Torricelli on deer hunting

Just like watching the Kefauver hearings when you were 5 days old, right Bob?

This is your typical rich snob's view of hunting.  Bob fits right in.

Back your car over it?

That sniveling rat face Torricelli has probably never hunted or shot a weapon. He certainly didn't serve in the military and this story is another example of his hatred for gun ownership.

Him and Corzine are praising the abolition of the death penalty, and has utter contempt for sportsmen, hunters, scouts and others who actually use the outdoors for recreation and sport.

I guess him and Jon will impose a ban on fatigues, tents and mess kits next.

Hey Bob: Just go away!

So what are the real chances that "Torricelli the trustworthy" actually hiked anywhere....ever... ? his knowledge of the woods is probably limited to select drop off points wherre political contributors could stuff bundles of cash in hollowed out trees... or secluded spots to take married women.

 As for his knowledge on manhood and deer, it goes without saying that he lacks standing on either issue.  First of all the autmn woods offer a feast for deer -- who  -- judging by deer population estimates are not starving in New  Jersey... nor anywhere else in the east .   Bob -- those  little round things you see on the ground around trees during your jaunts in the woods  are called nuts, or acorns.... deer eat them....lots of them.

The only place in New  Jerse where deer  have starved overr the pastt gneration was in the Great Swamp in Morris County -- when "Visionary" and humanitarian do-gooders like Mr. T helped outlaw hunting. After a few years, the deer ate themselves out of house and home....so hunting was started again. Meanwhile, the "outdoorsmen" like Torricelli, who got their knowledge of wildlife from  Disney -- continue to protest deer hunting and offer condoms to bucks ( those are male deer Bob.)

Mr. Torricelli should stick to topics he  knows something  about... like bribery, influence peddling, special interest legislation and illicit affairs.   

I guess no Asian felons ever gave Mr. Torricelli a hunting rifle as a "gift".... just gold watches, grandfather clocks, etc.

Perhaps the NJ Department of Parks should release some wolves in Hunterdon County so the deer die in a more humane way. 

Being eaten alive!

And we are to believe that "Christians" recreate themselves with guns and killing animals?  Really? I never read about Jesus stalking, torturing and maiming.  Surely this is a representation of Lucifer hiding in the woods as so called "Christian" hunters.  This is one of the few socially still acceptable arenas of pathology.  Wife beating, lynchings and group rape is no longer acceptable.  This dirty work in the woods  is a manisfestation of ignorance and pathology. To get one's adrenaline pumping by murdering and torturing animals is not a sign of intelligence in 2008. The smart people do not need this "rush" to enjoy themselves.  Avoid these folks.  They have underlying pathologies.  Check it out for yourself.

I will not address Torricelli’s post point by point.  The manner in which he attempts to make his point does far more to discredit his character and his argument than any rebuttal of mine possibly could.  However, I should point out that the basic evidence he cites in his post is hardly credible.  He uses misrepresentative, anecdotal evidence based on limited interactions with a few hunters in an attempt to vilify an entire group of people.  Just as it is unreasonable for me to conclude that all New Jersey politicians are corrupt based on Torricelli’s disgraceful tenure in office, it is unreasonable for Torricelli to make sweeping conclusions about hunters based upon the limited interactions with hunters he cites.

Some readers may be shocked not that I am defending sportsmen, but that in doing so I have defended politicians.  But I know that not all current and future New Jersey politicians are corrupt, for I intend to be a Garden State politician one day.  But Mr. Torricelli, I refuse to follow in your footsteps.  I will not be corrupt.  And I will not attack sportsmen.  I will defend them.  I will defend them not simply because I too am a sportsman; not simply because I believe in the Constitution; not simply because I believe in freedom and liberty.  I will defend them because, sir, in my America, we do not use the irresponsible and irreverent acts of the misrepresentative few to justify treading upon the treasured liberties of the masses.

I wish we had more compassionate politicians serving today like Torricelli. He is to be admired for speaking for defenseless victims that cannot speak for themselves. I am suprised at the comments here and thought NJ residents for the most part didn't have that mentality. Just because it's "tradition" doesn't make it right. We have to evolve as a society and I hope we can all become educated and enlightened, and develop enough compassion for others that we realize killing is not a "sport", and if you find enjoyment at taking the life of another, then you might have a problem.

And for those thinking I let others kill animals for me and eat them, I certainly don't. I am much healthier leaving flesh out of my diet and feel better that I'm doing all I can to protect Mother Earth.

As far as the overpopulation argument, there are more people than the Earth can take, but we aren't allowed to hunt people.

Some believe that hunting derives its "integrity" from the practice of fair play, i.e. when the animals aren't fenced in, they have a fair chance of escape.  As an ex-hunter, I disagree.

What chance do they have against a 30-06 high-powered rifle, with a 150-grain bullet, deadly accurate at 300 yards? Not much fair play or integrity when the majority of hunters sit in a tree stand or on a hilltop with a high-powered rifle that can blow a deer's heart out at 300 yards, just waiting to kill an unsuspecting deer family that strolls by.

In 2002, the Rev. Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest and authority on animal welfare, wrote an open letter to bishops in the House of Lords at the time of a debate over hunting. "The deliberate infliction of suffering on 'lesser creatures' who are wholly in our power, and who are strictly speaking, morally innocent," he wrote, "is a gross betrayal of our God-given responsibility."

Bottom line: There is no sport, fair play or integrity in hunting. It is a cowardly heritage of blood lust, and joy of killing a defenseless animal.

If it was fair play, and the deer could shoot back, how many hunters would be out in the woods?

I wonder how many of you are pro-choice? 

Mr. Torricelli’s article raises some very good points.  Form the comments that the Elmer Fudd wannabes make, it seems they travel in small circles and haven’t had a thought – much less an original thought in years.
 

Their litany of shop-worn excuses for cruelty just doesn’t work:

1)      The US constitution nowhere guarantees the right to hunt – please have somebody read it to you slowly.

2)      “If you don’t like it here move” is not an acceptable suggestion to people of principle; we would much rather stay here and change things.

3)      “It’s a tradition” does not work either: slavery, wife beating, outhouses, killing native Americans, lynch mobs are all fine American traditions that were discarded over the years. The remaining remnants of savagery have to go as well.

4)      “If you don’t like to hunt –don’t -- but don’t interfere with my enjoyment!”  How about “If you don’t like lynching people-don’t–but don’t interfere with my enjoyment!”  As a society, we have the right and obligation to abolish practices of wanton cruelty within our community.

Thank you, Mr. Torricelli for your courageous stand. Hunters are a vocal but very small part of the voting population of New Jersey.  There are 84,000 hunters in New Jersey out of a population of 6,734,000 (both numbers are of people age 16 or older) which makes hunters about 1.25% of the New Jersey population. People who have a humane orientation constitute a much larger portion of the voting public.

Ok – New Jersey politicians – it’s time to get smart. Go with times or get consigned to the dust-bin of history along the Fudds.

Dear Mr. (or Ms./Mrs.)"I love to kill animals for fun": 

Pro-Choice?

I am ProLife-ProWildlife-ProAlllife

..... that's even your pathologically driven life.  Stop hiding behind the NRA, Jesus Christ and putting food on your table.   Jesus would never hunt and party with you in a tree stand.   Jesus would weep at your desensitizing young children to blood and guts. Stop trying to rationalize your bloodlust by hiding in the robes of Christ.  You are doing Lucifer's work .... Lucifer would be the one in your tree stands, teaching kids to use a scope on chipmunks, squirrels, etc.

The Christ is welcome in my non-violent home. Would Your Christ be out trapping wildlife and taking pics to share on the internet of the bloodied carcasses?  Oh - and would Jesus be running foxes/coyotes in penning operations?  You know the answer.  Which brother travels with the trappers/hunters?  Jesus or Lucifer?  Everytime a hunter trains a child to kill an animal, Jesus weeps.  He weeps because these evils are done in his name. He weeps because the devil is stealing the sensitivities of children.   

As one who has stated that you are a man of logic, reason and decency, the proud dad of 3 rescued dogs, and has testified to your love for all creatures great and small, please explain to me the logic of how you can support the shooting, wounding and killing of sentient animals for enjoyment, that are no different than your dogs and the other creatures you avow to love.  These animals feel the same stress, terror, shock, anxiety, fear, trauma, foreboding, and pain as your dogs.  I'm wondering why a self described man of such decency and compassion isn't demanding an apology for the small wounded doe found hovering behind Mr. Torcelli's barn, whose leg was nearly severed, and who was shaking in terror.  Mr. Torcelli said her panic caused her to urinate as her wide eyes conveyed pure terror.  She couldn't move but dragged herself on three legs to attempt a futile escape.  I look forward to your response.

If you read my initial post, I describe the actions taken by the hunters Torricelli references as "less than stellar" and offered no excuse for their particular conduct.  I do not support the irresponsible slaughter of wildlife.  I do, however, support and defend the decent, honorable tradition of hunting as practiced by those in tune with the created order.  I lived in Vermont and Oklahoma for several years and witnessed the types of bonding experiences the Torch has yet to see from the vantage point of his gentleman's farm.  In Vermont, there are stiff civil penalties for those who do not act responsibly when hunting.  Most states have similar laws on the books.  These laws should be followed and, when they are ignored, the violators should be prosecuted.  If I had observed a hunter engage in the kind of grossly inapproriate conduct described by the former Senator, I would not have simply killed the doe and been satisfied to blog about it later.  I would have contacted the authorities and, if possible, confronted the hunter man to man. 

Moreover, while you may never have spent significant time in the great American heartland, many people still hunt to put food on their table.  I choose not to hunt because, as I stated previously, I can get my meat at the local A&P.  My personal moral beliefs and my abiding love for anything with fur dictate that I would only take the life of an animal if necessary to feed my family.  Killing solely for pleasure is not my cup of tea.  Most hunters I know are nothing like those portrayed either by Bob T or the posters on this thread.  I would be the first one to admonish anyone who hunted recklessly, especially given that they pose a distinct threat to all those within their proximity (see Dick Cheney and duck hunting).

Now that I've addressed your concerns, tell me George, do you equate a doe with my wife and children?  Do you feel comfortable comparing slavery and lynchings to hunting?  Are you a disciple of Ingrid Newkirk, who equates Frank Perdue's chicken business with Adolph Hitler's holocaust?  Do you hire an exterminator to kill insects in your home or step on the odd cockroach when convenient?  Do you extend an unborn child the same protections as you would Bambi?  I'll look forward to your response.

I suggest that everyone in the US stop eating any kind of meat, fish or dairy product... chicken eggs could be chickens too... LET THE CHICKENS LIVE!!

Beyond that... let's hire a special clean up crew to pick up the 10,000+ deer carcasses off the side of the road...

I'll also suggest a $238,234,394 study to analyze how effective it would be to issue "sterilization arrows" to would be hunters so that they can still enjoy their sport while performing it in a humane fashion that would also help to control population...

Regardless... hunting must certainly be outlawed as based on my own unbiased bipartisan study over 87% of hunters simply like to wound animals and leave them dying in the woods...

The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers

That sniveling pointy nose and receding hairline coupled with his weird hand gestures makes him look like a rat.

Why does anyone care what he thinks?

He's the Willard of politics!

Hans, I was posting in direct response to George's post and addressing George.  I was neither offering you any bait nor soliciting your opinion.  Or has this finer point of discourse escaped your highly-evolved self? 

Moreover, I make no apologies for objecting to any attempt to draw a moral equivalency between killing a deer and lynching/enslaving African-Americans.  It is relevant to this discourse on hunting to the extent it was employed by a poster to equate the suffering of animals with that of a specific segment of humankind.  If the relative degree of evil inherent in these infinitely disparate atrocities is insignifcant to you, I suggest you consider putting down the crack pipe and I'll arrange an intervention.  All evil deeds are indeed evil.  But certain acts of barbarism cannot logically be equated with others.  Is loosing one's temper without justification, thereby hurting someone's feelings, the same as shooting up a school yard full of toddlers?  Get real.  Using an issue such as slavery or lynching to make even the most valid point represents the worst abuse of hyperbole imaginable.

Further, you posit without qualification that hunting is intrinsically cruel, even taking the liberty to lump it in with sordid activites such as dog fighting.  I and many other less evolved sorts would repectfully disagree.  Is sitting by and watching one's family starve to death in the name of subjective moral sanctimony any less horrific than killing an animal for food?  Many hunt to feed their families.  Maybe in your suburban bubble this is an utterly foreign concept or you are of the halcyon opinion that an end to world hunger is just around the corner.  The fact of the matter is that hunting is a matter of survival for most of mankind.  

There can be no debate that hunting and predation are part of the natural order of our planet whether it be done by a human or a wolf or any other creature inhabiting a higher notch on the food chain than its prey.  Without such a predatory balance, entire populations of species such as deer will inevitably multiply to the point of exhausting their food supply.  If you wish to recreate reality based on whimsical notions best relegated to Dr. Doolittle (maybe you believe deer use condoms in furtherance of family planning objectives), be my guest.  Your fantasy will inevitably collapse under the weight of both delusion and hipocrisy as you cause far more damage to the ecological balance than you can ever hope to prevent. 

Furthermore, your argument that hunting should be abolished cannot be sustained based either on Darwinian theory or widely practiced theological doctrines.  Evolution teaches that the overriding principle by which our ecosphere progresses is survival of the fittest.  Animals that once likely utilized man as a source of food have now had the tables turned as our species adapted and overcame.  Evolution demands that we both retain and take advantage of our supremacy on the food chain.  As for religious doctrine, both Judeo-Christan and Muslim theology teaches that God gave man dominion over the earth and its creatures (often referred to as the "cultural mandate").  While a sense of stewardship is explicit in man's dominion, he is by no means precluded from drawing sustenance therefrom (I limit myself to these religious traditions because it is not feasible to conduct a more exhaustive survey of world theology in relation to hunting and they serve well enough to illustrate my point).

And Talk about an ego.  Your profession of abhorring "suffering in any and all forms" earns you the Mother Teresa of Calcutta prize for dramatic license.  Have you ever eaten a living creature?  Have you ever swatted a fly?  If you have, I must refer you to the myriad blogs dealing with the death penalty on this site.  It's time to come clean and turn yourself in as the murderous consumptionist beast that you are.  The bottomline is that your sole justification for your purely subjective views regarding the social utility of hunting is exactly that -- YOUR purely subjective views regarding the social utility of hunting.  Anyone who disagrees is automatically a child of a lesser god, bereft of any semblance of humanity and condemned to walk the earth in trogloditic rage. 

Finally, for the record, I have made it clear that I do not support the kind of gratuitous, irresponsible hunting that was described by his Torchishness.  Any attempt on your part to associate me with such loathesome conduct is beyond intellectually dishonest and betrays a terminal inability to engage in rational discourse on an issue to which I am genuinely sympathetic.  

I would say that this would end the conversation, but I know better.  Those astral travellers such as yourself who emanate from a constellation consecrated to ending all forms of animal, vegetable and mineral suffering can never compromise the values they feel impelled to force on their fellow man.  Live long and prosper, Hans.       

Why not let hunter's bait the halls of Trenton and Congress with pay to play money and contributor gifts to get those hefty do good politicians out so hunters could take down and possibly wound creatures a lot more dangerous to mankind? 

When did we become such an unforgiving people?...sob

Mr. Torricelli is an astute observer of the pathological killers who refer to themselves “sportsmen” and “conservationists”, “harvesting” thousands of wild animals, doing their civic duty by killing every animal in sight.  What they are intentionally doing is insuring that herd numbers provide an adequate herd size for their next year’s hunt.   How they manage to aim their weapons at all, while waving that American flag with such exaggerated vigor is a mystery.  But it would explain their hunting accidents, at least the ones that are reported.  Because not only are hunters killing wildlife, they’re wounding and killing each other.  There is nothing ethical or moral about killing for pleasure.  Hunting is a moral and intelligence issue (or lack thereof).  As hunting infiltrates more suburban areas, safety is an issue more than ever, putting residents and their pets at risk.  Now they want to involve children in their “sport”, which is based on violence, and the total lack of regard for an animal to live its life.  True sport is about competition on a level playing field.  Blasting an animal that has been baited, with a high powered rifle or with a bow, from a blind, dressed in camouflage is hardly fair or “sportsmanlike”.  Apparently, only true “Americans” and “patriots” are those dressed in camouflage licking an animal’s blood off their fingers.  Tell me, do you masturbate to pass the time up in those stands awaiting your prey?  The bigger the weapon, the smaller the “tool.”

For anyone who thinks that hunted food is safer, please understand the following: 

Chronic wasting disease, a deadly deer illness related to "mad cow," has been discovered in many states. Meat from one of the infected New York deer was fed to people at a fire department fund-raiser before any test results were complete.  The meat was finally inspected only because the man who donated the deer thought it looked ill.

Typically, deer meat is NOT even inspected. Just because a butcher is an approved USDA butcher -- that has nothing to do with his ability to test.  It only means that his facility is clean enough.

And, venison can be pesticide and herbicide laden. 

An article on Ted Nugent's site said, "Some hunters too squeamish to eat their kill are donating the venison to pantries for the homeless."

Infectious prions have been found in deer "meat."  In other words, the proteins which cause chronic wasting disease have been discovered in deer muscle -- the part of the animal that is eaten. They had been thought to be only in nervous-system tissue, including brain, spinal and lymph tissues.

A person who eats venison could swallow the proteins shown to cause the deadly brain disease.

Health officials have long reassured hunters they would not be exposed to the disease as long as they did not touch or eat those parts. However, this is quite a breakthrough in research.

Chronic wasting disease, a fatal form of brain degeneration, has been spreading among wild deer in for at least a decade.

The time between a person's exposure to an aberrant prion and the first sign of symptoms is often more than a decade.  So just because people don't get ill immediately means nothing.

How Do You Test For CWD?  The only sure and practical way to diagnose CWD is through microscopic examination of the brain stem of a deer or elk. Recently, research indicated that using ELISA testing on lymph nodes appears reliable as a screening method for the disease. However, immunohistochemistry testing of obex portion of brain stem remains the most reliable and accurate test available.

A test for live animals, involving the removal of tonsils, is currently in experimental and research stages. Testing for CWD is done by federally-approved laboratories; there is no quick test that you or your meat processor can perform to determine if your animal has CWD.

How interesting that some states grant IMMUNITY OF DONORS OF WILD GAME MEAT for free use by a charitable organization from civil or criminal liability arising from an injury or death attributable to the nature, age, condition or packaging of the donated wild game meat if the injury or death is not a result of the gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct of the donor.

Mr. Torricelli, Rather than waste my energy and time debating hunting and the second amendment with liberal wussies, and an ex-politician(and I'm being very kind); I will spend my time and energy telling you please do not  let your dog run around the woods uncontrolled and unsupervised, as your dog may kill and/or harm wildlife and livestock.  In fact, most farmers see a loose dog as a threat to their stock and will shoot the dog, as they have a right to protect their stock.  If you truly love your dog, control your dog. 

:o

we are much more safe eating at taco bell...

in fact...  we better require inspections of all the farmers markets and their kitchens...

i hereby suggest a ban on all food...  it's the only way to be safe from e coli and other such bacteria...   

The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers

I am an ex-hunter, gun owner, Christian and registered Independent. I point this out up front because many on this thread seem to miscategorize everyone against hunting as being liberal.

I quit hunting because I no longer enjoyed killing the wildlife that I had come to love. I've experienced enough death and tragedy in my life, and it was no longer acceptable for me to bring any suffering to defenseless animals.

The claim that hunters hunt for food is typical propaganda to justify hunting. It cost a lot more money to go hunting than to the grocery store to put food on the table. All of the hunters I hunted with and know, were trophy hunting. We were looking to bag big bucks with big racks. The food was an incidental, that we would gladly give away.

I also disagree with an earlier justification for hunting made, i.e. if left unchecked the deer population would grow out of control and that they would suffer from starvation and disease. This is just not true. If left unchecked the deer and other game animal populations, like all other animal populations that are not hunted, stabilize to their environment and food supply. In fact, hunting increases the deer population thru compensatory reproduction.

In addition, it is a fact that hunting dramatically increases deer-car accidents. Hunting has a disruptive effect by startling deer and putting them on the run, and wounded deer run without caution into the streets. Erie Insurance Group even states that the amount of deer-vehicle collisions "rose nearly five times on the first day of buck season and doe season". As a result, the Wildlife Agencies that spend millions of dollars to increase the deer population for their hunter constituents, and the hunters themselves are directly responsible for many of the deaths that result from deer-car accidents during hunting season.

Furthermore, I don't think it's a valuable lesson to teach children to kill. Children have a natural empathy toward animals, and being forced to kill them can cause life long psychological problems. Loving nature has nothing to do with killing it. As Paul Watson, an ex Sierra Club board member said: "You can't love or respect nature with a gun."

Since some on this thread want to frame hunting as a partisan debate, I would suggest that you read Matthew Scully's book, " Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." Mr. Scully served until recently as special assistant and deputy director of speechwriting to U.S. President George W. Bush.

See Herbert Spencer's book Principles of Biology

The weak "prey" would not be considered a desirable mate to other "prey" that is the theory. Trust me I am right on this this is not liberal academic brainwashing it is the true scientific theory understood as Survival of the fittest. The "prey" that was eaten by wolves is not considered "fit" therefor his genes will not be passed to the next generation of "prey". Furthermore, even if you were correct (and by no means are you, you sre completely wrong) would it be such a major accomplishment if a human claimed to be more "fit" than a deer? I can rest easy knowing that I am more fit than a wild animal and I have never shot one. I will never shoot one, and will always understand that I am am a more eveolved being.  As I have stated I do not want hunting to be illegal, but the arguments that natural deer populations will not naturally regulate their population (yes if too many deer exist in a particular area and they exhaust their food sources many will die and decrease the population-this is natural allbeit sad), that hunting is a bonding expirience that is unparralled, that the thrill is unmatched is simply bogus.  If an individual wishes to eat rabbit or deer or whatever and they wish to hunt to obtain it that is their right, but those who revel in the suffering and the death of the animal are simply cruel. Furthermore, hunting to hang an animals head on a wall is by far the most grotesque behavior that any hunter can exhibit.  Do you really need evidence that you killed something, is it normal to want to surround yourself with carcasses, do you need an example that screams "I AM THE MAN THE SLAYED THIS BEAST (Of course by beast i mean a herbavore that does not have a means of fighting back)"That is not a sport, it is not thrilling, it is not sane, that is sociopathic. 

Bobby, end my misery and go away!  No one wants your opinion on anything.  You are an example of what we are trying to get rid of in New Jersey, corrupt representatives who think that the office is their's to rob the hard working people of New Jersey.  The hunter you describe might be fat, and look like a slob, but I bet he never took a bribe, or a kickback!  Go away and allow us to try and rebuild the reputation of this state.

"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything."
                --Theodore Roosevelt--