they kill the trees on my land and have no other worth than being an easy kill if you are stranded or stuck out somwhere i shoot every one i can find

hard on hunting dogs. shoot on site

Hmmm.... let's see, what about all those useless rabbits that eat all the forest greenery, or the grouse that damage the shrubbery eating the buds of next years growth, or those nuisance pheasants that nibble all the corn,and don't forget those horrible turkeys that destroy the mushrooms popping up under the leaves that they scratch and scatter everywhere..oh and especially the danged deer and moose and elk that mercilessly strip and expose the cambium of every tree that they rub..Kill em' all, leave em'lay and walk away triumphantly as if you've just perpetrated a good deed. Advocating wanton killing in the woods strictly for your egoic pleasure supported by a lame police style reason such as "forest destruction" seems to be out of the realm of true sportsman behavior and borders on immature bloodlust. I was raised to believe that you eat what you kill and leave the rest of the balancing act to mother nature. I am an avid hunter and have encountered many pork's in the woods and have NEVER been alarmed at the destruction they have wreaked in the forest. Your article left a bitter taste in my mouth and frankly I was not impressed by it or your picture.Somewhere in our behaviors and mindset as true sportsman there has to exist a place for allowing animals their place in the environment and I detect more and more this ridiculous attitude amongst us that we are the powerful,Dominant police of all living creatures and they had better by God. tow the mark or we will shoot em' on site !!! Oh yeah I forgot.. all those evil songbirds,squirrels, black bears etc..have you ever watched them STRIP a berry bush or glean the forest of acorns? Rotten B**tards. Kiull em on sight !! EGADS...

RAbear51 stated my thoughts exactly. You give a bad name to anyone calling themselves a sportsman. I'm surprised the NAH magazine would print this trash.

I agrre whole heartly with RAbear51, shame on you. To kill just because you think it's justified is wrong. If a porky is eating the sidding of your home then I could see ending the destuction. Seems to me that porky would thin the canopy so that new growth would have a chance to flurrish, remember everything has a reason of being there. Josh, I guess since you were not finding any grouse you needed to fill your blood lust as a man or a "hunter" thats to bad.

Porcupines eat trees. So do beaver. This is what nature has intended for them to do. To kill something merely for eating what nature has decided it should eat is not only foolish but ludicrous.

Do you really think that anti-hunters do not visit this type of online site for no other reason that to get examples of our own words to use against us? I can promise you that they do. And a topic like this gives them a lot of ammo to use in an attempt to paint all hunters as kill crazy clowns.

One question: Is porcupine a legal animal to take in your area? Just because it is there doesn't mean it is a legal quarry. For instance, in my native Colorado they are not listed as a game animal, a furbearer or a varmint. And that mean they fall under the category of non-game wildlife and they can not be hunted. I don't know the regulations where you live, but doing this where I'm from would be costly and illegal.

I feel the same about people who will stop their car and kill a snake (or run over it). If you see a snake on the road, why kill it. You are not going to be walking around here are you. A good friend of mine came out and we walked up the field hunting quail. We saw a redtail hawk circle around and he said if the hawk comes close enough I will shoot it. I told him that if he did my wife would whip him, we love to watch the big hawks around the house. I explained that the big hawks weren't any danger to quail, I had never seen them catch a quail. Rats, rabbits, snakes, and other bigger animals make up their diet. He admitted that he did not know what their diet really was.

I think you all need to take a big chill pill and calm down you are acting like a bunch of two year old babies.

RAbear51, all of the critters you mentioned dont kill what they eat. shoot em!

porkies r over populated here. thats why game commission released fishers to kill them. have you ever pulled a mouth full of quills out of a coon dogs mouth? i also hunt rabbits but they are few but hawks r plenty. there has to be even ground. you cant let 1 species flourish at the expense of another. hawks have taken my neighbors chickens

It was mentioned that the porkies kill the trees REALLY lets see with out the trees you have no oxygen to breath so you still want to save them or yourself.

It is pretty bad, to plan ahead to kill every animal of a certain type that you see. Everything has a purpose, and it being gone from a habitat does have an impact on something. If you can't be happy without shooting something, buy a video game !

the dogs will live the trees will grow we are not in danger of running out of oxygen they may be a nuisence but entertaining to watch when nothing else is moving by the stand i havent seen a pig yet that caused me any harm i rebuild the stands

I've been told they are tasty, never tried one, not that many around where I live, if any. I have never seen one on Chichagof Island.

Don't kill any animal just because you do not agree with thier agenda. Every animal serves some purpose in the large scheme of things, even though you don't see the outcome.

I've been happy to watch the comments flow in about this blog post throughout the weekend. It's great to see the variety of opinions and passion about the topic; that's why the HuntingClub.com blogs have a "comments" feature, and also why we often ask NAHC members to weigh-in!

In response to some of the “shame-on-me” comments above -- best summarized by RABear51 -- I respect your opinion, but don't agree with it. To say I advocate killing quill pigs -- or any creature -- for pure bloodlust or because it boosts my ego, is way off base. I invite you to spend more than 5 minutes on our website to view other work I've written, which is a better reflection of my overall character as a sportsman and hunter. However, I’ll warn you: Words could never express the appreciation and respect I have for nature and wildlife.

This post was intended to share my opinion about porcupines, which is that they're "intriguing," beautiful creatures, but depending on property or wildlife management goals, they are a varmint. Every tree I've found a porcupine in has been either destroyed or on its way to being destroyed. Yes, every creature is somehow an integral part of the ecosystem and forest landscape, but long ago humans and sportsmen came into the picture and decided to manage (not thoughtlessly "police") wildlife and natural resources to achieve a healthy balance between man and nature. With that, individual opinions vary greatly.

In the case of private areas I hunt, such as the one referenced in the post, landowners prefer to manage their timber and resources how they see fit, not let a varmint make decisions for them. So, instead of letting their costly homemade treestands and valuable trees get chewed to pieces and damaged by porcupines, they choose to have them shot. Much like the Minnesota DNR now plans to do to manage the state's wolf population. Just like a farmer who kills beavers to prevent flooding of his field. Just like hunters who kill coyotes to improve deer, turkey or grouse populations.

If done legally and ethically (yes, it's legal to kill porcupines in Wisconsin), land and wildlife management of private property is a personal choice for landowners, and land and wildlife management on public grounds is driven by a general public consensus.

To each his own! And please, keep sharing your own! It’s difficult to be well-rounded sportsmen without a variety of opinions, data and experiences to help shape our views.

Well Josh I guess you have the right to your opinion, but I hope your dog(If you have one) doesn't get loose and someone might think he has no use on the property. Killing porkies because of timber management? Rationalizing it doesn't help.

I hope if you continue to shoot them, you'll at least consider eating them in the future. It's a shame to waste any kill. Even the quills can be sold or donated to make jewelry or decorations. I've even seen them used for fishing lures/flies.

Josh, I have to agree with everything I have read, and to those wondering...yes porcupine is edible and actually quite good as long as it is properly cleaned, and cooked. I have only had it once in my life...and found it very good. My grandfather, RIP, cooked it when I was rather young. And while very rare here in upstate NY I have had the honor of seeing a few in my hunting escapades. As with any creature, at the time, and even now I am not sure of the laws here on porcupine harvest but finding this blog has intrigued me into finding out...So I thank NAHC and especially Josh for for putting a "quill" in my cap to learn something about hunting I do not know.

Josh,
The wording in the second paragraph of your piece undermines your weak reasoning in your response to my comment. Note the word "always". And the last comment of your piece.."a quiet home on the forest floor.. Sounds like an unfettered urge to "kill sumthin' " and to leave it lay is unquestionably Wanton Waste. I didn't detect any mention of the landowners where you "hunt" submitting a request for your management assistance. I instead picked up on a lifelong practice of spicing up a slow hunting/harvesting day with some thrill killing. I believe that you have a love of your hunting experience and the outdoors in general just as I do but I gently suggest that you re=evaluate your motives for killing a creature and especially for leaving one lay. Yes porkies ARE table fare and have been eaten by many folks throughout our country's history. I am not saying"Don't kill Porkies" but couldn't we at least try to find a use for that just ended life?A comment was submitted suggesting artistic and other practical uses for various parts of the critter.Mepps lure company STILL purchases squirrel tails and feathers etc. Something to think about. Lots to think about and Thank You for your response.

Josh,
Forgive me for adding just a couple more thoughts... Research the word "POLICY" in reference /relation to my use of the word "POLICE" and just for the record...EVERY morning at approx. 5:00 I log on to my club webpage and enter the contests and peruse the readings that interest me or that I didn't catch in my magazine. I have been a life member for many years now and take a daily, active interest in my club membership. I have done field testing and in general participate in my membership...far more time than I should spend (way more than your offered 5 mins.) is spent by me on this site. I love my membership and I appreciate the info that I glean from it. I was just taken aback by your latest article and felt that it lacked balance. No harm/no foul !! Thanks for your efforts !

i think all the tree huggers should post their comments on the tree hugger magazine website and stay off the hunter websites.

Unless they are eating your camp leave them alone. They are the only animal a lost hungry man can chase down and kill with a stick.

To my fellow members; RAbear51, long52, LBshooter, flags, marxhunter, Countywide, and dive2909:
I am amazed at the overwhelmingly “PETA flavored”, “bleeding heart”, “high horsed”, “Holier then thou” responses that you have given to this post. Now, before you get to upset try and consider that you have set the tone of this rebuttal. You are not the only ones that disagree with Josh’s view of “quill pigs”. You are, however, the only ones who have been unable to simply state that you feel differently without needing to “correct” the ideology of everyone else.
In exercising the rights that you feel you have to pass judgment, shame on all of you for the tone and condescending nature of your comments. I can’t help but notice that they sound frighteningly close to the arguments of anti-hunting and anti-gun adversaries that would love to strip us of the rights that have in these areas.
Josh posed a question at the beginning of his article, “..do you consider them to be docile forest friends or harmful pricks?” He then proceeded to give you his answer and invite you for yours. You then proceeded to inform him how “wrong” his answer was. In return I would like to remind you that your answers, in my opinion, would lump you with porcupines: “harmful pricks”.
All heated debate aside, every hunter’s opinion is just that; his or her opinion. As long as an activity is not illegal and does not put any one at risk, it is their decision. It is very unfair and, I would add, un-sportsman like to require everyone to share your views. I can’t help but think that if this article had been about coyotes no one would have had an issue.
I agree with Josh in his view of “quill pigs”. They are a pest. Just like coyote, raccoon, rats, mice, termites, etc. If you don’t feel that way that’s fine. (Now, was that so hard.)

I love it!! I can see the valid points on both sides. I do believe in managing varmints/pest. That being said managing doesn't mean killing everyone that is seen. We manage our beloved whitetails by kulling the ones that don't quite live up to our desired standards and harvesting enough does to keep a well balanced herd. We don't manage by the if it's brown it down method. I also believe that if it's killed we should use as much of the prey as we can. If nothing else clean it and give it to the dogs. Anyway I love the club and have for many years. I've only had a couple of articles that rubbed me the wrong way, and that is out of a lot of articles. You'll never please everybody and we can all post our opinions on here to share our thoughts. You have to admit that this is still the best hunting site on the web.

me personally I would only shoot a porkypine to eat something just to stay alive
I was taught if you are not going to eat it then don't shoot it and if it was a life or death situation that any animal was attacking man or a child weather it is a dog, bear, wolf or any other animal is to do what it takes to protect the victim of some of these attacks just look at what happened to the guy in Indea with the leopard
as far as the porks go they have to eat what is natural to them to survive in the eco system
with that said I would consider myself nuetral on this subject

In the Up of Michigan after the cabin is closed up for the winter they come and chew up the soffit, the plywood shutters and anything with a salty flavor to it. If we hear one at night on the roof during deer season someone will get up and shoot it with a flashlight. They cause too much destruction. If you don't have problems with them that is great, but don't judge those who are fighting a damage control issue.

Ok, as for the comment from bschmidt, your an idiot, enough said. Now as for Npaul, peta, really. Well, I guess what you are saying is that I as a hunter have to follow or at least ignore what i consider to be the killing of animals just for fun, because we're having a slow day in the woods. As i said in my above comment, if porkies are causing damage to your home that's one thing, but to eat a tree, come on. Well using your thought process I guess for fun I am going to load up my pellet rifle and start taking out some tree rats, and some stray cats, at least i think they're stray. Next time I am out hunting I am going to shoot anything I see with four legs because according to some of the so called hunters of NAHC it's ok to do so. Yes, we as a group need to police ourselves and to critisize or make a judgement which is my right to do so ,even if you don't think so. Your attitude of not making a judgement of someone is the PC crap that is ruining our country. So, you can take your peta comments and stuff them.

whats ruining our country are the bleeding heart liberals like lbshooter let me guess you voted for obama and your a democrat and probably dont belong to the nra.go back to the coffee shop with your laptop and chat on the peta website.

bschmidt, i refer you to my previous response.

Mother Nature put every animal on this planet for a reason. I personally don't care for wolves or beavers, but I don't shoot them on site. The porcupine is a woodsman's friend! If you are ever stranded in the woods, it is an animal that can be easily killed and eaten raw.

Did you say treated lumber TREE STAND? How do you attach the stand to the tree? Nails? Screws? They harm trees and endanger people cutting the wood with chainsaws after the tree falls. Hmmmm.

mpalmiter...TOOK the words right out of my mouth.

jpaul...WOW..where did you get THAT garbage from? I was simply stating my feelings and opinions..and you carried on to perpetrate against me and all the others you pointed to.. EXACTLY what you accused us of doing/being. If your critical thinking ability has stagnated at the point it is evidently at ... sorry for you. Just because my feelings/opinions differ from yours doesn't make me ANY of what you claimed I must be. I refer you to the last couple lines of Josh's reply to my first comment. I hope to NEVER reach a point where I think I have learned all there is to know about our complex environment and ALL of it's inhabitants. Seems to me learning makes me better able to reach more sound opinions and beliefs concerning our planet.Sound Greenpeacey to you? That my friend would be your issue ,not mine.

@mpalmiter: Thanks for taking notice of my minor error. I literally meant "tower stand (free-standing)," not "treestand (attached to a tree)." I edited it to read "stand" to clear up some potential confusion.

Perfect! LBshooter and RAbear51, please read this slowly and carefully as I want to offer a very sincere, “thank you”.
Thank you for illustrating my point so vividly. You have both been greatly offended at the tone and attacking nature of my post and responded as would anyone who was similarly offended.
What you have failed to see is that my comments to you are no different than the comments you have made to the author of this post.
You use the term “Bloodlust” I say “Bleeding heart”. The words are different, the attack is the same.
RAbear51 you have taken every opportunity to make Josh look foolish, bloodthirsty and unethical. All because you don’t agree with his opinion.
LBshooter, guilty on all the same points as RAbear51 but I will add that I don’t think have to follow or ignore anything. But if you can’t handle someone dealing as harshly with you then you should keep your comments to yourself. I have never been known as being very PC so to keep from being accused of it now; I am passing my judgment of you (which is my right after all) that the reason you are having a hard time understanding what I am saying is due to the location of your head. (being in such close proximity to your large intestine).
I will finish by saying that I DON’T CARE how you or anyone feels about Porcupines as far as killing them is concerned. If you like them, don’t shoot them. If you don’t like them, fire at will.

npaul..you sir are an ASS.Period NO Question Bite me

Every life has a serious value to the one living it.
If I can't eat it, I have no right to shoot it, unless it intends me or anouther harm.

npaul, I have to agree with RAbear and his thoughts. In addition, the act of killing an animal and taking a picture grinning from ear to ear and then dropping that animal on the ground and walking away is bloodthirsty and unethical, what do you call it. I wonder if that pic is going into the scrap book? Are you and Josh buddies? Does Josh need your protection? I would like to know what you call the killing of animals for pleasure is? Remember, "I kill in order to hunt, I don't hunt in order to kill". The author of the quote escapes me at the present time. Your last ignorant statement explains the type of person/sportsman you are and I am embarrassed as a sportsman to be associated with people like you.

I enjoyed reading everyone's comments. I live in North Central Missouri and there aren't any porcupines around that I am aware of. If I did see one, I would not shoot it because of this reason, and it being illegal. I am a slight advocate for you kill it, you grill it. That being said, I trap in the winter time and I do not eat 40 oppossums, 150 raccoons, the few skunks, and occasional bobcat and coyote. Anyone know anybody that would want to eat them are welcome to them, but personally I raise beef cattle and I'm sorry but they taste better. I do eat about everything else that I kill. I don't believe God intended man to eat varmints due to him creating cattle, pigs, and turkeys. I also know that I set my traps every winter in the same locations and again there are varmints in the traps the next year. The way I see it, I can kill them or they can get hit by a car, eaten by a predator, overpopulate and Mother Nature's diseases kill them, or live to die of old age. That being said I do go hunting to "kill" something when it is in legal season. I may shoot an oppossum or coyote that wonders by every great now and then because I get this strange urge to "kill" something. I think it has to do with some personal predator instinct. I have seen the same thing with otters. They will kill fish, eat a bite, and leave it to rot, and for some reason, go kill another fish. I think maybe a bear may do the same thing with salmon (when they are plentiful), and maybe a coyote with rabbits (when they are plentiful). Anyone seeing a pattern? I believe God may intend for it to be this way. This is MY OPINION, hope it doesn't offend any of my hunting buddies. If it does, I'm sorry to have offended you.

RAbear51..you sir are…(sorry, I’m laughing too hard to finish.)
LB.. I understand why you agree with RA’s thoughts. Not sure you can have any of your own. I have never met Josh nor would I assume the man needs my protection.
I would ask you, do you find pleasure in killing an animal? Or is that moment that you pull the trigger a debilitating moral dilemma? Do you have mouse traps? Mole traps?
Killing an animal is the point of hunting an animal. I’ve never seen a lion out “hunting” with no intention of killing.
I used to shoot ground squirrels for fun. As many as I could. Ranchers loved it because the cows would step in the holes and break a leg. If I had killed 100 a day I wouldn’t have made a dent.
Shooting an animal, taking a picture grinning and leaving it behind is called; “Feeding the scavengers”. (If it helps just think of it like planting corn or turnips for whitetail.)
I’m all funned out so to all my fellow NAHC members, happy hunting.
(And remember to hug a porcupine before you go to bed… it will make you feel better. Lol)

wow now that's unusual.

Once again npaul your ingnorance is showing. As I quote in my earlier post, I kill in order to hunt, I don't hunt in order to kill. Obviously your to f-ing stupid to realize the difference and thats to bad. Killing an animal is a very small part of hunting and taking a picture of a dead animal and leaving it on the ground is unethical. Maybe one day you'll wise up but i doubt it, as the old saying goes you can't fix stupid.

LBshooter AMEN !!!! Wow..what a mixed up nutjob Heaven help our sport !!

at the risk of beating this topic to death..I guess I could give it the ole'"high velocity"treatment !! My count (and yes I can count) indicates a overwhelming majority of opinions coming down on the side of good stewardship principals ie: wanton killing and wasting being contrary to good stewardship and the advocacy of such being excellent fodder for the radical element against our sport. It is also obvious that there is and unfortunately will be amongst our ranks those whose dedication to and understanding of our sport will not extend beyond their desire to go out and kill. I cannot speak for anyone else(risking ridicule and infantile accusations) but for me I feel that I owe my hunting PRIVILEGE and heritage deeper thought and involvement than that. My deep love for this awesome activity dictates to me that I must keep an open mind and extend my critical thinking into as many topics of deeper understanding of our environment and it's inhabitants as possible.When presented with a view contrary to mine I am open to CONSTRUCTIVE debate and capable of altering my views based on sound,sensible persuasive points. I think Josh reflected that shared view in his closing comments of his reply to mypost. Try as I might I cannot detect a personal attack on him in my post only my opinion which was the point of the whole topic I think..gather viewpoints. If I truly subscribed to the ideology of the radical groups I was accused of "sounding" like I would have a hard time justifying my love of this sport to myself or any of them. I do NOT however, make or offer ANY apologies for my desire to think,act and believe on deeper levels of understanding about nature and the environment. As of yet this ideology has NOT prompted me to subscribe to any views contrary to hunting and managing our
resources RESPONSIBLY and the sport as a whole. I am and will forever remain a sportsman and lover of our great outdoors and EVERYTHING it has to offer. PEACE !!

Don’t worry about it RA.. this topic was beat to death a long time ago. I want you to understand that I respect the fact that you have different views on this topic. I strongly disagree with your logic but I respect your position. When I say “I don’t care what you think..” I simply mean that your opinion is YOUR opinion. What I have a problem with is anyone who feels that they must “correct” the opinions of everyone else.
“..do you consider them to be docile forest friends or harmful pricks?” this was the question..this was the point.. not “what do you think of me shooting porcupines?” It’s practically “yes” or “no”.
You have stated and/or implied that any opinions that differ from yours constitute bloodthirsty, unethical, irresponsible and unfettered desires to kill, thought up by shallow thinking, resource wasting, mixed up nut jobs. Sounds like a personal attack to me. (I know, “what an A$$” right.)
I am glad that you have strong convictions regarding our sport. Just try and remember that they are YOUR convictions and it is just as wrong to force yours on me as it is for me to force mine on you.
LB… could you go ahead and explain your quote! I’m dying to know what it means.
Josh. Sorry we screwed up your post so bad.

Hey npaul ,sorry, but I am not so forgiving as the bear. It's self explanatory, if you don't or can't figure the meaning of it then you are the killer that you bragged about.

You know LB, the best part of this whole argument is that I have never actually killed a porcupine. (Just FYI)
I didn’t actually mean that I wanted to know what the quote meant. I am only a little confused by the first part as it seems to be contrary to the later part. If I were to analyze this statement it would be as follows: “I kill to hunt…” ergo to qualify as “hunt” there must have been “kill”. It could also mean that his desire to hunt is so strong he kills in order to do so.(this might be a reference to a wife or boss that might get in the way of hunting plans).
The later part is clear “..I don’t hunt to kill.” This is a clear defining of the fact that a “kill” is not the intended goal of his “hunt”. Most people call a hunt with no intention to kill, a “hike”. I’m not quite sure which definition for the first part fits best with the second part.
If “kill” is required to make it a hunt then it would strongly contradict a “hunt” with no intention to kill. On the other hand, maybe he means that he has no need to kill during his hunt because he had to kill to get there.
That might be how I analyze that statement, but I don’t have time to do that today. Maybe someday I will.

Npaul , you figure it out when you get time in between slaughtering all the animals you claim to kill. Maybe one day when you figure it out you might view hunting in a different way, I hope so for your sake. I have had many a seasons where I have not harvested an animal and yet in those many years I have never had one unsuccessful hunt.

You know LB a successful hunt is determined by the objectives you set before you start. If getting outside is your objective then you are successful as soon as you leave the house. My objective is always to; #1 bag the query that I am after or #2 bag a secondary pray.(grouse, coyote, etc.) Time in the woods is always time well spent. This last year for me was all good days that were all unsuccessful hunts. (I didn't kill anything)
I would like to share a quote with you. It is the favorite quote of Dave Maas and I thought you might appreciate it. Ted Hatfield once said, “Go kill something—a day without blood is like a day without sunshine.”
Happy hunting (no matter what your goal is.)

Well,once again npaul you view success as a kill, and thats to bad. It is clear that you don't understand the quote and frankly I don't care. As for Hatfield's quote that seems to fit into your mentallity of slaughter, bloodlust etc...

LB.. You're right.. I will now say "harvest" instead of "kill". Please replace all of the instances where I have used the term kill with harvest. (there we go, all better.)

npaul,

I challenge you to look over my post again and defend your calling me a "bleeding heart". What I asked was for the originator of the post to rationalize the reason for killing something just because it eats trees. This is what nature has decided porcupines should do. What else would you have them eat?

And I asked about the legality of it since in some areas the porcupine is protected. The legality issue was addressed in a follow-up but was not in the original post. So I maintain my question was valid. And, if you don't actually believe that animal rights people and bunny huggers troll sites like this for topics like this to use against us, then you're a fool.

I am in no way a bleeding heart. I have hunted in 17 states, 3 Canadian Provinces and have made 5 safaris to Africa. I have no problem with hunting. Matter of fact, I'm willing to bet I've probably taken more species of game than you have.

I wonder if you actually read the blog. Because the author specifically asked for other's thoughts on the matter. Didn't you catch this:

"A Porcupines are intriguing creatures to say the least, but do you consider them to be docile forest friends or harmful pricks?

Hunting mostly in the dense woodlands of Minnesota and Wisconsin, I've always maintained a shoot-on-sight policy. Why? Because every time I've come across a porky, it has been perched in a tree, enjoying an all-you-can-eat wood buffet."

Don't you think that accusing someone of being a "bleeding heart" just because they disagree with the offered view point is a little arrogant?

flags,
I would like to clarify that my original post was to several people and “bleeding Heart” was not intended for you. “High horsed” was.
There is a big difference between saying “I disagree” and “you are wrong”. If you read through the comments on this post you will find several people who “disagreed with the author but didn’t feel the need to call him foolish or ludicrous.
I would like to know how calling you “high-horsed” is any different from calling josh “Foolish”?
I would also like to point out that I never once denied that anti-hunters view site like this one. If I was an anti-hunter looking for a way to paint someone as “kill-crazy” I might question why someone would spend so much time and money traveling to so many states and even other countries just to kill animals.
My point is that they will find what they want no matter what. They will take anything they can twist (regardless of how acceptable the activity really is) to make the point they are trying to make.
I am glad that you have had the opportunity to do as much hunting as you have. I have a goal of getting to Africa myself one day. My only concern is that you feel your experience gives you the right and authority to dictate to everyone else what their hunting practices should be.
Nobody owes you or me a rationalization or explanation for their hunting practice.(unless they are YOUR kid or hunting on YOUR land.)
You are correct that the author did specifically ask for your thoughts on THIS matter: “..do you consider them (porcupines) to be docile forest friends or harmful pricks?” How hard is it to say “docile forest friends”? Wasn’t that your answer?

npaul,

I think you misunderstand. I never called the man himself foolish. What I stated was that his reason for shooting this animal was foolish. Bottom line, porcupines eat trees. This is what nature as intended them to do. To shoot something for that reason and then to try and rationaize it is foolish and ludicrous. That's like killing fish because the swim or birds because they fly. And if you think that attitude means I'm "high horsed", then so be it.

Here's a newsflash, every tree in the forest will die at some time. That is the cycle of life. It is, what it is.

As for me, I don't consider the porcupine to be eithar a "docile forest friend" or a "harmful prick". I simply reject that premise the author is trying to force me into by only allowing those 2 choices. I consider the porcupine a part of nature. Nothing more and nothing less. It does what nature intends it to do. Only man tries to bend nature to his will. The porcupine is merely making his living in the only way it can.

Porcupines eat trees. Sometimes the tree lives. Sometimes it dies. The porcupine uses the trees as a food source and this food source allows the porcupines to survive and reproduce. If the tree dies, it will eventually fall. This opens up the forst canopy to allow sunlight to reach the ground, thus encouraging new growth. The fallen tree decays and it in turn provides nutrients to the soil to allow other trees to flourish. These trees then grow and future generations of porcupines will feed on them. This cycle has been going on for thousands of years and will continue long after you and I are gone from this earth.

Thus it has always been and always will. I wonder if the author really thinks that nature cares what the monetary value of a tree is? Nature cares not for economic worth. To the porucpine, the tree was food. To kill it for eating is simply not justifiable. Feel free to disagree.

You may consider me to be "high horsed". I consider you to be ignorant.

Well put flags, unfortunately npaul for some reason is to thick to understand how nature works. remember he's for killing anything and everything and to rationalize why he does it. To him the mission to his hunts is to kill something and have a secondary kill plan if he is unable to kill the primary target. As long as npaul kills something when he hunts then he feels manly. I am sure npaul will get the shovel out and respond to your post and he'll keep digginglol.

LBShooter.

I had the NPaul clown figured out in about 3 minutes. He's all about killing. I don't know if he understands that hunting isn't always about killing. I'm willing to bet he is less than 30 years old. As such, he would have a young man's intensity but would lack an older man's wisdom and insight.

All you have to do to understand him is look at this quote he made towards me:

"I might question why someone would spend so much time and money traveling to so many states and even other countries just to kill animals."

That alone shows that he focuses on the killing aspect and not the hunting. What he does not know is that I have spent more than the last 23 years on active duty for the Navy. This has allowed me to travel the world extensively and to hunt in many areas. But I didn't have to pay for a lot of this. Call it a job benefit.

And, not all of these trips have been successful if the measure of success is merely a kill. Many times I never fired a shot. Yet I still consider these hunts successful. I got to see sunsets in areas many don't. I got to see game many people never get to see. I got to meet very interesting people from different countries and cultures. These are the things that make hunting trips successful. Not the size of the bag. I'm a wealthy man in experience but not in money. Frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way.

After all, the sport is called hunting. It is not called killing. I don't believe that NPaul understands the difference. And for that I pity him because he is much poorer for it.

Flags , well said. Obviously you understand the meaning of , "I Kill in order to hunt, I don't hunt in order to kill. It is a pity that npaul still doesn't understand that.
P.S. thanks for your service.

They do taste very good and they are tough on young dogs who have never encountered one before. I harvest them and then consume them. Tell the hound hunters not to harvest them. I am a hound hunter and will harvest every one I see and I will eat it. BBQed after par boiling it. Or ground into porky burgers. Or jerky