Bush begins new year by hunting quail

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Bush begins new year by hunting quail
12
Thu, 01-01-2004 - 2:07pm

What is it with this administration and their need to shoot birds that they don't even eat!?!?!  I can understand a true hunter who hunts for food, but 'sports hunting' always has sickened me.  It's not like it's 'catch & release'...


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Bush%20Hunting


Thursday, January 1, 2004 · Last updated 9:29 a.m. PT


Bush begins new year by hunting quail


By DEB RIECHMANN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


FALFURRIAS, Texas -- President Bush began the new year before dawn flying to southern Texas to hunt quail.


"Happy new year to you," he said as he greeted a few people at Brooks County Airport, 60 miles south of Corpus Christi.


Those were the first words Bush has spoken in public since Dec. 22, when he talked about the terror alert following a Hanukkah menorah candle lighting ceremony at the White House.


His hunting trip with his father, George H.W. Bush, friends and members of the president's staff ran behind schedule. Rain and foggy weather forced the president to drive from his ranch in Crawford, where he spent New Year's Eve, to an airport near Waco, where he boarded one of the smaller jets in the presidential fleet that serve as Air Force One.


Foggy weather forced one of the three planes in the presidential entourage to circle the tiny airport before landing.


Emerging from his plane in a tan canvas coat, black jeans and brown boots, Bush strode across the wet tarmac to talk to a few area residents.


"Como estas?" he said, asking the Spanish-speaking residents near the Mexican border how they were doing. Apparently in campaign mode, he held and kissed a baby, then turned to mug for the cameras.


Secret Service officers stood on buildings, using binoculars to survey the flat desolate countryside, while Bush's motorcade wound past ramshackle farm buildings, windmills and cactus.


Later, the president was having lunch with his father and others, including U.S. envoy James A. Baker III, who was secretary of state in the administration of Bush's father. Baker recently returned from a lobbying trip to Asia, part of his efforts to reduce Iraq's massive foreign debts. After Baker visited Tokyo on Monday, Japan agreed to forgive most of its Iraqi debt if other major nations do so as well.


In a New Year's Day message, Bush referenced the U.S. presence in Iraq, saying America has seen "our brave men and women in uniform defend America and liberate the oppressed."


"We pray for their safety, and we are grateful for their service and the support of their families," he said.


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Sun, 01-04-2004 - 6:10pm
<< I differentiate between hunting for 'sport' and hunting out of necessity.>>

We've already concluded that no one 'needs' to hunt in this country. Some may do it to supplement their food budget whether they are living below the poverty line or a comfortalbe middleclass existence, but that's no different from someone who hunts because he thinks that it's healthier food for his family, or someone who just appreciates the taste of wild game, or lives in an area with overpopulated deer who are going to starve over the winter. You will rationalize hunting for one reason, but the truth is that there are many reasons people hunt that don't include sociopathic tendencies. I've listed a few that I think are just as good as yours, I'm sure there are lots of other people who can come up with other reasons that they think are just as good as ours. I think we tend to make too many judgements about things we don't approve of because when we don't understand that there may be more reasons than we think of for doing or buying something. For example there is lots of self-righteousness going around about what types of people 'should' or 'shouldn't' drive SUVs, but the woman who is always getting the finger for having the audacity to drive an empty SUV may have traded her car in on her doctor's recommendation because SUVs don't kill her back like cars do.


<>

First, I was speaking about my 'ideal' world and in that world no one would 'have' to hunt or fish, but it would be customary for families to hunt and fish--perhaps a tradition that most city-dwellers carried out annually. I don't believe that a family of 4 catching the legal limit of fish once a year, or three or four generations of men in the family going hunting once a year for the thanksgiving turkeys is going to wipe out the animal population even if the majority of families went hunting or fishing once a year.

Most hunters are very conscious of not overhunting. Deer hunters don't take pregnant females because they are conscious that would damage the herd next year. Rencently there has been a big educational campaign encouraging hunters to take does because there is an overabundance of them while the number of bucks, which are preferred by hunters, is becoming a concern in some areas. From what I understand, it has been very successful, and there is not going to be the shortage of bucks that worried conservationistst.

Besides, if hunting were market drivien as I think it should be and people bought lisences for the specific animal (and possibly sex) they were hunting or fishing, there would never be any worry of an animal being hunted to extinction. (Too many deers encroaching in suburban areas would call for a lisense with a low fee, fishing for salamon whose population needs to come back would be very high so not too many people are willing to spend a great deal of money to catch a few salmon.)

If you want to pretend that a hungry mountain lion is a fair opponent for a rabbit, or an eagle is a fair opponent for a chick that fell out of the nest, go ahead, but you and I both know that the law of the wild condemns the the old, the sick, the weak, the small, and the young to a horrific death.

Hunters choose full grown, healthy animals and take them will much less pain and suffering than any animal does.

As for violence, what I mean is that it's bad or good depending on how and why it's used. Invading a peaceful country to take control of their harbor is bad. Invading an oppressed country to get rid of an evil tyrant is good. Using a slingshot to make a nest fall out of a tree and then smashing the eggs inside is bad. Hunting legally to provide food for your family is good.

As for rural vs. urban poverty, a lot of articles came out about this after the 2000 census. There is a higher percentage of blacks in poverty, but the total number of whites in poverty is much larger than blacks. The majority of black poverty is urban; the majority of white poverty is rural and in large part 'invisible.' Cost of living is certainly a consideration, and I don't remember what was said about that, but those who live in poverty in urban areas, have much greater access to social services and charities, and have greater access to the job market.

Since Bill Clinton's welfare reform, poverty has decreased enormously, but not equally between blacks & whites. It has been heavily tilted toward blacks to the point that last year, the lowest number of black children were living in poverty since the beginning of LBJ's Great Society. I attrubute that to the concentration of blacks in urban areas & whites in rural areas, so I don't think it's valid to assume that urban poverty is worse than rural poverty.

I don't consider artichokes or asparagus designer foods either, that's why they weren't included as desinger vegetables in my list, but like designer foods, they are expensive to buy in the grocery store, and so, if they are adapted to your climate, you can grow them much cheaper. I wasn't speaking about things that most of us consider expensive seasonal delacasies.

In very few areas in this country, does an adequate supply and variety of vegetables 'grow like weeds' to feed a family cheaper than to buy the basics that are on sale at the store. By Tyson's I certainly didn't mean those frozen bits of pressed whatever. I was referring to regular old chicken you buy in the meat dept--Typsons, Pilgrim's Pride, whatever. You can get whole chickens for .39/lb, or boneless, skinless breast for 1.99/lb (you can probably find that for less, too). I have a hard time believing anyone can raise chickens for less when you consider all the food & water they consume in one to two years before they are ready to be slaughtered, and that doesn't even take into consideration all the diease prevention, & medical care they need ('organic' chickens are covered with various parasites & worms). There may be many reasons for raising chickens, but you'd be hard pressed to convice me that's it's for the cost savings even when you add in a few eggs and that isn't even considering all the time & labor you have to put in to care for those nasty little critters. If you developed a little business selling fresh chickens & eggs, that would be another story.

My question about free range chickens was phrased in the past. What did your friends buy before that they are comparing to the cost of raising chickens now?

If they were used to chicken & eggs from the grocery store on sale, I don't believe they are saving any money at .39/lb.

If they were used to either fresh chicken from a butcher or free range organic from a healthfood shop at $5-6/lb, that's a different story.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 01-05-2004 - 10:35am

First of all, it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree...we keep stating the same things over...


I've listed a few that I think are just as good as yours, I'm sure there are lots of other people who can come up with other reasons that they think are just as good as ours.

I just don't happen to agree with you.


Pages