I was listening to the radio the other day (one of my favorite things to do while driving around town. Music is mostly for the office and while studying) and I heard a man make a statement that I must be completely oblivious to the reasoning.

"Yesterday my son was able to bag his first deer. It was a great moment for him as a man because he is contributing to the family. He is providing for us. Even at 12 years old he is making a contribution to how we live and helping us to survive."

Let's be real people, that's not what it is at all. Hunting is a hobby for MOST Americans. There is nothing provisional about it. It's the thrill of being able to track, stalk and kill. If it was provisional then your family wouldn't hit the grocery store. I can understand the supplementary effects of it, but that is not why someone goes hunting. That is why we go to the grocery store. Hunting is for the fun of it. Hunting is for the thrill. Hunting is for the "rush." I'm not a hunter. Maybe that speaks to my ignorance but to think that a 12 year old is helping his family live because he "bagged" his first deer does not seem to be a clear line of reasoning to me. Maybe I'm missing out on manhood or other parts of the journey but I don't think I would have had any issues if it wasn't for the experience being described as if we were all on the Oregon Trail. I think hunting would be much more exciting if you could only use a knife. That would even the playing field a bit. Even bows would be a nice regression. But tagging an animal from 300 yards seems a bit lopsided.

To all the hunters who read this : This was not directed at you and I have nothing but love for you. It was for the guy on the radio. Unless you yourself are "providing", then we have issue. Not really but wouldn't it be fun to think so.
----------------
Now playing: Bon Iver - Woods