do you intend to debate honestly or not?
Unclebeer: Your analysis is pretty much the same as my hunter buddy whom I talked to this morning. And, from what I know about bird behavior, I think you’re spot on in terms of the instict issue. Thanks for the input.
I agree. But note that it’s only “Dems” in the sense of dems here on this board. I havent heard of any actual elected Politicians trying to milk this for political purposes.
Hate to disagree with you, but as far as I know, quails ARE pheasants. They are certainly in the same family, Phasianidae, and many of the wiki articles I can find on quail mention that they are a type of pheasant.
I could be wrong on this, but at the very least, I was misled by usually accurate sources.
While these birds are not evolutionarily domesticated per se, raising them on a production farm with human beings being around them all the time vs them being wild definately makes them legitimately tame in my book. They sure aren’t wild. I doubt you’d object to me calling farm raised chickens tame, but you object here, I suspect, largely to be pedantic.
Well, 500 is roughly 400 more than 100, by my math, John. And the 10 person party shot 417 of these birds birds BEFORE they had to stop because Cheney shot his friend. You are the only one who ever said that Cheney personally shot hundreds of birds, so I await your apology for misrepresenting me.
Cheney must be a darn good shot, then, to bag 70 at least, plus an unspecified number of mallards. It now seems, on reading more about this, that he was hunting by car. Does your friend normally bag more than 70 birds in a few hours from a car in a hunting party exceeding the safe limit?
Does the reaction really rise to the level of “outrage” or is it just a lot of tut-tutting? I see some pre-emptive defensiveness on the part of the administration and its supporters, but apart from questions about timing of the reporting, hunting regs Cheney may have violated, and the tame birds issue, I haven’t seen a lot of high-level political criticism from the left inspired by this incident. If people were saying, “This just goes to show how reckless the man is” and relating that to, say, the war in Iraq, that would be something.
Apos, I think you may be conflating two incidents of Cheney’s canned hunting - One back in December of 2003 where his party of 10 did kill 417 pheasant, with Cheney above the group mean with “over” 70 dead birds, and this recent one where he shot a man.
Neither to be confused with the incident where he went hunting with Antonin “Anton Anthony” Scalia just after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about his energy task force. To my knowledge, he did not shoot Scalia at that time, although it may be argued that he did “bag” him, since he wrote a specific dissent to the decision not to resolve the matter in Cheney’s favor outright rather than send it back to the Court of Appeals. Apparently only Scalia’s integrity was peppered with birdshot.
Well, it does give some tangible weight to the metaphoric title of the “Gang that couldn’t shoot straight” I’ve sometimes seen used, but other than that, I agree with you. (Although The Daily Show did humorously link Cheney’s position vis a vis the war in Iraq with this incident. Paraphrasing: “In a post 9/11 world, knowing what he knows now, Cheney would still shoot Wittington in the face. Otherwise, the quails will think America is weak.”)
Damn, you’re quite right. I missed the date on that report. Of course, that doesn’t really change the discussion of the issue too much, since event I’m talking about indeed happened, but it certainly makes it inapplicable to this particular incident.
Fine, but in common usage, what we call a quail is the smaller variety. When I think of “pheasant”, I think of the larger bird with the longer tail. But this isn’t want I was originally objecting to.
Wrong. Farm raised chickens are domisticated birds. The fact that your are purposely trying to conflate the two is bewildering. A circus elephant might be called “tame” in the sense that it has been trained not to harm humans. In what way have these birds been trained to not fear humans? That is the point.
You’re original quote said “someone”, so I think it was fair to assume you were talking about Cheney. But the number isn’t so important. The main thing I object to is the claime that these are “tame” birds.
Didn’t ask him about the car thing, but I’m starting to sense another exageration coming on here. What exactly does “hunting by car” mean? He certainly wasn’t shooting from a car. I don’t see what the objection is, other than to take a cheap shot at Cheney (no pun intended).
Sounds like the “no true sportsman” fallacy to me. There are any number of ways to hunt, and this is one of them. The fact that this bothers you says more about you than it does about Cheney.
While I think the Dems should be careful with the matter (as in not try to exploit it frivolously), they definitely shouldn’t let it pass. The incident itself becomes almost irrelevant in light of Cheney’s arrogance *following * the shooting, which is symptomatic of the administration’s attitude toward the rest of the world in general. All the Vice President has shown is that he doesn’t have enough respect for either the office he holds or the American public to make a simple, responsible report to the press on his involvement in what could easily have been a fatal accident involving firearms.
If Dick’s grandson had sprained his hand while playing catch with the old bastard in the backyard, *that * would have fallen under the sanctity of “personal life.”
Oh good, it’s Liberal complaining about bleeding hearts. From the guy who defines “love” to include “pointlessly setting up natural death traps for humanity to inflict pointless suffering on vast scales” because none of it really matters or means anything to morality. I think I read about a kid who thought like that in Stephen King’s It.
That might be unfair to your position, but then, I learned it from watching you.
If he has pellets lodged in his heart, the blast must have been more severe than a mere “peppering” would suggest.
The man is 78. He’s going to be in the hospital for a while yet, at best, and the story will of course stay alive that long, as it should. But if, if the worst happens, who here would expect negligent homicide charges to be filed against Cheney? Would it be politically possible for him to stay in office? Certainly there are much larger and better reasons he needs to be forced out, but rough justice is still justice.
That’s too bad, but it doesn’t sound too serious, hopefuly. Bits of this stuff can get in your bloodstream and clog out vessels supplying the heart, but generally this doesn’t even cause the heart to stop beating, especially when they catch it so quickly, and they have some pretty neat techniques to open up clogged vessels that can help save even the areas that would normally die. The real danger at this point is that the dead heart tissue can swell and burst if overtaxed.
If the report already found that he wasn’t guilty of reckless endangerment, then there really aren’t grounds for negligent homicide even if the guy dies. His death wouldn’t directly bear on the guilt issue, just which charge and how serious it is.
Though I would hope that at some point he comes out and says “I’m sorry, I feel terrible about this and I’m going to use this to underscore why we need to teach our kids gun safety and all take serious precautions when hunting around other people or in populated areas are deadly important.”
Personally, I think it was just a silly accident, but the disproportionate amount of subterfuge and spin from the White House over the issue is indicative of the seige mentality of the Administration.
Couldn’t help but recall your post, Apos, when I read this a moment ago.
*A Bush adviser once described the Cheney press strategy this way: “Never explain, never apologize.” This has damaged Cheney’s public standing and hurt the president. . .
The Cheney delay has also exacerbated questions about the Bush administration’s candor and truthfulness. . . and at some point Cheney’s starchy behavior is also insulting. Shouldn’t there be some minimum level of explanation he’s willing to offer as the second-highest ranking public official? When you nearly commit manslaughter as a public official shouldn’t the honor of your office compel you to stand up and explain yourself in some fashion, at least say something in a press release and not just whisper it to a Texas rancher?*
Sorry. A vanity underscore of my earlier post, that last part.
Pretty quick report, that. Essentially immediate. Strictly coincidental that it absolves a central Administration figure, of course. Looks like a whitewash even if it wasn’t, though, and the conflicting stories from the alleged eyewitnesses don’t help.
Even without a criminal charge, he’d still be a guy who just *killed * a guy. The hypocrisy of the GOP partisans who spent years yawping about the morality of the last President, and the necessity for him to set the tone for the country, couldn’t extend to excusing that, could it (ignoring the **Shodan ** faction, that is)? Rhetorical question.
