A lot of BS for just one poster.

First, I know more about dog training than you ever will. I've been doing it for 40 years involving a dozen breeds and including such things as dog shows, obedience, agility, flyball, rescue training including Newfoundlands jumping from choppers into the water, etc. So, I know precisely what goes into training dogs for any task. BUT, that isn't the point, is it.

If you use radio-collared dogs for bear hunting (or mountain lions), the dog finds the bear, trees it, and then you come along and shoot it at point blank range. That is no different whatever from capturing the animal, tying it to a stake and shooting it. It isn't hunting - the dog does that part - it isn't sport - no hunters die - and it destroys the gene pool to boot.

On another issue, I have hiked and backpacked in 75% of National Parks and wilderness areas in the U.S. and much more around the world. I take nothing but photographs and I leave nothing but footprints.

Finally, I have learned more about hunting than I want to know. I worked with Ducks Unlimited in CA to convince rice farmers to change their ways. It was successful. I hated that ducks were being killed but, in the end, there were more ducks. I've worked with hunters in Montana and Wyoming to help them identify the old, weak and sick among elk and bison. I also help them identify the alphas so they will leave them alone. and much more.

Your very premise is BS.

You would be wrong about the backpacking thing. Now that I'm 60, I have slowed down some, but I still get in 2 long trips a year plus weekends. You can make all the weird assumptions you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that bear hunting with radio-collared dogs should get you jailed not praised.

If you love nature so much, why are you out there killing animals, especially predators. Wolves and mountain lions will gladly manage deer for you, but, oh yeah, you killed almost all of them.

Another thing. Working with hunters is an environmental necessity if one wants to achieve certain things, but hunters, in my experience, are very unwilling to do some very simple things that would make a difference. The guys in Ducks Unlimted, for example, were willing to work with us to put pressure on rice farmers, but they were totally unwilling to switch from lead shot to steel shot even though lead is extremely harmful to ducks. I don't see the environmentalism of hunters.

I acknowledge that there are responsible hunters, but none of them are trophy hunters.

I forgot about the dogs. No, I am not a fan of the so-called Dog Whisperer - too heavy on the dominance thing. I'm more a fan of Patricia McConnell or Gwen Bohnencamp. Try teaching a Siberian Husky to do agility or flyball, and you'll find out what a dog training challenge is all about. Also, how do you teach them not to run you over a cliff when you tell them to go right, but still have them obey when you're not running the sled? I have six Siberians today, and you might be surprised about my dog training skills if you met them.

Nope, the Second Amendment had nothing to do with citizens protecting themselves from a tyrannical government. That is pure 20th century fabrication. The sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that enough people had weapons so that the militia could be called up to defend the country if attacked. The founders had no interest in establishing standing armies.

The original purpose being moot doesn't that Americans have the right to have one gun of some kind. There is no right to have two guns or handguns or concealed weapons or guns that will fire more than one round without reloading. All this is outside the scope of the Amendment. If you have one gun of some kind, your right to bear arms has not been infringed.

BTW, if you do take up arms against the U.S. government, it's called insurrection, and it's a capital crime.

Italy

Hungary

Romania

Croatia

Latvia

Lithuania

Estonia

Spain

Portugal

France

Austria

Turkey

Japan

Good catch. Spenser was 16th century, 300 years before the Victorian era.

I find myself agreeing with Electro Robot - don't think that ever happened before. Nonetheless, I work at home, I could live anywhere in the world with high speed internet, and, as long as I were willing to work funky hours, no one would know or care. I have a small cottage in SW France, and I worked from there 3 months last year without anyone knowing I wasn't still in Portland. That said, where I live is of vital importance to me. I have lived in a variety of places in the U.S., but Portland is my home of choice. I really like it here, so place is not irrelevant, it is a key component to quality of life.

I don't completely disagree with your post about living in Western Europe, but I do think that you overstated the case.

I'm not sure that even 10% of the population could arrange residence and income in Europe if they need to work. Retirees, OTOH, can do quite well in Europe, and the Europeans are glad to let you in, because you don't need to take a job. There is no way for people to live in London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Rome or other large cities without significant income, but the cost of living in Basque country, in both Spain and France, is lower than here in Portland. Also, the Alto Addige or Valle D'Aosta regions of Italy, Dijon area in France, many of the formerly East German parts of Germany, the NW part of Catalonia in Spain and many others are really quite moderate in cost of living.