Hog hunting

[Eutycus]

I, myself, can do without that much of an "adrenaline rush". Just a mad hog is dangerous enough.

 

[woodsnwater]

Are you sure you can skin griz?

Just as fast as you can find them.

 

[doubleset]

New England migrants

That characterization is hilarious. I have this vision of New Jersey people doing seasonal migrant work in Florida. Well ... I can't quite get that vision to come into focus. What would they do? Clean fish? Harvest crops? The whole thing about migrants is that they move around, they move back and forth. That isn't the problem with "New England" people in Florida.

We'll miss the unique things to see and do out there, as well as being near the good friends we made, but the changes were just too much, and we didn't want to be there to watch it possible become New Yorsey.

Time marches on. I live in a county that is aggressively changing its overall complexion. In some good ways, and in some not good ways.

 

[TrapperDude]

That characterization is hilarious. I have this vision of New Jersey people doing seasonal migrant work in Florida. Well ... I can't quite get that vision to come into focus. What would they do? Clean fish? Harvest crops? The whole thing about migrants is that they move around, they move back and forth. That isn't the problem with "New England" people in Florida.


Time marches on. I live in a county that is aggressively changing its overall complexion. In some good ways, and in some not good ways.

You haven't heard of snowbirds, have you? That particulat batch of ostländers infest the state in the winter and then go back to their Blue dumps in the spring. Unfortunately, more and more of them are deciding to ditch the part that involves going away in the summer.

As to your second point, the complexion of a country is irrelevant. It's the *shared* civic identity which is relevant. If several million spotty-scalped aliens got marooned in the U.S., I wouldn't care, so long as they wrap themselves in our flag and Constitution.

If they reject what is truly American, then they can git out.

 

[doubleset]

As to your second point, the complexion of a country is irrelevant. It's the *shared* civic identity which is relevant. If several million spotty-scalped aliens got marooned in the U.S., I wouldn't care, so long as they wrap themselves in our flag and Constitution.

If they reject what is truly American, *then they can git out*.

Leaving aside such strange abstract concepts as "shared civic identity" (wherever that comes from), are you really saying that the people who are moving from the northern states to Florida "reject what is truly American"? To the contrary, it appears that in a lot of cases they're moving in order to preserve that -- whether they admit it or not. Exactly what parts of the required "truly American" set of practices and beliefs do you feel they reject?

Unless this is just a typical xenophobic "We don't like your kind around here," -- in which case I have nothing to say since that isn't either a question or any sort of reasoned statement, but just an emotional outburst which seems to be holding up some distinctive Floridian way of living and thinking as characteristically American. About that, I have to remain highly skeptical.

 

[Andrewmtnman]

Just to be clear. Not all Northern folks, even the ones in blue states, are part of this liberal agenda that we have been seeing unravel our country. Please don't be so foolish and divide us any more than the national media is doing. These blue states have millions of true Americans that are not at all happy but we are not running. Some choose to visit places like FL and enjoy the like minded people while there. Northerners are not the problem, the liberal socialist agenda and those that vote the like in are the problem

 

[TrapperDude]

Leaving aside such strange abstract concepts as "shared civic identity" (wherever that comes from), are you really saying that the people who are moving from the northern states to Florida "reject what is truly American"? To the contrary, it appears that in a lot of cases they're moving in order to preserve that -- whether they admit it or not. Exactly what parts of the required "truly American" set of practices and beliefs do you feel they reject?

Unless this is just a typical xenophobic "We don't like your kind around here," -- in which case I have nothing to say since that isn't either a question or any sort of reasoned statement, but just an emotional outburst which seems to be holding up some distinctive Floridian way of living and thinking as characteristically American. About that, I have to remain highly skeptical.

Well, civic identity isn't really an abstract concept. It has to do with the philosophy a society holds regarding the relationship between the citizenry and the government, to include the system of laws established to properly maintain that relationship.

Traditionally, American civic identity has been based on protecting rights enshrined in the Constitution, with an emphasis on individual liberty, government only as a necessary evil and government beholden to the very people who fund it.

If the new arrivals buy into that, then it's fine. If they just want to do unto the new state that which they did to their former states, then they aren't welcome.

 

[TrapperDude]

Just to be clear. Not all Northern folks, even the ones in blue states, are part of this liberal agenda that we have been seeing unravel our country. Please don't be so foolish and divide us any more than the national media is doing. These blue states have millions of true Americans that are not at all happy but we are not running. Some choose to visit places like FL and enjoy the like minded people while there. Northerners are not the problem, the liberal socialist agenda and those that vote the like in are the problem

I concur with that. But as we have seen from the mass migration of Kaliforniastanis to Texas and Colorado, such large scale population influxes from certain states have good reason to be viewed with some trepidation.

 

[Codger Craig Wilcox]

Well said, Andrew,
I was a Florida State Park Ranger, later a Park Manager for a good number of years before switching to wetlands and wildlife.
As they do and have done a lot of damage to private property, feral hogs do a terrific amount of damage to State Parks. One of my tasks was to rid the park of an overload of feral hogs, and I took 48 of them from one park in two years. I used almost everything from a .22 to a 12-ga., and never had one "charge" me. About 95% were one shot/one kill.
Now, one or two were consumed within the park, the balance (45) were gutted and taken to a near-by Florida Maximum Security Prison - and they were very happy to get them. Same was done with road-kill deer - off to prison they went. Daily we got 4-8 prisoners early morning, had them remove exotic plants, mow grass, pick up trash, and make a few repairs to the few ranger house that remained (these were built by the CCC in the mid-1930's out of all native pines).
Other places, like the huge Mormon ranch in Florida, the dead hogs were left where they lay.
BTW - these hogs fed a lot on oak mast, and were delicious!

 

[Andrewmtnman]

I concur with that. But as we have seen from the mass migration of Kaliforniastanis to Texas and Colorado, such large scale population influxes from certain states have good reason to be viewed with some trepidation.

And I do agree that that happens and I don't like that either. I wish they would stay in the areas they polluted! My only point is, we in these states that turned blue, don't all vote these commies in

 

[Andrewmtnman]

Well said, Andrew,
I was a Florida State Park Ranger, later a Park Manager for a good number of years before switching to wetlands and wildlife.
As they do and have done a lot of damage to private property, feral hogs do a terrific amount of damage to State Parks. One of my tasks was to rid the park of an overload of feral hogs, and I took 48 of them from one park in two years. I used almost everything from a .22 to a 12-ga., and never had one "charge" me. About 95% were one shot/one kill.
Now, one or two were consumed within the park, the balance (45) were gutted and taken to a near-by Florida Maximum Security Prison - and they were very happy to get them. Same was done with road-kill deer - off to prison they went. Daily we got 4-8 prisoners early morning, had them remove exotic plants, mow grass, pick up trash, and make a few repairs to the few ranger house that remained (these were built by the CCC in the mid-1930's out of all native pines).
Other places, like the huge Mormon ranch in Florida, the dead hogs were left where they lay.
BTW - these hogs fed a lot on oak mast, and were delicious!

I have to hand it to someone in FL that came up with the idea to send the meat to good use. Road kill to the prisons, thats priceless. I'd be happy with that if I were in such a place!

 

[flynfred]

If your worried about a 45 cal round ball being able to take hogs, go on utube and watch all the pigs being killed with .177 cal pellet guns, its amazing

 

[Old Hawkeye]

Lots of hate in this thread towards fellow Americans. Very sad to see. What do I have to do or how do I have to think to be a "true American"? Isn't our differences what makes us great? Like I said, lots of hate here. This crap belongs somewhere else! This place is supposed to be about MUZZLELOADING!!! Just my two cents.

 

[doubleset]

Well, civic identity isn't really an abstract concept.

And then you describe an abstract concept of civic identity briefly using a pile of jargon.

Traditionally, American civic identity has been based on protecting rights enshrined in the Constitution, with an emphasis on individual liberty, government only as a necessary evil and government beholden to the very people who fund it.

But exactly what rights are enshrined in the Constitution has been the subject of debate since it was written -- at least in the form of determining what interpretations of the Constitutional text are most appropriate or more valid (in some sense) than others, and what their scope is.

In addition, it is inaccurate to point to "an emphasis on individual liberty" without acknowledging the equally long history and presence in the Constitution (and other writings of the Founding Fathers) of "the common good". This appears explicitly in the Preamble to the Constitution as one of the goals of the Constitution being to "promote the general Welfare," and again in Article 1, Section 8 in the enumeration of powers. Indeed the Constitution does not contain either of the words "individual" or "liberty". "Liberty" does occur in Amendment V of the Bill of Rights, but its sense is left vague and general in the context of due process.

American values have been based as much on this notion of the common good as on that of individual liberty, and the trick has always been to balance those. It is equally disingenuous to view the constitution as viewing government as a "necessary evil" -- which is not required in order to view government as needing to be clearly and unambiguously constrained, primarily through the recognition and protection of individual rights.

The difference between what is currently described as a "conservative" view and what is described as a "liberal" view often comes down quite simply to whether -- either generally or in a particular specific case -- one favors a resolution based on "individual liberty" or on "the common good" when these conflict with one another. Both Democrats and Republicans face fundamental problems of this sort when the rubber meets the road, and both have a tendency to embrace sets of what they view as fundamental principles that have internal conflicts that are very difficult to resolve. Way too much time is spent attempting to shout down "the opposition" rather than attempting to resolve the internal inconsistencies of their own sets of principles, and then presenting a coherent position and argument. Gun rights and abortion (and now censorship or "disinformation") are perfect examples of this.

But just pointing to "individual liberty" and to government as a "necessary evil" as the key principles misses way too much of the complexity enshrined in our Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers that preceded it and followed it.

 

[Tradbow]

I think if you move into a new area or state that is different than where one came from then show a little respect to the people who already live there, learn their ways and customs then hunting opportunities should increase.

 

[TrapperDude]

And then you describe an abstract concept of civic identity briefly using a pile of jargon.


But exactly what rights are enshrined in the Constitution has been the subject of debate since it was written -- at least in the form of determining what interpretations of the Constitutional text are most appropriate or more valid (in some sense) than others, and what their scope is.

In addition, it is inaccurate to point to "an emphasis on individual liberty" without acknowledging the equally long history and presence in the Constitution (and other writings of the Founding Fathers) of "the common good". This appears explicitly in the Preamble to the Constitution as one of the goals of the Constitution being to "promote the general Welfare," and again in Article 1, Section 8 in the enumeration of powers. Indeed the Constitution does not contain either of the words "individual" or "liberty". "Liberty" does occur in Amendment V of the Bill of Rights, but its sense is left vague and general in the context of due process.

American values have been based as much on this notion of the common good as on that of individual liberty, and the trick has always been to balance those. It is equally disingenuous to view the constitution as viewing government as a "necessary evil" -- which is not required in order to view government as needing to be clearly and unambiguously constrained, primarily through the recognition and protection of individual rights.

The difference between what is currently described as a "conservative" view and what is described as a "liberal" view often comes down quite simply to whether -- either generally or in a particular specific case -- one favors a resolution based on "individual liberty" or on "the common good" when these conflict with one another. Both Democrats and Republicans face fundamental problems of this sort when the rubber meets the road, and both have a tendency to embrace sets of what they view as fundamental principles that have internal conflicts that are very difficult to resolve. Way too much time is spent attempting to shout down "the opposition" rather than attempting to resolve the internal inconsistencies of their own sets of principles, and then presenting a coherent position and argument. Gun rights and abortion (and now censorship or "disinformation") are perfect examples of this.

But just pointing to "individual liberty" and to government as a "necessary evil" as the key principles misses way too much of the complexity enshrined in our Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers that preceded it and followed it.

By the plain meaning of the text, there is little room for interpretation when it comes to exactly what rights are enshrined in the Constitution.

If you look at the Founding Fathers' various writings before the Constitution was signed, there is plenty of reference to individual liberty in the form of the various rights which went into the Bill of Rights. When interpreting law, courts look to, among other things, the legislative intent, which includes the content of debates on the floor of Congress. That means that even if the phrase "individual liberty" isn't stated in the Constitution, the intent of the Constitution's drafters, as recorded in debates and publications (e.g., Federalist Papers) are used to determine the intent behind the plain text of the document.

Suspicion of government overreach is a recurring theme throughout the historical debates before the Constitution was drafted. Ultimately, the Founding Fathers created a document placing certain restrictions on anything the government could do in the future in order to restrain it. And that was to preserve individual liberty.

When we talk about conflicts between certain liberties, the most basic method of determining where to draw lines against individual liberties is based on where negative externalities arise.

For example, the right to keep and bear arms has virtually no negative externalities. If I buy a black powder cannon, my mere possession of the cannon and ammo creates no negative externalities. My safe and responsible use of it creates no negative externalities, aside from some noise in the distance. Therefore, my liberty to keep and use that cannon does not infringe upon anyone else's individual liberty.

By the way, a definition isn't jargon. Jargon is language used by certain people for unique professions.

 

[TrapperDude]

Well said, Andrew,
I was a Florida State Park Ranger, later a Park Manager for a good number of years before switching to wetlands and wildlife.
As they do and have done a lot of damage to private property, feral hogs do a terrific amount of damage to State Parks. One of my tasks was to rid the park of an overload of feral hogs, and I took 48 of them from one park in two years. I used almost everything from a .22 to a 12-ga., and never had one "charge" me. About 95% were one shot/one kill.
Now, one or two were consumed within the park, the balance (45) were gutted and taken to a near-by Florida Maximum Security Prison - and they were very happy to get them. Same was done with road-kill deer - off to prison they went. Daily we got 4-8 prisoners early morning, had them remove exotic plants, mow grass, pick up trash, and make a few repairs to the few ranger house that remained (these were built by the CCC in the mid-1930's out of all native pines).
Other places, like the huge Mormon ranch in Florida, the dead hogs were left where they lay.
BTW - these hogs fed a lot on oak mast, and were delicious!

Were you taking them to the prison out at Avon Park? Your description makes it sound like that one.

 

[doubleset]

By the plain meaning of the text, there is little room for interpretation when it comes to exactly what rights are enshrined in the Constitution. ...

Yeah, okay, I'm done. I won't try to argue some odd sort of fundamentalism with a committed fundamentalist -- and particularly one who thinks terms like "externality" aren't jargon.

 

[TrapperDude]

Yeah, okay, I'm done. I won't try to argue some odd sort of fundamentalism with a committed fundamentalist -- and particularly one who thinks terms like "externality" aren't jargon.

Does being consistent and principled make one a fundamentalist?

 

[Eutycus]

The local game wardens used to take fresh meat from recent kills to the Children's Home but state laws and regulations changed all that.Heaven forbid you put good meat to good use Now you gotta let it rot.