Any one that can be fit
LoveWhat kind of trail camera would you recommend For deer,turkey?
must have infrared and use a SD card the higher the pixels the better,and i prefer the big 6 volt rechargeable battery it will last about 60 days,find some reviews on the camera you like.What kind of trail camera would you recommend For deer,turkey?
Cuddeback
Friday, February 12, 2010
Can any1 tell me if i can get that deer symbol browning for my myspace display name? can some1 give me the cod?
can any1 give me the code if they know?Can any1 tell me if i can get that deer symbol browning for my myspace display name? can some1 give me the cod?
datz stupid
datz stupid
Explain how a deer has adapted to the biome: grassland?
10 points to the best answer.Explain how a deer has adapted to the biome: grassland?
Three conspicuous sets of adaptations:
[1] Hypsodonty: high-crowned cheek teeth, allowing for extra wear associated with eating abrasive grass
[2] Ruminant habit: having four-chambered stomachs, regurgitating cud from the first two chambers, and gut microbes that help digest cellulose
[3] Antipredator traits: to reduce risk of predation by large mammals in these open environments, they travel in groups, can trot quickly when chased, and often have coats that change in colour with the seasons
Three conspicuous sets of adaptations:
[1] Hypsodonty: high-crowned cheek teeth, allowing for extra wear associated with eating abrasive grass
[2] Ruminant habit: having four-chambered stomachs, regurgitating cud from the first two chambers, and gut microbes that help digest cellulose
[3] Antipredator traits: to reduce risk of predation by large mammals in these open environments, they travel in groups, can trot quickly when chased, and often have coats that change in colour with the seasons
Would you hunt if the deer shot back?
Or is that a little too real for you hunters? Try Afghanistan.Would you hunt if the deer shot back?
i would never hunt. i think it's disgusting that people find pleasure in it.Would you hunt if the deer shot back?
Deers don't have thumbs, or even fingers.
i would never hunt. i think it's disgusting that people find pleasure in it.Would you hunt if the deer shot back?
Deers don't have thumbs, or even fingers.
Are ALL zoos cruel to animals? I just saw a story that the Toronto Zoo kills baby deer because they are male.?
I live in Washington DC and have heard similar horrible stories about our zoo, where bears, cats and birds are tortured ';in the name of science';. A friend told me that they take cats and stick electric probes in their butts to make them squirt semen when they get electrocuted. They justify that it is for ';endangered species';. Is this really justifiable? It seems wrong.Are ALL zoos cruel to animals? I just saw a story that the Toronto Zoo kills baby deer because they are male.?
well im not sure about your zoos over there but zoos here in england are pretty good!
My local zoo is Chester Zoo and it's great. i'm working there this summer and i think they treat the animals really well!
it's basically all about conservation!
i find it abit hard to believe that a zoo would be allowed to do such things to animals when they are founded on the grounds of conserving endangerd species not harming them further!
fact is, if people wernt so selfish and cruel and didnt hunt animals in the first place we wouldnt have to have zoos would we!Are ALL zoos cruel to animals? I just saw a story that the Toronto Zoo kills baby deer because they are male.?
I would like to know what humans would think of a place where humans were caged , no freedom, at anothers bidding on just basic survival so animals could come by and have a look and say well that's not cruel its fine they look happy enough. Humans think they have all the rights . What if blondes were becoming an endangered species would it be ok to put a few in a zoo and breed of them , don't agree with zoos everything has the right to freedom.
I've worked in zoos as a reptile keeper and as a mammal keeper and I have never heard of any such thing. It could be very possible that larger zoos may be doing research to help to conserve species but I certainly know of no torture practices. They do have what they call SSP (species survival plan) programs where a zoo will decide to focus on a specific species. One of the zoos I was at had an SSP for the Aruba Island rattlesnake. We definitely didn't torture them. These sound like rumors, why not call your local zoo and ask the hard questions. I'm sure they would be very interested in correcting any misinformation.
And your friend's the expert?
He's seen this first hand?
And what cat (house cat to tiger) is going to let someone stick an electrode up it's butt and pull the trigger? I just don't see that happening.
Best to go volunteer with the zoo. You will learn so much about the realities of caging wildlife. It isn't pretty sometimes. The do the absolute best they can for the animals, and sometimes it's not enough. Sometimes people do the wrong thing not realizing there are alternatives.
Volunteer at a local animal shelter. Again, you'll see it's not as easy as it seems.
EDIT TO ADD:
Some male deer are aggressive as adults. They will fight each other to the death. Is that humane?
Or they can kill them painlessly before it becomes an issue.
';Freedom'; is over-rated. In the wild, animals face starvation, predation and sickness.
Also, I would SIGN UP for the ';blonde breeding program'; another poster mentioned. All my bills paid, the best food money can buy, and all I have to do is pop out a few babies that I won't even have to raise? YES, PLEASE!!!
Zoos are an un natural situation for the animals, but most of the humans who take care of them try to be as humane and as responsible as they can be to them. We need zoos in order to see animals that most of us wouldn't see in ';real';life, and, unfortunately, the zoos are the only places you can find some of the animals at all, because they don't live in the wild anymore. There are volunteer programs at some zoos. If you are interested, try volunteering at a zoo so you can see how the animals are treated, and if you find incidents of abuse you can contact the SPCA
No not all zoo's are cruel to animals, though quite a few you often find are it can be very upsetting.
most of them are
To answer your question - no, and in fact I would say most are definitely not ';cuel';, although that is a subjective assessment.
However - The story about the Toronto Zoo is real. Do a news search and you will find it. They have adopted a policy of euthanizing male reindeer as babies. The male reindeer are euthanized due to space, aggresion, etc etc. I don't know if it is best to live a sad life as a lonely male in captivity or be euthanized as a baby. Zoos in Europe do the same thing, although it is not publicized. Most zoos in the US and Canada do not do this and rather choose to contracept or not breed animals that they can not care for.
The procedure you describe is not quite like you present it. There is indeed a scientific procedure called ';electroejaculation';. It was developed for human paraplegics, where a stimulation is used for collecting a sample that is used for artificial or in vitro fertilization. It is used in animals too - cattle, dogs, cats, and yes- endangered species. (The animals are usually anesthetized first). Do some research and read about it and form your own opinion on the subject. It is a very complex issue. I don't know if your zoo actually uses that technique for endangered animals, but I have seen some articles on the topic and it seems like a widely used practice in most zoos that actually try to save endangered species. Most people use the technique when the artificial insemination is the only option to breed two animals (such as pairs that fight, or animals that are too far away and it is easier to inseminate with transported semen than move the whole animal).
Are All Zoos cruel to animals? Tough question. While I believe that no Zoo is intentionally cruel to their charges, cruelty is often open to interpretation. I know nothing of Washington's Zoo and any of those issues I have been closely following the Metro Toronto Zoo and have been writing every Reindeer Breeder and forum, as well as several associations of Men whose favourite colour happens to be RED!
Metro Toronto Zoo, while managing to place the two 4 year old adult males and Sundays newborn to the Bowmanville Zoo, has upheld its euthanasia policy. This was extended this year to include the reindeer but has been used in the past to dispose of Mara (Pantagonian Cavvy), Capybara and Muntjac Deer. In theory it is neither a cruel policy or without merit BUT in the case of the Reindeer it was not the most appropriate action to take and will harm the zoos reputation in the public eye at least.
The issue of Roadside Zoos in Ontario has been a hot subject now for a few years. In the case of Metro Toronto Zoo, they are a CAZA accredited facility and they are in the position of being held as the gold standard for levels of care and accomodation. This accreditation limits the manner in which they can dispose of surplus animals but to simply euthanize the over population is not the answer. While the surplus reindeer were said to have been listed on a publication available to other accredited zoos, the next zoo closest to them is the new home. I have seen no evidence of them making any contacts with breeders to arrange either a relocation or a swap to alter bloodlines in the herd which would have been advantageous to the Zoo. Last year, I purchased a Reindeer bull that was declared surplus from another accredited zoo in Manitoba. He is now my herd senior sire. This option was available to MTZ either through me or by contacting the Reindeer Owners and Breeders Association. We are not a secret society, as I believe CAZA to be, and many members carry more accreditation than the zoos.
On the subject of Artificial Insemination and Electroejaculation, I can't say that I know too much about it but I do know that the President of one of the Canadian based Reindeer Associations is on the leading edge of AI and teaches it to the European herders. The procedure is, as I understand it, similar to collection of a horse stallions semen. They are not probed electrically or otherwise. This process should also allow or lead to gender selection in offspring where males are not required/desired. Personally, I am happy with what I get. In the case of endangered species I have to side with the zoos if the only way to perpetuate the species is to sedate the animals and ';probe'; them to collect semen then it is justifiable until a more humane method is found. Some animals don't have the luxury of time.
For anyone who is against zoos please consider this: Animals on this planet are being erradicated systematically and completely. While the populating of Zoos in the last century may have been a contributing factor, they now must be in the lead on conservation. People by nature will be upset with a story and a picture but real action and interest requires interaction. I have witnessed this personally and believe this to be a truth. To do this the animals must be kept and some species only exsist today because they are in zoos. Repopulation in some cases is spearheaded by zoo based programs but this isn't an option for all animals. Herd management is necessary but killing off the animals isn't the most expeditious method to meet the goals.
I sawmention in this subject of people in cages. The Metro Toronto Zoo which opened while I was still in school opened on that premise that the visitor areas would be the primary cages and the animals would have a free run of their habitats. While that was a wonderful idea, people go to zoos to see the animals. This method rarely afforded the opportunity and a rethinking of the concept was required.
One closing thought, I attended a meeting last year of the WSPA talking about a proposed set of legislation to be brought into place in Ontario. One of the presenters made the comment that the public does not want these zoos and that the animals bred their are substandard leading to a glut of unwanted animals on the market. His solution was to close all these places and euthanize the animals. Great position for a Anti Cruelty agency. If the public does not want zoos, then stop going to them. As long as you pay the gate fee and they have the operating capital to stay open they will. Going there and paying the admission so you can complain about them only perpetuates a problem.
There are many more ways to kill an animal than simple cruelty. Neglect, Apathy, and all too often kindness are equally effective.
(I think they already have a Blonde Breeding Program, I think they refer to them as Chicken Ranches in the south!)
they should kill all the animals,, thsy suck.Siam Esteemed Product Co Ltd
well im not sure about your zoos over there but zoos here in england are pretty good!
My local zoo is Chester Zoo and it's great. i'm working there this summer and i think they treat the animals really well!
it's basically all about conservation!
i find it abit hard to believe that a zoo would be allowed to do such things to animals when they are founded on the grounds of conserving endangerd species not harming them further!
fact is, if people wernt so selfish and cruel and didnt hunt animals in the first place we wouldnt have to have zoos would we!Are ALL zoos cruel to animals? I just saw a story that the Toronto Zoo kills baby deer because they are male.?
I would like to know what humans would think of a place where humans were caged , no freedom, at anothers bidding on just basic survival so animals could come by and have a look and say well that's not cruel its fine they look happy enough. Humans think they have all the rights . What if blondes were becoming an endangered species would it be ok to put a few in a zoo and breed of them , don't agree with zoos everything has the right to freedom.
I've worked in zoos as a reptile keeper and as a mammal keeper and I have never heard of any such thing. It could be very possible that larger zoos may be doing research to help to conserve species but I certainly know of no torture practices. They do have what they call SSP (species survival plan) programs where a zoo will decide to focus on a specific species. One of the zoos I was at had an SSP for the Aruba Island rattlesnake. We definitely didn't torture them. These sound like rumors, why not call your local zoo and ask the hard questions. I'm sure they would be very interested in correcting any misinformation.
And your friend's the expert?
He's seen this first hand?
And what cat (house cat to tiger) is going to let someone stick an electrode up it's butt and pull the trigger? I just don't see that happening.
Best to go volunteer with the zoo. You will learn so much about the realities of caging wildlife. It isn't pretty sometimes. The do the absolute best they can for the animals, and sometimes it's not enough. Sometimes people do the wrong thing not realizing there are alternatives.
Volunteer at a local animal shelter. Again, you'll see it's not as easy as it seems.
EDIT TO ADD:
Some male deer are aggressive as adults. They will fight each other to the death. Is that humane?
Or they can kill them painlessly before it becomes an issue.
';Freedom'; is over-rated. In the wild, animals face starvation, predation and sickness.
Also, I would SIGN UP for the ';blonde breeding program'; another poster mentioned. All my bills paid, the best food money can buy, and all I have to do is pop out a few babies that I won't even have to raise? YES, PLEASE!!!
Zoos are an un natural situation for the animals, but most of the humans who take care of them try to be as humane and as responsible as they can be to them. We need zoos in order to see animals that most of us wouldn't see in ';real';life, and, unfortunately, the zoos are the only places you can find some of the animals at all, because they don't live in the wild anymore. There are volunteer programs at some zoos. If you are interested, try volunteering at a zoo so you can see how the animals are treated, and if you find incidents of abuse you can contact the SPCA
No not all zoo's are cruel to animals, though quite a few you often find are it can be very upsetting.
most of them are
To answer your question - no, and in fact I would say most are definitely not ';cuel';, although that is a subjective assessment.
However - The story about the Toronto Zoo is real. Do a news search and you will find it. They have adopted a policy of euthanizing male reindeer as babies. The male reindeer are euthanized due to space, aggresion, etc etc. I don't know if it is best to live a sad life as a lonely male in captivity or be euthanized as a baby. Zoos in Europe do the same thing, although it is not publicized. Most zoos in the US and Canada do not do this and rather choose to contracept or not breed animals that they can not care for.
The procedure you describe is not quite like you present it. There is indeed a scientific procedure called ';electroejaculation';. It was developed for human paraplegics, where a stimulation is used for collecting a sample that is used for artificial or in vitro fertilization. It is used in animals too - cattle, dogs, cats, and yes- endangered species. (The animals are usually anesthetized first). Do some research and read about it and form your own opinion on the subject. It is a very complex issue. I don't know if your zoo actually uses that technique for endangered animals, but I have seen some articles on the topic and it seems like a widely used practice in most zoos that actually try to save endangered species. Most people use the technique when the artificial insemination is the only option to breed two animals (such as pairs that fight, or animals that are too far away and it is easier to inseminate with transported semen than move the whole animal).
Are All Zoos cruel to animals? Tough question. While I believe that no Zoo is intentionally cruel to their charges, cruelty is often open to interpretation. I know nothing of Washington's Zoo and any of those issues I have been closely following the Metro Toronto Zoo and have been writing every Reindeer Breeder and forum, as well as several associations of Men whose favourite colour happens to be RED!
Metro Toronto Zoo, while managing to place the two 4 year old adult males and Sundays newborn to the Bowmanville Zoo, has upheld its euthanasia policy. This was extended this year to include the reindeer but has been used in the past to dispose of Mara (Pantagonian Cavvy), Capybara and Muntjac Deer. In theory it is neither a cruel policy or without merit BUT in the case of the Reindeer it was not the most appropriate action to take and will harm the zoos reputation in the public eye at least.
The issue of Roadside Zoos in Ontario has been a hot subject now for a few years. In the case of Metro Toronto Zoo, they are a CAZA accredited facility and they are in the position of being held as the gold standard for levels of care and accomodation. This accreditation limits the manner in which they can dispose of surplus animals but to simply euthanize the over population is not the answer. While the surplus reindeer were said to have been listed on a publication available to other accredited zoos, the next zoo closest to them is the new home. I have seen no evidence of them making any contacts with breeders to arrange either a relocation or a swap to alter bloodlines in the herd which would have been advantageous to the Zoo. Last year, I purchased a Reindeer bull that was declared surplus from another accredited zoo in Manitoba. He is now my herd senior sire. This option was available to MTZ either through me or by contacting the Reindeer Owners and Breeders Association. We are not a secret society, as I believe CAZA to be, and many members carry more accreditation than the zoos.
On the subject of Artificial Insemination and Electroejaculation, I can't say that I know too much about it but I do know that the President of one of the Canadian based Reindeer Associations is on the leading edge of AI and teaches it to the European herders. The procedure is, as I understand it, similar to collection of a horse stallions semen. They are not probed electrically or otherwise. This process should also allow or lead to gender selection in offspring where males are not required/desired. Personally, I am happy with what I get. In the case of endangered species I have to side with the zoos if the only way to perpetuate the species is to sedate the animals and ';probe'; them to collect semen then it is justifiable until a more humane method is found. Some animals don't have the luxury of time.
For anyone who is against zoos please consider this: Animals on this planet are being erradicated systematically and completely. While the populating of Zoos in the last century may have been a contributing factor, they now must be in the lead on conservation. People by nature will be upset with a story and a picture but real action and interest requires interaction. I have witnessed this personally and believe this to be a truth. To do this the animals must be kept and some species only exsist today because they are in zoos. Repopulation in some cases is spearheaded by zoo based programs but this isn't an option for all animals. Herd management is necessary but killing off the animals isn't the most expeditious method to meet the goals.
I sawmention in this subject of people in cages. The Metro Toronto Zoo which opened while I was still in school opened on that premise that the visitor areas would be the primary cages and the animals would have a free run of their habitats. While that was a wonderful idea, people go to zoos to see the animals. This method rarely afforded the opportunity and a rethinking of the concept was required.
One closing thought, I attended a meeting last year of the WSPA talking about a proposed set of legislation to be brought into place in Ontario. One of the presenters made the comment that the public does not want these zoos and that the animals bred their are substandard leading to a glut of unwanted animals on the market. His solution was to close all these places and euthanize the animals. Great position for a Anti Cruelty agency. If the public does not want zoos, then stop going to them. As long as you pay the gate fee and they have the operating capital to stay open they will. Going there and paying the admission so you can complain about them only perpetuates a problem.
There are many more ways to kill an animal than simple cruelty. Neglect, Apathy, and all too often kindness are equally effective.
(I think they already have a Blonde Breeding Program, I think they refer to them as Chicken Ranches in the south!)
they should kill all the animals,, thsy suck.
What do you do after you score a buck? (shoot a deer)?
I'm getting into hunting, and am not really sure on what you do after you kill a buck. Do you field dress it? Or do you bring it back to your truck, or if not intending on eating it, do you leave it where it is and just take the antlers? I know these are probably dumb questions, I just haven't hunted before and am planning on getting into itWhat do you do after you score a buck? (shoot a deer)?
The very first thing you do is field dress the deer. Then you take it right home (don't put it on the hood of the truck and show it off to the school kids). Once you get it home, skin it, split it down the back bone (head to tail not side to side), and then (if you have a cool place like a basement) hang it for a day to drain the blood. The next day, cut and freeze it. You will not have the gamey favor that most people complain about with venison.What do you do after you score a buck? (shoot a deer)?
Feild dressing really depends on how far you are from your truck, if you think you can get it to the truck then take it home because it will make gutting the deer a lot easier because you should have more supplies at home, if you live in the city than you might think about dressing it in the woods. If you are not intending on eating it you still have to make a use of the meat, if you dont want the meat send it to a local food bank, it is illegal to just take the horns.
First thing you do is field dress it. Different styles of field dressing depending on whether you want a mounted full cape trophy. Some states have policies against lopping off the antlers. You have to tag the deer in order to make it a legal kill and that requires a license and an ID tag. Even if you aren't going to eat it, at least gut it and take it home and hang is out to dry it out and get it ready to be skinned so you can cape the buck to have it mounted.
I haven't bagged a deer yet but I hope to later on. The first thing I'd do would be to gut it then chop off the antlers. If I was on my own, I would leave the carcass where it fell. If I could get the 4x4 to it, I would take the meat home for dog meat if it was any good for dog food. I would take and tan the hide for leather. Deer here are feral and can be shot all year. Some States have some laws about them but I dont know what they are. I think the laws relate to cruelty and shooting deer with too small a caliber.
Wedge
Whether you field dress it depends on how far it is to a better spot. But it needs to be dressed and butchered. If you don't want the meat, somebody else will, and you should NEVER leave a carcass to rot. BTW, scoring a deer is the wrong term. That's what you do when you measure the antlers for B%26amp;C or P%26amp;Y scores. There are people who like to keep up with these things. As a matter of fact, I've hunted places where you weren't allowed to shoot a buck with a B%26amp;C score of under 150, with a hefty fine for non-compliance, so that is not a trivial consideration.
Its not dumb if your new at it.
You field dress the deer, you can even butcher the deer out there if you wanted I guess. Then once you get back home, you finish skinning it and butchering it. Or you could take it to a deer processor.
Its illegal to harvest a game animal and take the hide or rack and leave the rest there.
You field dress it 'on site'. Tag it, and pack/drag it out.
You do not just leave it lying around.
Even if you don't intend to eat it, there are places you can donate the meat.
gut it on the spot. lighter to move, its the law, and it saves more meat. then either butcher it yourself or get it butchered. if you dont want it then sell the meat or give it away.
I making wontons soup with venison, and making chopstick from the antler to eat the wontons soup.
TAG IT! The FIRST thing you do is tag it.
The very first thing you do is field dress the deer. Then you take it right home (don't put it on the hood of the truck and show it off to the school kids). Once you get it home, skin it, split it down the back bone (head to tail not side to side), and then (if you have a cool place like a basement) hang it for a day to drain the blood. The next day, cut and freeze it. You will not have the gamey favor that most people complain about with venison.What do you do after you score a buck? (shoot a deer)?
Feild dressing really depends on how far you are from your truck, if you think you can get it to the truck then take it home because it will make gutting the deer a lot easier because you should have more supplies at home, if you live in the city than you might think about dressing it in the woods. If you are not intending on eating it you still have to make a use of the meat, if you dont want the meat send it to a local food bank, it is illegal to just take the horns.
First thing you do is field dress it. Different styles of field dressing depending on whether you want a mounted full cape trophy. Some states have policies against lopping off the antlers. You have to tag the deer in order to make it a legal kill and that requires a license and an ID tag. Even if you aren't going to eat it, at least gut it and take it home and hang is out to dry it out and get it ready to be skinned so you can cape the buck to have it mounted.
I haven't bagged a deer yet but I hope to later on. The first thing I'd do would be to gut it then chop off the antlers. If I was on my own, I would leave the carcass where it fell. If I could get the 4x4 to it, I would take the meat home for dog meat if it was any good for dog food. I would take and tan the hide for leather. Deer here are feral and can be shot all year. Some States have some laws about them but I dont know what they are. I think the laws relate to cruelty and shooting deer with too small a caliber.
Wedge
Whether you field dress it depends on how far it is to a better spot. But it needs to be dressed and butchered. If you don't want the meat, somebody else will, and you should NEVER leave a carcass to rot. BTW, scoring a deer is the wrong term. That's what you do when you measure the antlers for B%26amp;C or P%26amp;Y scores. There are people who like to keep up with these things. As a matter of fact, I've hunted places where you weren't allowed to shoot a buck with a B%26amp;C score of under 150, with a hefty fine for non-compliance, so that is not a trivial consideration.
Its not dumb if your new at it.
You field dress the deer, you can even butcher the deer out there if you wanted I guess. Then once you get back home, you finish skinning it and butchering it. Or you could take it to a deer processor.
Its illegal to harvest a game animal and take the hide or rack and leave the rest there.
You field dress it 'on site'. Tag it, and pack/drag it out.
You do not just leave it lying around.
Even if you don't intend to eat it, there are places you can donate the meat.
gut it on the spot. lighter to move, its the law, and it saves more meat. then either butcher it yourself or get it butchered. if you dont want it then sell the meat or give it away.
I making wontons soup with venison, and making chopstick from the antler to eat the wontons soup.
TAG IT! The FIRST thing you do is tag it.
Why are the suicide rate of US soldiers being compare to the US public? Should we compare deer hunters too?
Deer hunters have guns............ So, how many deer hunters committed suicide this year while hunting with a gun?Why are the suicide rate of US soldiers being compare to the US public? Should we compare deer hunters too?
I think most men want to help people, firemen who risk their lives to save people from burning buildings to policemen to lawyers from unjust imprisonment.
Then they are given a gun and told to kill people, we see it in the Vietnam soldiers who came home, most of them had tragic lives.
They killed old people, women, children, along with very young men.
This was not natural for humans God never intended for people to kill each other.
I hear every day ';well, more people are killed on the California freeways in Traffic accidents.'; Like that makes the killing of young men in Iraq okay. We have some people who are expendable, their lives are meaningless. Isn't that funny that most of them are poor?
You see very few rich people having their sons in the military.
Joe Biden is one of the few people who has done that.Why are the suicide rate of US soldiers being compare to the US public? Should we compare deer hunters too?
You do know suicide is killing yourself ON PURPOSE, RIGHT, not a hunting accident. In the military the big problem is the suicide rate is much higher than it has ever been in the military by a wide margin. I am a disabled vet, and my friends tell me the reasons are obvious. Any time you deploy for a long time, depression and stress are a problem, being in a combat situation makes both of those things worse, and then add the fact that these kids are deploying longer than our troops have ever had to deploy due to shortages and ridiculous policies, everyone says we have to help and support the military, but we do not do nearly enough, it is becoming a national disgrace. hopefully the dems can straightin it out.
The suicide rate is about the same as the national average. The reasons may be different. But the military has quite a few programs in place to prevent suicide. In fact it is mandatory training for every member and civilian. But the best laid plans don't always work if someone is set on killing themselves.
Deer hunting can hardly be compared to being a soldier in a war zone. Deer hunters very seldom see their friends killed. Deer hunters very seldom see innocent people accidentally killed as a consequence of something they've done.
Suicide rates are compared between soldiers and the US public for various reasons. One very good reason is to recognize if there is a higher rate of suicide among our troops and provide funding for psychiatric counseling for them.
Because soldiers are a part of the American public, sometimes under extreme stress and deserve quality care for their service - which should be measured to ensure that it is sufficient - that's why.
If anecdotal evidence showed that suicide rates were higher for deer hunters, then of course it should be investigated...but I suspect they are not.
Cameron-Ritchie, the Army psychiatrist, said suicide attempts are usually related to problems with intimate relationships, but they are also related to problems with work, finances and the law.
';The really tough area here is stigma. We know that soldiers don't want to go seek care. They're tough, they're strong, they don't want to go see a behavioral health-care provider,'; Cameron-Ritchie said.
Multiple deployments and long deployments appear to exact a toll on relationships, thereby boosting the number of suicide attempts, she said.';
This may be a joking matter to you but our soldiers are under a great amount of stress and it is taking its toll. You also have to consider that the number of soldiers that are deployed and that are coming home do not get the proper medical treatment that they need. Military and VA facilities are overbooked and have long waiting lines. Post traumatic stress syndrome is very high and needs to be dealt with immediately.
I'm not sure why you are making light of such a serious situation but it is a little upsetting. My husband came back from Iraq and went through months and months of counseling before he was able to cope.
it is more useful to compare suicides in the US military to the suicide rates in previous years.
I don't think the problem is the guns, but is very long deployments, in a war that has gone on longer than WW2.
Because the soldiers were citizens prior to military service, that was their previous status.
What, you'd like to ascertain which of our soldiers were deer hunters? Go fer it.
It's not about the gun ownership. It's about the interminable 18 month tours and multiple deployments.
I hope you realize that an accidental death, such as a hunting accident, is not a suicide.
It's sad, and I think Bush should attend every soldiers funeral to! He was the one that put them on this senseless war.
well dear hunter generally dont kill men women and children so its not really a fair comparison
you should be ashamed of yourself
As long as we are not hunting with Dick Cheney we will be alright...
All kiddings aside, what type of question is this?
i dont understand your logic.
I don't get the question.
I think most men want to help people, firemen who risk their lives to save people from burning buildings to policemen to lawyers from unjust imprisonment.
Then they are given a gun and told to kill people, we see it in the Vietnam soldiers who came home, most of them had tragic lives.
They killed old people, women, children, along with very young men.
This was not natural for humans God never intended for people to kill each other.
I hear every day ';well, more people are killed on the California freeways in Traffic accidents.'; Like that makes the killing of young men in Iraq okay. We have some people who are expendable, their lives are meaningless. Isn't that funny that most of them are poor?
You see very few rich people having their sons in the military.
Joe Biden is one of the few people who has done that.Why are the suicide rate of US soldiers being compare to the US public? Should we compare deer hunters too?
You do know suicide is killing yourself ON PURPOSE, RIGHT, not a hunting accident. In the military the big problem is the suicide rate is much higher than it has ever been in the military by a wide margin. I am a disabled vet, and my friends tell me the reasons are obvious. Any time you deploy for a long time, depression and stress are a problem, being in a combat situation makes both of those things worse, and then add the fact that these kids are deploying longer than our troops have ever had to deploy due to shortages and ridiculous policies, everyone says we have to help and support the military, but we do not do nearly enough, it is becoming a national disgrace. hopefully the dems can straightin it out.
The suicide rate is about the same as the national average. The reasons may be different. But the military has quite a few programs in place to prevent suicide. In fact it is mandatory training for every member and civilian. But the best laid plans don't always work if someone is set on killing themselves.
Deer hunting can hardly be compared to being a soldier in a war zone. Deer hunters very seldom see their friends killed. Deer hunters very seldom see innocent people accidentally killed as a consequence of something they've done.
Suicide rates are compared between soldiers and the US public for various reasons. One very good reason is to recognize if there is a higher rate of suicide among our troops and provide funding for psychiatric counseling for them.
Because soldiers are a part of the American public, sometimes under extreme stress and deserve quality care for their service - which should be measured to ensure that it is sufficient - that's why.
If anecdotal evidence showed that suicide rates were higher for deer hunters, then of course it should be investigated...but I suspect they are not.
Cameron-Ritchie, the Army psychiatrist, said suicide attempts are usually related to problems with intimate relationships, but they are also related to problems with work, finances and the law.
';The really tough area here is stigma. We know that soldiers don't want to go seek care. They're tough, they're strong, they don't want to go see a behavioral health-care provider,'; Cameron-Ritchie said.
Multiple deployments and long deployments appear to exact a toll on relationships, thereby boosting the number of suicide attempts, she said.';
This may be a joking matter to you but our soldiers are under a great amount of stress and it is taking its toll. You also have to consider that the number of soldiers that are deployed and that are coming home do not get the proper medical treatment that they need. Military and VA facilities are overbooked and have long waiting lines. Post traumatic stress syndrome is very high and needs to be dealt with immediately.
I'm not sure why you are making light of such a serious situation but it is a little upsetting. My husband came back from Iraq and went through months and months of counseling before he was able to cope.
it is more useful to compare suicides in the US military to the suicide rates in previous years.
I don't think the problem is the guns, but is very long deployments, in a war that has gone on longer than WW2.
Because the soldiers were citizens prior to military service, that was their previous status.
What, you'd like to ascertain which of our soldiers were deer hunters? Go fer it.
It's not about the gun ownership. It's about the interminable 18 month tours and multiple deployments.
I hope you realize that an accidental death, such as a hunting accident, is not a suicide.
It's sad, and I think Bush should attend every soldiers funeral to! He was the one that put them on this senseless war.
well dear hunter generally dont kill men women and children so its not really a fair comparison
you should be ashamed of yourself
As long as we are not hunting with Dick Cheney we will be alright...
All kiddings aside, what type of question is this?
i dont understand your logic.
I don't get the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)