Yeah, hunting for food and other worthy reasons is perfectly fine by me. *Randomly* killing things (as I mentioned) is simply not fair, or needed.

And if you’re “Huntin’ Wabbits” and your name is Fudd, then that’s just entertaining.

Accipiter - 15 December 2007 04:50 PM

.................

In the case of this kid, it’s pretty clear that at least one big part of the reason for shooting the bear was to teach the boy how to do it; shooting at paper targets is all very well for learning the technique, but at some point you have to shoot at the real thing in order to really become proficient.  I just wonder which from among the other above reasons they did it.

Shooting the ‘real’ thing in order to become proficient doesn’t equate to shooting a critter.  However, other humans are because they are (professedly) at least equal in intelligence as the shooter. 

So, what’s wrong with paint ball or laser shooting with human opponents to get proficient at the ‘real’ thing.

hulitoons - 16 December 2007 07:28 AM

Shooting the ‘real’ thing in order to become proficient doesn’t equate to shooting a critter.  However, other humans are because they are (professedly) at least equal in intelligence as the shooter. 

So, what’s wrong with paint ball or laser shooting with human opponents to get proficient at the ‘real’ thing.

Paintball or laser systems are all great for practicing with, yes.  You can learn techniques that way.  But you know that they are just paint balls or light beams.  You get all the fun without any of the consequences.  Similarly, when you shoot a real animal instead of a target (or instead of terrorising some animal by zapping it with paintballs), you then have to (or should, if you’re being taught right) deal with the consequences of having to dress the carcass and things like that.  You actually have a dead critter there that you must acknowledge.  That should be a part of learning to hunt:  learning that after you shoot something, there’s still a lot more to do.  Otherwise, you’re just encouraging them to think of hunting as nothing but a game and that they can just shoot things and then walk away.

So if you’re only going to be hunting for the sport of it, then paintballs would be fine.  But if you’re learning to hunt so that you can actually take home food or to protect your livestock or something like that, then you need to learn more than just zapping critters.

Accipiter - 16 December 2007 04:28 PM

.......... But you know that they are just paint balls or light beams.  You get all the fun without any of the consequences.  Similarly, when you shoot a real animal instead of a target (or instead of terrorising some animal by zapping it with paintballs), you then have to (or should, if you’re being taught right) deal with the consequences of having to dress the carcass and things like that.  You actually have a dead critter there that you must acknowledge.  That should be a part of learning to hunt:  learning that after you shoot something, there’s still a lot more to do.  Otherwise, you’re just encouraging them to think of hunting as nothing but a game and that they can just shoot things and then walk away.

So if you’re only going to be hunting for the sport of it, then paintballs would be fine.  But if you’re learning to hunt so that you can actually take home food or to protect your livestock or something like that, then you need to learn more than just zapping critters.

I do agree, especially with the ‘consequences’. 

My father had to hunt in order to feed us when we were very young.  He also raised rabbits which we ate as our mainstay meat.  We were taught VERY early that nothing, absolutely nothing was to be wasted because the animal’s life had to be sacrificed so that we could eat.  All fur was tanned and sold.  All entrails were delivered to the garden compost and then to the soil.  Feathers were used to refill pillows and nothing, ever, was wasted. 

Part of any training with guns, rifles, bows, traps etc. should include all steps.  But I have serious doubts that this 5-year old has yet been indulged the way we were at the same age.

I have, therefore, huge respect for critters and do not ever celebrate game sport….....ever.

hulitoons - 16 December 2007 06:32 PM

He also raised rabbits which we ate as our mainstay meat. . . .Feathers were used to refill pillows and nothing, ever, was wasted.

Were these rabbit feathers? 

But I have serious doubts that this 5-year old has yet been indulged the way we were at the same age.

Yeah, that’s the thing I wonder about with this kid being taught to shoot.  From the article, there’s no way to tell if he’s being taught responsibly or not.  I can only hope that, being the great-great-great-great-great-great grandson of Davy Crockett, he is learning how to hunt properly.

Accipiter - 16 December 2007 07:06 PM

hulitoons - 16 December 2007 06:32 PM

He also raised rabbits which we ate as our mainstay meat. . . .Feathers were used to refill pillows and nothing, ever, was wasted.

Were these rabbit feathers? 

A new secret breed of Jackalope maybe?

Cousin to the flibbertigibbits, maybe.

You mean no one here ever heard of Chabbits?

Tah - 11 December 2007 08:20 PM

I also like how the grandfather dismisses the fact that Davy Crockett probably didn’t really kill a bear when he was three.  Yet this kid was shooting a gun at 2 1/2 and killed three deer the previous year (at age 4). 

I’d say it’s physically possible for an under-3 to shoot and kill a bear but I think they may have said 3 because it rhymes better. Now don’t go and shoot me. It’s still a feat for a 5 or 6 year old.
There are Alamo myths that are being debunked like Bowey fighting on his feet. I think it’s now agreed he was sick in bed. And there are others.
Anyone every heard of the De La Pena Narrative that claims Crockett did not get killed in the attack at the Alamo but was captured and executed instead like in the last Alamo movie with Billy Bob Thornton. Americans claim it’s a hoax but I think Billy Bob might have got it right. Some of the Americans seem to offended at the notion which casts no shadow on Crockett but only on the absolute accuracy of American legend. The narrative doesn’t say he surrendered but only that he was captured alive.

Wikipedia has come to the rescue of American history and confirms that Crockett did not die as a prisoner of war as depicted in the Hancock version of the Alamo. Three witnesses say he did die fighting in the Alamo near the entrance to the chapel.
The narrative of Santana officer, Jose Enrique de la Pena, if authentic, must have been embellished or he incorrectly identified Crockett. The author definitely got Colonel Travis’ death wrong but I believe most of the movies use this version.
I saw a documentary on the memoir a year ago and it showed investigators using satellite technology to prove the authenticity of the narrative. The account said Santana’s army got split up at a fork in the trail during a snowstorm 6 miles from a campsite and investigators were able to find this fork in the road at the right spot and find a separate camp where Mexican army artifacts were found. So the memoir isn’t a hoax but that doesn’t mean everything in it has to be true.