Is that for food or fun?
I come from a long line of farmers, I think. People who dug up produce (potatoes and turnips). People that kept that pig until time for butchering. Sorry, no hunters. Besides, the Island doesn’t have much variety in edible animals, so they made the right choice. My apologies to those who firmly believe that their genetic heritage involves powerful rifles with scopes and the right to kill anything that moves on four legs through the underbrush.
During supper, the local cable channel carried some sort of strange monologue with a man dressed in camouflage and a mosquito net, armed with a rifle. He probably believed that the animals wouldn’t see (or smell) him, as he stood in a small wooden blind with a television camera. As a variety of wild animals approached a baited barrel, he explained, in glowing terms, the challenge presented to a hunter such as himself. We watched as he considered squirrels and hares in turn, until a young bear happened on camera.
Now, he was keen. He mentioned the various shots that were presented, and their relative level of “quick killing”. The bear seemed to catch on that there might be a looney in the woods, and ran off camera with another larger sibling. No fatalities this afternoon.
I don’t get it. I imagine that squirrel, or hare, or bear would all provide food in case of severe famine. In the animator’s eyes, these were just sporting targets, more apt to sprint out of range than a traditional paper target. We have a difference of opinion here, folks. From my standpoint, hunting becomes a sport when the animals get equal weapons. Not until then.
