But What About the Terms “Doves” and “Cry”?
A South Lyon man is outraged by a News sports column taking a positive view of dove hunting. “The column has no place … in an Ann Arbor-based newspaper.”
“The use of the terms ‘hunting’ and ‘doves’ in the same sentence is shameful,” he continues, adding, “The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.”
Just think how pissed he’s going to be when he finds out about deer season.
posted by ryan on September 13th, 2006 at 11:39 amI love this guy’s characterization of “this hunting concept,” as if it’s a new thing.
posted by pc on September 13th, 2006 at 12:56 pmmaybe he favors hunting (unleashed) dogs of war?
posted by peter honeyman on September 13th, 2006 at 1:14 pmPoint taken on the silliness front, but there’s still nothing ironic about shooting doves for fun.
posted by Michael McC. on September 13th, 2006 at 1:18 pmPeople who shoot doves generally eat them, as far as I know.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on September 13th, 2006 at 1:20 pmreally, the most interesting thing about the letter is that “doves = peace & love” and therefore shooting at them is *symbolically* wrong, especially given the contrasting image of the predatory amoral killer.
on another note….. mmmmm… doves… (yum).
posted by Heidi on September 13th, 2006 at 1:42 pmWhat’s the letter writer doing in South Lyon, then? Sounds like someone who should be on the Old West Side with an “Impeach Bush” sign or something.
posted by Chris on September 13th, 2006 at 2:11 pmI bet that was the same guy that objected to my roasting pigeons on a stick down on the Diag.
posted by Nitro on September 13th, 2006 at 2:36 pmAs a person who just moved to Ypsi from Tennessee - the camo & mullett capital of the US - I can tell you that doves are good eatin’!
Living here keeps me entertained, no doubt.
DCB
posted by DCBass on September 13th, 2006 at 2:58 pmI ate a pigeon once, but never had dove. Guess I’ll need to go off one of the feathery bastards and try it out.
posted by Dave on September 13th, 2006 at 3:23 pmI don’t care if they eat them or not, it’s pretty obvious from reading what they say that they kill them for fun. The people who eat deer meat aren’t exactly sweating their grocery bills, at least 99% of them. It costs around a grand to shoot a deer for most people. So the food argument doesn’t stand up too well.
posted by Michael McC. on September 13th, 2006 at 3:24 pmuh….. because we are SOOOO short on deer in this country. And I don’t know where you’re getting your licenses, but it certainly did not cost 1k to get a deer tag in Montana (at least if you’re a resident). Also, I’d say that your categorization of deer hunters may (or may not - i don’t know) be true for the midwest, but the west is another applecart entirely. Plenty of people hunt because it is the most economically feasible way of getting high-quality red meat. Also, I’d have to say that it’s probably more ecologically sound than any other method of doing so, and certainly more so than eating beef.
Furthermore, i *do* care if hunters eat their game. Killing animals for sport entirely is just bad form, a waste, and arrogant, regardless of whether you believe them to be cute, innocent, or representative of peace.
posted by Heidi on September 13th, 2006 at 3:40 pmBut is it really worse than eating something that was factory farmed? And is fishing worse than eating storebought fish? I don’t understand any argument against hunting that isn’t an argument against eating any meat.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on September 13th, 2006 at 3:41 pmby beef of course I mean your average commercially ranched beef and pork, although cattle are destructive grazers regardless of whether they’re free-range or small-farm.
posted by Heidi on September 13th, 2006 at 3:43 pmSo … was that thing about the sentences being reciprocally exclusive (next one true/previous one false) a logic puzzle, or what…?
An illustration of the absurdity of doves and hunting coming together in a bloody, feathery mess?
I don’t really get the point. … it wasn’t even in the original (as I read it…)
posted by Daniel on September 13th, 2006 at 5:29 pmdove is fab…kind of a cross between whooping crane and bald eagle.
posted by OFWinsurgent on September 13th, 2006 at 6:15 pmIf there were no professional hunters, butchers or fishermen in the world, fewer people would eat meat. We certainly would eat less meat. We (collectively) don’t have the endurance to hunt, or the stomach to kill, the amount of meat we consume. I, like Heidi, say, “you kill it, you eat it; and all of it.” You like pork chops, you better also like scrapple. You like ribeye, don’t forget the beef tongue.
I draw the line at road kill, that you can leave for the buzzards.
Bon appetit!
posted by abc on September 13th, 2006 at 8:07 pmA friend of mine ran over a fawn about 10 years back and so I prepared a roasted leg of roadkill bambi. Seemed a shame to leave it there. I sent out invites and had a depressing dinner party.
(This has been my only culinary foray into roadkill, probably last too.)
posted by OFWinsurgent on September 13th, 2006 at 8:20 pmThe point was that he wrote a sentence with the words “hunting” and “doves” to say that such a sentence was shameful.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on September 13th, 2006 at 8:39 pmHeidi — I think Michael meant the rifle, the scope, the scent stuff, the designer hunters orange gear, etc.
posted by Dale on September 13th, 2006 at 8:41 pmOFW, Big road kill can work as you rightly point out. But little road kill, the kind that is about as wide as your tire…? Maybe its considered tenderizing by some but I think you should drive on if it needs a spatula.
posted by abc on September 13th, 2006 at 8:55 pmsorry aaio, in militia country, once you launch a conversation with hunting in it, your amusing original critique of the South Lyon complaint gets lost in the melee.
ABC: I use my car to tenderize octopus.
posted by OFWinsurgent on September 13th, 2006 at 9:31 pmOr as some say, they would rather hire a hit man (farmer/butcher) to kill their food.
posted by 1whonos on September 13th, 2006 at 9:37 pmFrom time to time, the city of AA hires professional bowhunters to cull the deer in city parks. The city does not publicize this, for obvious reasons (Bambi killers!). The problem is that the deer population (in most of the US — not just here) is out of control. We hunted most of the predators out of existence. In Washtenaw County there’s only one large predator of any consequence — the human species.
Mourning doves aren’t overpopulated, but they’re not endangered, either. They are prey for several endangered hawk species, but it’s not likely that a mourning dove season will make a big difference to the survival of endangered hawks.
Getting up early in the morning and waiting in the cold to shoot some animal is not my idea of a fun time, but it’s a more humane way to slaughter animals than what goes on in many packing houses. The real ethical question about hunting is whether it is consistent with responsible land stewardship. Eating scrapple and tongue is completely irrelevant to the question (but I will add that there’s nothing wrong with tongue as long as you don’t mind tasting something that’s tasting you back).
posted by kjc on September 13th, 2006 at 9:43 pmDale - my point was that Michael made a poor generalization. Maybe some people get gussied up to hunt, but I knew a lot of families growing up who augmented a pretty plain diet with game, who killed game with rifles that had been passed down through their families, and who had a set of hunting ethics that no one would scoff at.
That said, I heartily second kjc’s perspective in the first paragraph. We’ve messed up the food chain so irrevocably that some sort of population control is absolutely necessary, and frankly, I’d rather eat deer than sterilize them.
posted by Heidi on September 13th, 2006 at 10:38 pmI’m with Heidi on this, and actually Michael’s comments were not only incorrect but insensitive. I have several family members that rely on getting deer each year as part of their diet. Maybe Michael is in the type of financial situation where deer meat isn’t helping reduce the grocery bill, but in many parts of this state way more than one percent of the hunters are trying to get quality food without paying too much for it. I’m pretty sure they aren’t paying anything like a grand for their deer either.
posted by anon on September 13th, 2006 at 11:49 pmOh, I’m sure that self-reliant hunting families exist even in the Midwest, but that’s a romantic image of a fading lifestyle.
Meanwhile, there are surely at least tens of thousands of mostly reasonably affluent folks in urban southern Michigan who travel somewhere up north for deer or duck hunting or the like.
Visit Cabela’s huge superstore in Dundee (on US 23 about 20 miles south of Ann Arbor) and look at the prices on the amazing variety of gear they have, and the crowds of people buying it all.
I’m not knocking it — hunting drives the economy of a lot of this state, especially in the north.
But down here in southern Michigan, there are way too many deer — an enormously larger deer population now than when Columbus landed. The deer have adapted to human garbage and condo complex green space, spreading deer ticks. It’s appropriate to call them “rats with hooves”.
They’re a safety hazard, too: there are more than 1.5 million vehicle/deer accidents per year nationally, with 150 deaths and over $1 billion in property damage; in this, Michigan reportedly ranks as the second worst state in the nation.
Hunters can solve this problem for us. In all the urbanized counties, including Washtenaw, the state should eliminate bag limits and extend the season on deer year-round.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on September 14th, 2006 at 1:50 am“there are more than 1.5 million vehicle/deer accidents per year nationally, with 150 deaths and over $1 billion in property damage; in this, Michigan reportedly ranks as the second worst state in the nation.
Hunters can solve this problem for us.”
Yeah, maybe they can shoot the cars.
posted by Scott on September 14th, 2006 at 4:02 amYeah, the deer have deer ticks, but the cars have assholes on cell phones and those are lots worse.
posted by Chris on September 14th, 2006 at 9:39 amLarry’s right. Blast Bambi.
posted by Dave on September 14th, 2006 at 10:56 amLet’s reintroduce wolves to SE Michigan (assuming they were here in the first place).
posted by Carolyn on September 14th, 2006 at 12:00 pmPerhaps Ted Nugent can be called in to kill every living thing within a 20-mile radius, deer included, with his bow and gun. I don’t know if it would be the morally right thing to do, but that Ted Nugent sure loves hunting.
posted by Ted Noogent lives! on September 14th, 2006 at 12:53 pmI keep forgetting to sign these things, sorry.
David Boyle
posted by Ted Noogent lives! on September 14th, 2006 at 12:54 pm“I keep forgetting to sign these things, sorry.”
Uh, you know, the designers of this software made that really easy for you, by providing a special field, labeled “Name”, on the comment submission form. You could consider taking advantage of it.
posted by Bruce Fields on September 14th, 2006 at 3:16 pmwhack em and stack em…then ted’s wife will rustle something up with the carcass.
posted by OFWinsurgent on September 14th, 2006 at 8:10 pmStealth bow hunters killing deer in A2 parks?
posted by Dustin on September 14th, 2006 at 9:30 pmPut me down as against dove hunting. Deer sure, eat em up. But doves, mostly just target practice. Ever lift a songbird in your hand? There is hardly anything there. Ten dove breasts might make a meal. What’s next, cardinals? Red, easy to see, good targets, besides, they disrupt the white blandness of winter and those loud songs… kill them all.
Shooting songbirds, especially doves, does indeed take away food from avian hunters like sparrow hawks and falcons and it certainly disturbs the quiet in the countyside.
posted by Dustin on September 14th, 2006 at 9:39 pm“But down here in southern Michigan, there are way too many — an enormously larger… population now than when Columbus landed.”
Oh dear.
Historically, Washtenaw has experienced this problem once before, a long time ago. Way back then, it arrived prancing on two feet instead of on all fours.
If you were a local Potawatomi living here 200+ years ago, would you heartily agree with the post-Columbus assessment? Were British and French gatecrashers (and later the Washingtonians) multiplying in your region’s forests, crowding into your habitat, bringing unheard-of diseases, and increasing accident statistics? Might you think the time had come to scrap any existing treaties (which these gatecrashers preferred not to honor anyhow) and extend the bow & arrow season throughout the year? Those colonists… rats with shoes.
posted by hale on September 15th, 2006 at 1:30 am“’[…]Hunters can solve this problem for us.’
Yeah, maybe they can shoot the cars.”
Hey Scott - does that mean they’ll have to eat them?
posted by David on September 15th, 2006 at 8:07 amI’ll be down on the Diag near the Grad Library roasting a muffler on a stick around Noon if anyone wants to try a bite.
You wouldn’t believe how many arrows it takes to kill an SUV. But it’s succulent!
posted by Nitro on September 15th, 2006 at 8:15 amHunters can solve this problem for us. In all the urbanized counties, including Washtenaw, the state should eliminate bag limits and extend the season on deer year-round.
Bull-fucking-shit, Larry K.
As the number of deer kills nationwide reported by hunters has risen, the number of deer-car accidents has not dropped. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is no correlation to support your theory.
posted by FAA on September 15th, 2006 at 10:34 amIt’s true. the more deer you shoot, the more of them attack cars.
It’s just that the ones left are REALLY ANGRY at people.
posted by Nitro on September 15th, 2006 at 12:43 pmI have two words to add to this discussion:
Passenger Pigeon
posted by Schutzman on September 15th, 2006 at 2:06 pmFAA, that’s because all the hunting rules and seasons are designed around the concept of maintaining the deer herd. In urban and suburban areas, the goal should be extermination, not husbandry.
There are more deer, and more people on the road driving more miles, so of course there are more car-deer accidents. The moderate increase in the number of deer killed by hunting nationwide or statewide is not significant enough to address human/deer conflicts in counties like Wayne and Washtenaw. Indeed, the number of deer taken in northern Michigan is totally irrelevant to southern Michigan’s deer problem.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on September 15th, 2006 at 2:16 pmSchutzman, I like your style.
Larry, your idea of unlimited year-round hunting until exterminated does not solve anything. In fact, it creates much larger problems.
Aside from violating the principles of ecology it would inevitably mean more hunting accidents, and thus more human death. Each year in Michigan an average of 3 people are killed in deer-car accidents. Each big game firearms season in Michigan leaves an average of 3 people dead - and that’s what, about a month long? Supposing you manage to wipe out enough bambi to result in 0 car-deer deaths, you can also suppose you’d have an extra 33 dead bodies in Michigan morgues that year (it would be true that with fewer crashes there would also be fewer dollars in damage/insurance claims…but unless you’re a heartless, unfeeling insurance adjuster I don’t see how you could rather have that in lieu of the increase in hunting related death).
There are alternatives to deer culling - newer electronic whistlers for cars are proving effective (the old air based ones were pretty much useless) and reflectors lining the shoulders of popular deer crossing roads (also, people could just stop spreading out into the ex-urbs, but that’s a much lengthier post). I’d wager fewer people would die installing car accessories and reflectors than in an endless hunting escapade.
posted by FAA on September 15th, 2006 at 6:02 pmHere in Louisiana we bypass weapons and go straight to beak to beak combat Cockfighting is still a sport here.
posted by Karen on September 15th, 2006 at 7:24 pmfaa:
posted by tim on September 15th, 2006 at 11:38 pmJust curious, where did you get your information on the firearm fatalities. i searched at
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deerreport2000_44010_7.PDF
this report talks about the 2005 year. of the 3 fatalities occuring while hunting deer, it seems that only one was an actual shooter shoots someone else. the other two could have happened at home during an episode of stargate.
this report:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/bow&arrowaccid_75696_7.pdf#search=%22michigan%20hunting%20fatalities%22
discusses during bow season, when it seems most hunters are drunk, fall out of their tree stands, and break their necks.
anyway, as a stickler for statistics, i was just curious as to where you got yours.
i would offer driving less as a possible solution, but one night walking home from work along broadway, i was almost run into by fawn who wasn’t looking where he/she was going. he was following his mother, crossing the street, and didn’t see me on the sidewalk. it was rather comical and cute, but had i been in a car, i would have won, hands down. better that than a skunk, i guess.
Wow, Larry seems to really hate deer…
Having spent a fair amount of time biking and hiking in the woods around Ann Arbor when I lived there, hunting seasons were pretty scary. Drunk people and guns were generally a bad combination. When the drunks were shooting shotguns into the trees, the woods were usable but not all that pleasant. When the drunks were shooting high powered rifles at deer on the ground, it seemed best to stay away. It was claimed that hunters knew not to shoot across trails, but the direction signs on the trails were always shattered by the time hunting season was over, and those were much smaller targets than people. The time a couple of drunks along the Potowatomie Trail started making threatening comments while waving their guns at me, I felt far more threatened than I ever have by deer, or squirrels, or doves. Fortunately, Michigan’s hunting seasons are now fairly short, but it still seems like a pretty inappropriate activity for a populated area.
posted by scg on September 16th, 2006 at 6:56 pmLarry doesn’t know bleep about hunting. A year round deer season would wipe out the entire whitetail population statewide.
In some area of the state the deer heard is way down because of the unlimited doe tags per day that can be purchased.
posted by chris on September 22nd, 2006 at 10:48 amChris,
posted by anon on September 22nd, 2006 at 11:59 amLarry’s proposal was for unlimited deer hunting only in the urban/suburban areas of Michigan…I’m guessing basically SE Michigan. His entire point was to eliminate the whitetail deer population in this part of the state where population density has left deer without much land to live on, and plenty of tragic human/car-deer incidents that aren’t good for either species. I don’t believe he proposes to have deer hunting year-round in the vast majority of the state.
Anon is right. I want to wipe out deer in SE Michigan, not statewide.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on September 22nd, 2006 at 12:45 pmthis calls for a montage of larry k gearing up to kick some deer ass. i have no idea what you look like, but a red bandana/headband and matching belts of ammo over the chest look good on almost anybody. now all we need is the background music. any preference larry?
posted by tim on September 22nd, 2006 at 2:10 pmIt’s got to be Wake Up by Rage Against the Machine…I have to say, I would pay a premium to see that sight!
posted by OFWinsurgent on September 22nd, 2006 at 2:59 pmI was going to suggest Wango Tango by the Nuge, but that’s so obvious.
posted by OFWinsurgent on September 22nd, 2006 at 3:00 pmWipe out the deer in only SE Michigan? Why hasn’t anybody thought of that before? Manhattan has had a rat problem for about 400 years - I believe at least one or two (million) people have suggested or tried exterminating them all, and it hasn’t worked yet. “Rats with hooves” will be no different in SE Michigan. My Advice: Lay down the Rambo County Clerk fantasy and be a bit more constructive about the deer issue.
Tim, Larry is quite the comedian… His song shall be Yakety Sax.
posted by FAA on September 23rd, 2006 at 6:58 pmAh, so we should tolerate “rats with hooves” because measures to remove them from urban areas (1) would wipe them out (according to chris), or (2) would never be successful (according to FAA).
I’m just guessing that deer herd management, on the whole, has a better track record than rat herd management.
But this is pretty much pie in the sky speculation. Given Bambi’s popularity, there will never be the political will to rid Michigan’s urban areas of deer infestation.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on September 24th, 2006 at 6:22 amHumans are killing deer (with guns and cars). Deer are not killing humans. We are the problem, not the deer.
Sabra and I live on Broadway, and there is a good-size piece of second (or third) growth urban forest on our land and the land of our neighbors. It is connected via the neighbors’ land ultimately to Cedar Bend Park and North Campus, where rumor has it that there is a sizeable deer herd.
Several times a year deer come up the stairs from forest area into our front yard. I love to see the big hoof prints! I think the deer themselves are cute.
The only drawback is that they eat the hosta leaves and some of the flowers that Sabra has planted. To the deer, they are “Sabra’s salad”.
posted by Dave Cahill on September 24th, 2006 at 9:44 amIf there were unlimited deer hunting, we’d need to address the resulting beer shortages.
posted by haenck on September 27th, 2006 at 8:50 amDove hunting is kinda fun. Er . . . um. They are good to eat, too.
posted by LittleB on October 4th, 2006 at 9:25 pmKinda like chicken, but way littler.