ahannityclone's comment history

ahannityclone said...

Let's all be honest here, this has nothing to do with fishing, legal or not. This entire bloviation of an "article" is nothing but an effort by the liberal author, David Cook, to further inject a pitiful case of race-baiting based racial argument during a time when it is "vogue" to do so by the media. Where was Mr. Cook when white people break game and fish laws and get fined and/or lose the right to hunt or fish in out State and many others? The answer is no where will you find that argument because it does not fit his obvious bias and racial-based narrative! Surprising, well maybe not, is the TFP's support of this when that goes against everything ethical, impartial journalism is supposed to be—if you wanted "shock value"...well, I guess you got it.

Instead of using this issue of game and fish violations, along with being in Our country illegally, to stand behind Our Written Laws and supporting the law enforcement agencies that enforce those laws, Mr. Cook decided to side with criminals—obviously the TFP has chosen the same. When will the TFP openly support murder and robbery—there is no difference, a law is a law and those that break those laws are criminals.

Since Mr. Cook has chosen to use this topic of game and fish laws, I'll play on that court for moment. First of all, people of all ethnic backgrounds illegally hunt and fish everyday, and those same people are caught and brought to justice by TWRA Wildlife Officers everyday—it is not a color issue, it is a breaking the law issue. Although, as far as fishing below the dams and banks goes, I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have seen a "brown" person, as Mr. Cook wrongfully calls Hispanics, or Asian person throw a short (illegal) fish in their bucket or go way over the daily creel limit—it is reported every time I see it. I can't check their license, but I know for a fact that a significant percentage of those do not have a fishing license. Why doesn't Mr. Cook report on the robbing, abuse and bastardization of a resource(fishing) that the TWRA has been charged to protect for the use of future generations of All individuals-I guess it is okay with him if someone came to his house and robbed him! Instead the TFP and Mr. Cook are more interested in shamefully accusing an agency of being a racist based agency when all the TWRA is trying to guarantee is a viable resource for everyone's use—present and future, including Mr. Cook and the editor of the TFP.

Instead of a shock and awe approach, why doesn't Mr. Cook and the Editor of The TFP return to the days when a media outlet reported from the facts with impartiality and a sense of ethics?

July 24, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
ahannityclone said...

Headcoconut, I can do this type of thing indefinately—especially the issues that involve deer attacks and deer/auto collisions, which are directly related to why these type of management practices must continue to be utilized. People that oppose hunting, especially for the reasons listed below, should meet with people that have been directly affected by these type of accidents. What amazes me is to the extent that people that share your beliefs will go to too end hunting. Why do you not apply the same type of force to drunk driving, domestic violence or automobile crashes related to speed or reckless driving—those issues take far more human lives.

"Wildlife agents were trying to capture a grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park on Monday after it killed a Michigan hiker in the second fatal bear attack this summer at the famed park."

"On Sept. 25, Ron Dudek went into his back yard to pick tomatoes when he unexpectedly came upon a 6-foot-tall deer next to his house. The buck hit him with its antlers in the face, tearing a hole in his cheek and shoving the bony antler into his mouth"

"Emmie Webb, the middle back seat passenger, was traveling with her dad, 10 and 13-year-old sisters, and 11-year-old brother when a deer darted in front of the vehicle near the Old Hickory Boulevard intersection, Metro police said. The impact sent the deer through the windshield and into the passenger compartment where it struck Emmie in the head, police said. She died at the scene."

October 22, 2011 at 10:40 p.m.
ahannityclone said...

InquiringMind, you obviously speak to that of which you know nothing about. To begin with, so you would like to see the re-introduction of wolves? Do you have any idea what a population of wolves can and will do--obviously you do not. The wolf is an indiscriminate killer, they kill deer, squirrel, rabbit, neighborhood cats and dogs and potentially human beings when there is a hungry pack, or if they feel threatened. However, you don't have to worry about it because they can't survive here--seen any in the last 100 years? You also show your vast ignorance and true bias in your claim about deer meat. Okay, so you may not like the taste of meat, but why try to push your lifestyle on others--most of us do not like a Vegan diet either. In fact, many of us, Chefs like Gordon Ramsey included, can cook venison in ways that would blow your mind, tastebuds as well. My third point, you claim that we hunt to fuel our "quenching testosterone-fueled blood thirst", well I hate to correct you--yet again, but the majority of hunters just like being out in the outdoors and we only take what we need. Often, we let the majority of deer we see walk away unharmed. Often hunters do much more for wildlife and the enviroment than the normal taxpayer. We understand what it means to take care of the resource we use; meanwhile people like you, Diane Dixon and Ms. Farrell only sponge off of it's beauty that is maintained and supported by others! So instead of using baseless opinion-fueled attacks, why don't you investigate and study the topic you wish to comment on instead of proving to everyone how ignorant you appear on subject matter you obviously know nothing about.

October 22, 2011 at 4:56 p.m.
ahannityclone said...

Illusion and Savarti, I completely understand that you do not have all of the information you need to form an argument that is based on factual data--it is no fault of your own, you just don't have any reason to understand the reason why the TWRA wants hunters to hunt within a set of guidelines, instead you choose an "emotion" based argument that is scientifically flawed like Ms. Dixon's "emotion" based argument. Hunting is as much of a tradition in families that goes back generations, as it is the most effective tool in managing a particular species. The deer at Enterprise have had their habitat altered and taken away due to the arrival of VW, because of that the deer have become compressed in a smaller location (wonder where all of you that are so "concerned" with the deer's well-being at then when they lost a considerable portion of habitat?). Because of this, there is only so much viable food for the entire herd. The proof is in the stats. Data gained from this past hunt has shown the average weight is down over the prior year which only means one thing--declining herd health. Is it to the point of failure? Not yet, that is the reason for the hunt to maintain and/or improve the health of the herd. What causes a weight decline? Sickness/disease and lack of food--and the two are very directly correlated as lack of food causes the first. You do not need to get an exact "head count" as many are calling for, because frankly you will never be able to see every herd member. Biologists use field obtained data such as age, sex, weight, stomach contents and other measurements to very accurately describe what is going on within the herd. To call an end to hunting because of reasons that cannot be backed up biologically is extremely irresponsible on anyone's part--especially when it is in an effort to "protect" the health and survivability of the herd! If you have ever witnessed a deer herd that struggles to survive because of limitations to its enviroment, mainly food, it would break your heart and I promise you would change your mind--as would any logical and sympathetic individual! As far as the other comments, hunting in any form (with a weapon,or a camera for census purposes) is much more difficult than 99% would believe, and if you Illusion have in fact hunted before then you wouldn't be making such claims. Also, what right does any one group have to lay 100% claim to any piece of public, taxpayer property Savarti? How would you feel if 95% of taxpayers believed it should be an exclusive hunting preserve and you could only use it as a Nature Park for four days a year, on days that studies have shown are the slowest traffic days? Kind of a ridiculous, selfish and elitiest claim to land that everyone owns isn't it? By the way, shooting a gun doesn't not make anyone "manly"--it never has and never will--and no gun owner will ever make that claim. Educating yourself and being a productive role-model to society and your family is what makes a man!

October 14, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.
ahannityclone said...

LibDem, believe it or not, we are closer together in our beliefs than we are apart on this issue, and it is like that for many, many hunters also—our number one goal is to preserve nature. I agree and do not like that all of the natural habit is being slowly altered, changed and gone forever because of our human greed and belief in superiority over the enviroment in our effort to increase our own comforts and lifestyle demands. On a side informational note in case it comes up again for you in the future, the range of the wolf is almost exclusive to Canada and Alaska—our climate is to warm for them to be down here. Although, there is a wolf re-introduction program trying to place out west in the mountains, which many are arguing the percieved benefits to the enviroment in doing so and the wolves ability to live, we do not have to worry about them here—thank goodness! The Red Wolf is the only one that has been able to survive down here, and the last report of their existence was in 1905.

October 11, 2011 at 8:37 p.m.
ahannityclone said...

Also I need to direct a few things. LibDem, you stated "This is perfect. Take away their grazing, then kill them for being hungry.", actually that is much further from the truth than you could imagine. Right now the herd is doing good, and is in sound health—in other words, they are not hungry. By managing the herd, we as hunters are able to remove a certain number of mouths from the table, so to speak, so no member has to be "hungry" as you stated. You must understand that deer are one of the few species in North America, and especially in this region, that does not have any natural predators to keep the herd balanced.

headcoconut, I have thought long and hard about should I respond to you, or not. With all of you comments, I really hope that you use no animal products at all (most soaps) and are a strict vegetarian. At least LibDem has the courage to come out and admit it! Actually there coconut, it has been proven that plants do have a mechanism to react to injury, so do they feel pain as well? What are you going to eat now, because I know you don't want to be called a hypocrite. In response to this statement of yours, "Anyone who would murder bambi for sport, or even food, won't hesitate to kill humans for the same. Even food if the economy continues on its tragic decline. Remember, early English settlers did in fact practice cannablism in American colonies." Question, why would I have the need to kill another human for food, or for their food, if I have all of the food I need because I hunt and fish? That is just an example of how little thought and reasoning you have placed in all of your posts—they are nothing more than random bloviating. I want you to back that entire statement up and qualify it. Warning I do hold a degree in History and I will call you out on any irregularities within your response—let us see if your as educated as you claim to be, or desire to be.

October 11, 2011 at 5:23 p.m.
ahannityclone said...

To begin with, I am amazed at the sheer beauty of deer, turkey, Eastern Bluebirds and just about every other lifeform that coexists with us each day, and most of us hunters are this way, and have been raised this way for generations—we take only what we need, we replace and we leave nature as good, or better than we found it. It is for that reason that I also hunt. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of us hunt as a means to help provide for our families, but we also do it to protect the well being of certain wildlife—deer being one of those. Such as the case with this nature preserve and these four day hunts. I do understand the argument you people that disagree with the need for this hunt, and for hunting in general, are making. However, the majority of you do not understand how herd dynamics as far as age and gender structure, habitat capabilities and health risks affect an overall deer herd. What happens when an area is overpopulated and there is not enough food to sustain a healthy lifestyle amoung the inhabitants within that ecosystem and how does that health affect the health of other species within that ecosystem—don't believe me, Africa is a classic example of an over-populated area with not enough food to sustain its inhabitants. An area like Enterprise South has the ability to sustain 15-20 deer per square mile with a buck/doe ratio of 2 to 1—and that is for the most part the baseline for the Whitetail species. If hunting is eliminated, then the population will increase at a fairly dramatic because deer are actually quite prolific reproducers—the average doe will have 2 fawns per year in a healthy population. Once that population reaches a certain level of habitat sustainability then the deer start eating the same plants and they increase the chance of spreading mouth-mouth spread diseases amoung each other and potentially to other forms of life. Diseases such as EHD, CWD and other forms of spongiform encephalopathies actually do have the potential, albeit minimal, to be passed onto to humans according to scientists and new research. Not to mention the deer that will leave the area in search for food in highly populated urban areas where their chance of death by automobile accidents or other urban activity greatly increases. All of that being said, once again I do understand the argument, but I fail to see the logic, or any scientific data in the argument—I only am seeing emotional based reasoning, which has been proven ineffective at managing anything over the years.

October 11, 2011 at 5:02 p.m.
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.