Posts Made By: Greg Shaffer

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Greg, obviously referring to Rich's original post in the above statement, must have of recognized the errors of his ways. It's a miracle!

Originally Posted by Edmond Beaudoin

Yup, that was the problem. Scrolled down and found the ads.

Thanks!

BTW, just curious, do you go to Charlie Elliot or Deerlick?

Originally Posted by Kent Kirkley

Well OK
I and most people would assume it would be located at the bottom of the page.....
but no, it was at the top. We read left to right, top to bottom.
Why would I look at the top?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Steven:

I agree with you that the motivation for the book and Rod's post is probably to make all hunters look bad.  That said, if the excerpts  that Rod quoted are remotely true, the book is not describing hunters - it is describing sick and vile criminals.  "Shooting a baboon to see what it felt like to kill a stranger..."  "Shooting 13,000 birds in 5 days".  Those are sick criminal acts, not acts of hunting, which, at least in the civilized world, is an activity engaged in by decent rule-following people with many benefits to the environment.

Frankly, I seriously doubt that 4 people blew away 13,000 birds - I have no idea whether it is the alleged hunter or the author who is lying though.   

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Hmm, 13000 birds in 4 days by 5 shooters. That's what's quoted from the book. Since I'm not into shooting birds like an authority on the AM who it calls a ridiculous thing that I post that deserves no attention, I'll offer up an alternative, hypothetical situation. Let's say for the sake of argument, that it was 1300 birds shot down by 5 shooters in four days. Or even 300. Does the actions of the hunter for sport justify the carnage?