Talk:Reindeer hunting in Greenland/Archive 1

Archive 1

From before this article was placed here in article space

It all started here...

With a humerous personal essay:

• Unidentified Flying Reindeer

Following is the part that really got me started on this article:

Hunting trip details

Rudolph was the third deer to fall that day, shot with a Sako "Hunter" model .30-06 caliber rifle. He had been wandering with another reindeer, which was shot about 30 minutes before Rudolph met his fate. Rudolph nearly got away, but apparently decided to stop to graze and was spotted nearly 130 yards away and was hit with the first shot. He then ran about 30 yards, disappearing around a hillside bend. I thought I had missed him and that he had escaped, but I found him in the grass and bushes where he had fallen. He was too large to carry, as I had already shot two other deer that day, and I had to come back for him the next day. About 30 minutes later I shot my fourth deer that day, so I had alot of work the next day! I covered the last two deer with space blankets so I could find them again, and to keep ravens and foxes away.

To make matters worse, the next day was our time to break camp and end our hunt. While the others broke camp and sailed our equipment and animals across a lake, I climbed back up into the hills to get Rudolph and then had to carry him several miles to our rendeavouz point, which was where our boat was anchored up. Much to my horror, when I arrived there before the others, the boat was gone! That could have been disastrous if it had been bad weather. (In Greenland, it can occasionally snow in August.) The boat anchors (we used two of them, the current was so strong) had been pulled up and the boat had driven downstream and ended up in a large area of mudbanks composed of glacial silt, where it was in danger of capsizing. Fortunately it was saved and we made it home alright after a very successful hunting trip.

The trip was remarkable in many ways, and the Northern lights were especially spectacular. We were three men and one woman, and used two conjoined tents. We were in an area called Ilulialik, which is a continuation of the northernmost end of Godthåb's fjord north of Bird Mountain (Fuglefjeldet). It is easily visible (including the mudbanks) using Google Earth.

The trip included sailing in a slow diesel fishing boat for ten hours, use of an inflatable rubber boat and a foldable canoe, hiking, backpacking, lots of high calorie camping food, good backpacks, warm sleeping bags, and fortunately great weather. Our weapon calibers were .30-06 Springfield, .243 Winchester, and 6.5x55 Swedish. My next rifle will be a .243. While my .30-06 performed excellently, it has alot of recoil, while the .243 is much easier on the shoulder. -- BullRangifer/talk

Refs:

Looking good

Hey, this is looking really good, a lot of work you put into it. It is very interesting at least the part of read so far. I hope to finish reading it soon, been busy! I hope you are doing ok, keep up the good job.--Crohnie 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie. I decided to do something else for awhile. This subject has interested me since our time in Greenland, where I shot many reindeer and fished alot. It was the best time of our lives. This is also a learning experience, since it involves going beyond my own experiences, reading other articles, and finding information elsewhere. I'm nearing the limits of what I can do and hope to release it soon. I hope it doesn't get too demolished. -- BullRangifer/talk 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well your love shows through very clearly to me, the article is wonderful. When you put it out for public reading and editing, I don't think it will change the loving care you put into it. I personally see all the hard work and time you put into this article and I can also understand you being hesitant to let you 'baby' be tampered with. You should be real proud, it is a very easy to understand article to read. --Crohnie 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, have you ever eaten Reindeer meat? If so how is it? I can't even picture eating Rudolph! ;-) I think the only different meat from the norm I have had is gator meat. Here in FL there is a lot of them but amazingly it's difficult to get, it gets shipped out. I always want to try venison but never had the chance since I pretty much have stayed in the state other than some vacations, mostly Carribean cruises. --Crohnie 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have shot 16 reindeer and eaten 15 of them. Fantastic, very lean and well-tasting. Because it's so lean, it should be handled carefully to avoid drying. Prepare a steak in a roasting bag with some butter on top, sweet red wine, juniper berries, salt, and pepper. The juices can then be used to make the gravy. Tastes good with cranberry sauce on the side. Reindeer are a species of deer, and thus their meat is also classed as venison. I'm sure you can find venison, you just have to look, and just close your eyes and pay. You only live once! -- BullRangifer/talk 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious reindeer

I have written about the curiosity of reindeer. The very first day of my first reindeer hunt, I had shot my first one about 30 min. after leaving the tent. Later I shot another one, and two others (that had been about 200 meters further away) came closer and closer to see what I was doing. I was very far above our camp, which was just a speck in the distance, and I knew that I would have to carry the reindeer all the way down. The two curious animals came closer and closer and I kept glancing up at them while I used my knife and dressed the animal I had just shot. I said to myself that if they came closer than to "that spot", I'll shoot one of them. They did and I shot. That was enough to get the other one to run away. They were about eight meters away, so I could hear them breathing. They were very interested in what I was doing, and it cost one of them its life. They were probably about two years old. So I shot three reindeer my first day, and I had never been big game hunting in my life! That's Greenland for you.

Keep in mind that I was out in the open, moving, with blood up to both elbows, and kept glancing up at these two reindeer that were snorting and staring at me. They kept edging closer and closer, and I don't know how close they would have gotten if I hadn't shot one of them. When I decided to shoot I simply dried my hands off on my pants, loaded another cartridge in the chamber, aimed, and shot. No carefulness about it. I doubt they had ever seen a human before. (This paragraph added later... -- BullRangifer/talk 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Another time I was accompanied by my wife. We spotted two reindeer about 120 meters away. There was nothing between us and them but some small boulders on top of a large granite surface. She hid behind one and I lay down and crawled directly towards them, from one boulder to another until I couldn't get any closer. By then I was about 100 meters from them. Right before I was ready to shoot, one of them disappeared downhill. I waited a bit to see if it would return, but it didn't, so I shot the remaining deer, only to be startled by the discovery that the other deer was only about six meters to my right, staring down at this creature with a stick that said "bang". (It had apparently circled around and come back up to where I was.) I only had to carefully and slowly point at it and shoot. So we had two animals to carry back to our camp. All in all a good day! Curiosity killed those reindeer.

The next day we shot two more reindeer. One of them was on an open plain, with only small bushes. While my wife hid behind a small mound, I crawled towards the reindeer, in full sight of it. Every time it lifted its head from eating and looked directly at me, I stopped all movement. When it decided I wasn't a threat and resumed grazing, I slowly crawled forward. This was repeated several times, with it looking directly at me each time. Finally my nerves couldn't take anymore. If the wind changed or it could smell me, it would run. I shot it at about 60 yards. Several other animals I have shot at under 50 yards.

I figure that there are three things that can spook a reindeer, especially an experienced one: movement (sight), sound, and smell. If two of them occur, you risk it running away. One of them isn't always enough. Their eyesight isn't good, but smell and movement will spook them immediately. Inexperienced and curious reindeer risk never gaining experience. -- BullRangifer/talk 10:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfinished jobs

Need to include information on

• Traditional Inuit hunting and its history.
• Commercial hunting
• Winter hunting
• Trophy hunting
• Best times of day for hunting

Searching

• http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=caribou+OR+reindeer+OR+rangifer+AND+greenland&kgs=1&kls=0
• http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=caribou+OR+reindeer+OR+rangifer+AND+greenland+AND+hunting&kgs=1&kls=0
• http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-38,GGLD:en&q=greenland+site:rangifer%2enet

-- BullRangifer/talk 06:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

hi,I am watching you build and prune!

Hi Fylee, I have you on my watch list so that I can see an article start from almost the beginning to frutation. It looks good and it looks like a lot of work too! ;) I hope you are well. We had a car accident so a bit sore still but no one hurt thank goodness, just bumps and muscle soreness. Oh just so you know, hubby bought us a four day trip to the Bahamas so will be gone Friday through Monday night. --Crohnie 12:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a good trip. I've never been there, but I had a patient from the Bahamas once. This article is growing, partially because of input from biologists who live, or have lived, in Greenland. One is a neighbor. There are some controversial angles which I only touch on, but which may well end up being edited quite a bit. -- BullRangifer/talk 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Consequences of reindeer herding

A hunter

I suspect this hunter (read his cap) understands what's written below. Large-scale pastoralism would destroy Greenland coastal lands (and those are the only kinds!), while controlled hunting ensures that the nature is preserved and the animals keep their habitat.

This article is about hunting, not pastoral Reindeer herding (which would make for an interesting article), but in the process of doing research for this article, I have naturally found lots of stuff about herding. Here is something that raises a red flag, at least as far as Greenland is concerned. I doubt the Greenland flora and landscape could support widespread herding. The habitable nature there is far too limited and vulnerable.

Timescapes of Community Resilience and Vulnerability in the Circumpolar North

By Martin Robards and Lilian Alessa

Pastoralism

Two prominent changes in Arctic resource provisioning can be described in relation to Rangifer tarandus (caribou or reindeer), which for millennia has been the most important terrestrial resource for Arctic peoples (Klein, 1996;Freese, 2000). In the 6th century AD on Russia's Yamal Peninsula, R. tarandus were domesticated for transport, facilitating substantial increases in a community's effective hunting range and resource options (CAFF, 2001) while reducing vulnerability to the vagaries of spatial or temporal migration patterns. Another revolution developed over the last 1000 years, as animal husbandry and oversight of greater numbers of R. tarandus marked the transition from a mode of subsistence based on hunting and gathering to a mixed economy based on hunting and gathering plus intensive, highly specialized, livestock pastoralism (Krupnik, 1993; Freese, 2000). Between 1700 and 1900, the domestic reindeer population rapidly increased across the Eurasian Arctic, and by the end of the19th century, wild reindeer hunting by many indigenous Eurasian cultures had virtually disappeared (Krupnik,1993). Pastoral lifestyles may increase resilience of ecological systems through pulsed disturbances as herders move their animals to new pastures. However, several episodes of rapid decline of R. tarandus in areas of pastoralism across the Arctic have been attributed to changing biophysical conditions, irrespective of anthropogenic factors (Krupnik, 1993). The most dramatic repercussion of a pastoral lifestyle may be the three- to fourfold increase in ecological carrying capacity for humans that results from the transition between hunter/gather and pastoral lifestyles (Freese, 2000; CAFF, 2001). Furthermore, top-down government intervention in and control of reindeer pastoralism, via subsidies and other incentives, in Fennoscandia and Russia over the last century have led to pernicious socioeconomic and ecological effects (Paine,1994). These effects have further stressed the environmental carrying capacity by delaying social ramifications, while allowing for continued aggravation of the underlying shortfalls of the biophysical environment to support community needs. In these cases, the lag effects of human population growth are out of synchrony with the regeneration of reindeer and their habitat, management responses, the balances between domesticated and wild R. tarandus, and social-ecological resilience (Fig. 1). Increases in human populations as a result of pastoral lifestyles represent lifestyle dependence. Ecological deterioration as a result of elevated R. tarandus densities, mechanization, and social reorganization could preclude a return to a pure hunter/gatherer lifestyle during periods of changing pastoral fortunes, because of exceeding ecological carrying capacity thresholds and barriers to social adaptability.

Source: Arctic: Vol. 57, no. 4 (December 2004) p. 415-427

Nearly ready

Update: I'm getting near the limits of how much I want to do alone. So far I've tried to cover the subject from a number of different angles, tried to keep it interesting by using widely varying styles and formats (facts, research, history, images & galleries, prose, lead & summary, wikilinks, references, etc.), and generally tried to present the subject so people will understand some of the subject's many facets and to also get a feel for what it's like. I may need to upload some of my own images. There just aren't enough good images in Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately I don't have many hunting images of my own since I didn't take many pictures on hunts. I simply didn't dare take my good camera along, and this was before small digital cameras (and I didn't own a cheap analog one). Greenland is not only very green, it's also very wet, and camera electronics and moisture are a bad blend. I ruined my first good SLR when our canoe hit an underwater rock and tipped over on the Colorado River. Maybe I can convince some people to allow me to use their Greenland images. There are plenty of them out there. -- BullRangifer/talk 12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a really good article! The images are awesome and the perspective is certainly unique. I think we could call it a work of art. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. The subject matter is nice to work with for me, since it brings back lots of good memories and beautiful scenery. My wife was fortunate enough to experience two hunts, one with me, and we worked fine as a team. One cannot truly understand Inuit mentality without having experienced how they get food and survive. They live in a land where one is "on the edge" all the time in many ways, and they have lived for thousands of years doing the best they could, with starvation as a constantly recurring problem. They never developed large settlements, only living in small groups, and those groups often disappeared because they all starved or died of disease. Their original diet was mostly meat, fat, and viscera, with berries and angelica as a supplement. Fortunately the climate means that anyone living there has a very high metabolic rate and can utilize such a diet, which is deadly in warmer climates. The calories which the body eagerly burns to survive in the far north, become a burdensome surplus in warmer climes. We ate huge quantities of meat while living there, but upon returning to Denmark we had to radically change our diet, simply because it was impossible to eat that way. -- BullRangifer/talk 07:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"No natural predators"

Reindeer have no natural enemies - what about wolves? If there were more wolves, would there be less reindeer? Should we say something along these lines. The irony is that man didn't mind killing the wolves, but doesn't want to kill the overpopulating reindeer? -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Later on I mention "although wolves present no threat in Greenland". Wolverines can cross the ice from Ellesmere Island, but it's rare, and neither wolves nor Polar bears are naturally occurring in southwestern Greenland (I have now modified the text), where the reindeer are located. Those are the only "natural" – though not "naturally occurring" - potential predators. In Canada the wolves hunt reindeer all the time, and here is a film from YouTube. Wolves begin eating their prey without consideration for whether the prey is alive or not. "Natural" is also cruel. I wouldn't put it past a sea eagle to take a reindeer calf once in awhile, but I've never heard of it. They do take lamb occasionally. They are huge birds and I've seen them many times, often when they are getting dive bombed by smaller birds who drive them from the area. There is limited reindeer herding in small areas in Greenland, but that's another subject. Greenland doesn't have the large tundra (and no forests) areas needed to sustain large herds. -- BullRangifer/talk 06:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Going public with article

I think the time has come to go public with this:

• Reindeer hunting in Greenland

-- BullRangifer/talk 07:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article is great. You should be very proud of all your hard work. We are leaving today for the Bahamas so I'll check in around Tuesday or so. I'm very happy to have been able to watch this grow from infancy to a full article, thanks. I learned a lot watching you build something so magnificant. I'll talk to you soon. --Crohnie 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a good trip. -- BullRangifer/talk 09:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Going public

Finally time to make this available for further development. I have gotten as far as I care to on my own. -- BullRangifer/talk 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions. First perhaps the words of caution should be removed such as the third paragraph in Background. For me they seem to be un-encyclopedic. An alternative to removal would be to reword them such that they appeal more to the readers that most likely are never to hunt in Greenland. Second, some parts of the article sounds like a "defense speech" for the right of hunting reindeers. These should also be rewritten. Otherwise it seems like an interesting article. Labongo 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now reworded that third paragraph so as to make it clear it is information relevant to hunters. The other parts that seem like a "defense speech" are likely explaining the necessity of hunting reindeer. Which areas are you thinking of? Please let me know and I'll try to work on them. -- BullRangifer/talk 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One minor detail. The article talks about the hunting season. But I could not find when it starts and ends. This should be added to the introduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Labongo (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I have now mentioned the "autumn" season, which is the major one open to the public. A winter hunting season exists for commercial hunters only. The precise times vary according to region, that's why I've written that hunters should seek information in the local area. -- BullRangifer/talk 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I would suggest adding a picture of a Greenland reindeer. Reindeers from different parts of the world tend to vary in size and shape. The current picture is probably from the US.

That would be ideal. The Greenlandic reindeer vary quite a bit, coming from different stock and blends. The lead image is most likely from Alaska, but is a great image we can use until we get a better one of a Greenlandic example. I have never shot one that large. In fact only one of the 16 I have shot had antlers at all, and it was a female. Most were 2-3 years old, and so weren't impossible for me to carry. That female was probably about four years old and I could allow her carcass to slide downhill in the snow quite a long distance, saving me a lot of hard work. -- BullRangifer/talk 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation please

I tried to get some good advice, so I have copied it from Here:

I would like to get this article evaluated:

• Reindeer hunting in Greenland

-- BullRangifer/talk 09:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're thinking of it becoming a featured article you may be aiming a little too high - going for Good article status is a more realistic goal early on, and really a prerequisite to becoming an FA anyway. Richard001 11:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I'm just interested in getting some people who are experienced at evaluating articles to take a look and give some pointers on what's lacking and needs improvement. -- BullRangifer/talk 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to try Wikipedia:Peer review for that. While I'm here, here's some quick notes: the lead needs to be expanded per Wikipedia:Lead section, and references are missing information, such as access date. Try using {{cite web}} and other citation templates to aid you. Pagrashtak 14:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a prerequisite whatsoever, so I'm not really sure what you mean by that... Christopher Parham (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may not technically be a prerequisite, but it's pretty obvious that any article that can't get past GA nomination isn't going to have an FA star any time soon. Richard001 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. In order to improve the article you should:

1. Expand the lead (see WP:LEAD).
2. Add access dates to citations.
3. Expand or merge all those one-sentence stubby paragraphs.
4. Remove the links to categories. We generally don't do that.
5. Prosify the lists. --Maitch 06:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor formatting issues

Good article, but I found that the underlined sections and the centred captions on the thumbnails look a little odd compared to the rest of WP. You may want to simply remove the underlines and un-centre the captions of the images so it looks a little more standard. --Oreo Priest 02:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Style questions

While some things are done here out of habit or because that's just "the way we've always done it," they are matters of taste, so no absolute rules apply. I tried to vary several things to make the article more interesting, but if some styling and formatting matters are really irritating or offensive to many readers, then they can certainly be changed. It's not my article anymore, and my primary interest now is seeking to improve the quality of the article, hopefully enough to get it rated as a good or featured article. The subject matter is that significant for the ones actually involved in the practice. I'll just present my reasoning and would like to do a straw poll here from involved editors about the following suggestions mentioned above:

1. Prosify the lists

Personally I find the lists an easier method of presenting such information, but sometimes shorter lists can easily be made into prose paragraphs or long sentences. We have two long lists (each containing sublists) right now. I fear that prosifying them would make them less easy to read and inspect. As far as I know there is no rule against using lists within articles. I personally like having variation in the article and deliberately attempted to avoid one long prose article by including variations in formatting, including lists. That makes it more interesting and less boring. That's just my opinion, so what do you think? -- BullRangifer/talk 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Remove the underlines

I simply like underlining, as it is visually easier to separate from the following content. Now I've tried italics, which I find less appealing and harder to read, but that's also just my opinion, so what do you think? -- BullRangifer/talk 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I think there are far too many internal links. I was once chastised by an admin for linking all the movies in the Robert Redford article, and apprised that "one internal link" per article was the rule. This has such unnecessary, prosaic internal links as "risks" and "meat". The opening paragraph alone has 20+ links.

I would suggest pruning the entire article of at LEAST 75% of the links. They are unnecessary, redundant (hunter and hunting??), distracting and, again, against guidelines for internal links. -Raphaela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.7 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Un-centre the captions of the images

Just a matter of personal taste. What do you like? -- BullRangifer/talk 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid tunnel vision: Perspective regarding subject matter

Let's keep in mind that this article covers more than just reindeer, hunting, and Greenland. It covers the whole experience, and therefore short mention of aspects related to that experience are legitimate: other animals, cautions, weather, etc.. Greenland presents unique factors that make hunting in Greenland unlike hunting in other countries, and therefore they can also get short mention. If they deserve greater mention, then they may deserve their own article. We need to avoid tunnel vision and the resulting deletion of anything not directly mentioning reindeer, hunting, and Greenland. -- BullRangifer/talk 08:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

However, with very little in the way of changes the whole article could be moved to a more general "Reindeer hunting" (see Polar Bear hunting) as most of what you have could be applied to other countries. Most of what is in the article is not unique to Greenland and applies to Caribou hunting in Arctic Canada. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That is true in many ways. Many things would be in common. Of course all the references and documentation are for Greenland, but sections more specific to other countries (Alaska, Canada, Lapland/Norway/Sweden/Finland, Russia) could be added with the appropriate documentation and local differences. If anyone wants to start working on a general article, that would be great. This is the first time the subject is covered, except for a short section in the reindeer article. The subject is big enough to be worth an article. Reindeer herding is another subject worth a whole article. They are skittish as horses, dumb (and curious) as cows, and very tameable. -- BullRangifer/talk 12:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Practical details should be extended

The Practical details section should be extended with an overview of laws and regulations. For example, who can hunt, what licenses are required, when are the different seasons, how many reindeers can each hunter shoot, do foreigners need a guide, etc. Labongo 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions. We need more Danish editors working here! The information is nearly all in Danish. -- BullRangifer/talk 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jobs to do

Need to include information on:

1. Traditional Inuit hunting and its history.
2. Commercial hunting
3. Winter hunting
4. Trophy hunting
5. Best times of day for hunting
6. Overview of laws and regulations (have added more -- BullRangifer/talk 09:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
7. Who can hunt (have added more -- BullRangifer/talk 09:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
8. What licenses are required (have added more -- BullRangifer/talk 09:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
9. When are the different seasons (have added more -- BullRangifer/talk 09:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
10. How many reindeers can each hunter shoot (have added more -- BullRangifer/talk 09:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
11. Do foreigners need a guide

Searches

• http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=caribou+OR+reindeer+OR+rangifer+AND+greenland&kgs=1&kls=0
• http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=caribou+OR+reindeer+OR+rangifer+AND+greenland+AND+hunting&kgs=1&kls=0
• http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-38,GGLD:en&q=greenland+site:rangifer%2enet

-- BullRangifer 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The more times I read this article I......

Feel bad that these curious animals are hunted. They seem so calm and curious that hunting them now feels cruel to me. Sorry the soft heart in me, I guess my love of animals is kicking in.  :) The article is great, don't get me wrong but I have never hunted before and it seems cruel to me, maybe Rudolph is popping into my head! :)) You have an excellent article going on and I really do enjoy reading and learning about them and their history. I hope you are doing well. --Crohnie 10:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine. What you are feeling is called the "Bambi effect," complicated with a "Rudolph" effect....;-) Hunters always need to remember to be kind to animals and not get too callous. The same applies to workers in slaughter houses and anyone who handles cattle all the time. Nature is actually quite cruel, and it's only humans that have a kind of ethic related to killing "humanely". Wolves, for example, are among the many kinds of predators that start eating their prey while they are alive, and the whole cat family play with their prey. Now that's torture! A well-placed bullet is the most merciful way an animal can die. If they die "naturally," it is nearly always painfully and cruelly: hunger, getting caught by predators, disease, injuries and slow death, etc..

Contrast the life of animals raised in captivity all their lives, and the fear they experience during the process of capture and transport to the slaughter house, with the life of an animal living naturally and freely all its life, to suddenly, without warning or fear, be killed by a hunter. The three different scenarios: death in nature, death in a slaughterhouse, and death at the hand of a hunter, are all very different, and the last certainly allows an animal the best quality of life and best way to die.

A hunter is not a mere observer of nature, but is in tune with it and becomes a part of it by participating in the age-old natural circle of life. He finds his place as a predator in the original and natural social order and recognizes the interdependence and interconnection of all life and the deep connection between man and beast. The hunter functions as a steward, using modern wildlife management to maintain the balance necessary for the protection of sustainable natural resources and the support of all life. Hunters observe and experience nature much more intently than most people who go for walks or hikes in nature. The best wildlife photographers get their good results by stalking their "prey" just like a hunter does. One can go hunting with a camera. -- BullRangifer/talk 18:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to mention that I asked the butcher I know where I could find reindeer meat and he told me he had never heard of it here in FL, actually he didn't know it was an editable meat. Where would I ask about finding this, I would like to try some? Thanks, --Crohnie 10:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that you will be able to locate it. You'd have to live in the northern states, Alaska, or Canada. There it's commonplace. Caribou/reindeer are very numerous. In Florida you can get venison from various kinds of deer. In Scandinavia, especially Norway, Sweden and Finland, it's also commonplace. Both reindeer and moose are favorite objects of hunting and people consider themselves privileged if they have a good supply in their freezer. Moose are very large and can be aggressive and dangerous, unlike reindeer. Reindeer and moose are just as edible as any cow, turkey or chicken. -- BullRangifer/talk 18:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If these animals have never been herded or domesticated shouldn't they be called Caribou? Doesn't Reindeer refer to the fact that the animals are domesticated or is that just folk etymology? 65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Caribou is usually used in North America excluding Greenland, and reindeer for Eurasia, domesticated or not.Editor abcdef (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just an idea

Maybe you can locate and put in the article where reindeer is available in the states. I have tried to find some but I am told it's not available here. --Crohnie 21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It can apparently be ordered, but is likely quite expensive to get it shipped to Florida: [1][2][3][4] How about taking your next vacation in Alaska? -- BullRangifer/talk 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind paying once to try something new that is said by you to be delicious. That's not a problem. I would love to travel to Alaska and many other places but with Crohn's, flying for a long time is not a good idea (when there is a problem like I have), plus I only travel by ship, potty goes with me at all times! :) I saved the links to take a look at them. Maybe my son and his new wife would be interested too and we can split the cost. We do that sometimes. Thanks for looking it up for me, I don't know why I didn't think to do that. --Crohnie 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

major cleanup needed

This article has bothered me for a long time. It's well-sourced and pretty, and some of the first sections about the place of reindeer hunting in culture are very good. But as a whole, the article reads very much like a hunting guide that violates WP:NOT#HOWTO. Much of its content is way off-topic. The section on Reindeer reads like a cut of the Reindeer article, and is not suitable. The equipment section is no better than a list of things you need for reindeer hunting in Greenland, which is not suitable. Wikipedia is not a camping list. Furthermore, a gallery of every major animal you might possibly spot in a particular wilderness would be instantly deleted in any other article. It's both off-topic and makes it seem like a brochure. The "Multifaceted..." section reads off-topic and is waxing poetic ("They can expect to experience many interesting things on a hunt"), rather than reference work. Worst of all, the article is constantly using advisory language such as "they should" or "they must". Best case scenario, I think this article needs whole sections removed. Really, it should be merged with a larger culture of Greenland or hunting article. It is far too specific a subject to make a separate encyclopedic topic. But I would be satisfied with a removal of off-topic sections and how-to language. VanTucky ^talk 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has so far posted any objections to my statements above, so I'll be enacting some major changes to the article per them. VanTucky ^talk 04:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done so far with the changes I wanted to make. After doing so, I can clearly see the value of the article. Merging would be a bad idea, but please remember to stay on topic and avoid advisory language. VanTucky ^talk 04:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this article

I'd say it's unlike any other here on the EN Wikipedia. Even the talk page is good. I'll begin translating this into Old English for our Wikipedia there, although not the entire thing, as that would be too much of a task for myself. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with the editing. You can also look at the original version which contained a bit more, but was a bit too much for some editors, and rightly so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevant diff and link -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)