Five Year Old Boy Kills Bear

They sure start'em young in Arkansas


Link

Wonder if he was married?

Okay, DW is going to be overruled. DD1 is getting a Red Rider BB gun for Christmas!

-Blast

sounds like another version of the kid who shot the huge
razorback hog last year..

Now, I would hate to think that Grandpa LIED, but.... aren't most "youth rifles" .22 caliber? Can you easily kill a bear with a .22?

Yes, yes, I know: my cynicism is flaring up again! But I would bet a whole quarter that there are at least two bullets in that bear. And I'll bet another quarter that one of them isn't a .22.

Sue

I despise hunting for sport.

Killing in self defense - ok.
Killing in a survival situation - ok.
Killing for fun - disgusting.

Anyone who can afford a hunting rifle surely can afford to go to the grocery store and buy some meat from an animal that was going to be killed regardless.

How about how I hunt - because I don't want commercial meat, I only want organic meat, and I also want to reduce the destruction of the environment caused by over-grazing by deer? What do you think of that?

I know quite a few "organic" hunters these days. We don't hunt for horns, we hunt for healthier food and a more realistic and dare I say spiritual connection to the animals we eat. You can't make that connection with a slab of ground meat in the grocery store.

Thats also why we get our meat from my parents farm. The stuff in the store just isn't as good, I don't know weather its due to what they are fed, or hormones they are given or just chemicles leeching from the packaging but the store bought meat tastes different and if I'm not super careful to make sure its not well well done I get sick half the time eating it anyway. The home grown stuff is easier to cook,tastes better, is healthier, etc. Its also better in the eys of organizations liek PETA since the animals are not kept pinned up in a barn, they are allowed to get out and move around.

I never have hunter for hornes either, so far I've only taken two deer, both doe. WV had an overlapping doe and buck season a couple yeard ago because the population of deer was so high so I was able to take whatever I found rather than wait for one or the other. My hunting trip that year was about 5 minutes because I didn't even make it all the way up the road before seeing a doe so I hopped out, shot it, loaded up and turned around and went home.

My parents though have decided they don't want to butcher anymore, too much cleaning up, so I had to take my deer to a local shop and we didn't get any beef these last couple years either. I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried to set up in a small trailer, I was thinking I could do that so they don't have to clean up their garage before and afterward. I could buy one of those aluminum cargo trailers and fix it up for camping most of the year then come deer season empty it out and put in a couple tables and the grinder and such and work up the deer and beef then take it home and clean it out and put the camping stuff back in.

I have nothing against sport hunting (or "horn" hunting for that matter), as long as it is done ethically and legally. Since we (humans) have managed to wipe out most of the predators, that means that we (hunters) have to take up the load. The professional wildlife biologists employed by most State wildlife divisions understand that, and for the most part do a good job by including hunting (both sport and subsistence) into the big picture of wildlife management.

Why not just cover the floor of the garage with plastic sheeting? Ten dollars a roll would be cheaper then a camp trailer and would make clean up a snap.

Sue I got a look at his "Youth Rifle" on the video news clip this morning. It looked like a New England Firearms (or H&R) single shot. In which case it could be about any caliber he could handle. "Youth Rifle" designations happen when manufacturers supply the rifle with a shorter than average stock for use by a person of smaller stature. Even with the "Youth" stock it looked big next to him.

The only comment I have is that there must be no requirement for age on a hunting license in Arkansas and there must be no "Hunter Safety Class" requirement.

Hey Blast,

Make sure it's the Red Rider BB Gun Edition that has the magnetic compass in the butt stock.

That way DD1 will know which way to drag her deer to get it home,,,,,for you to clean!!!

Link. (Thanks Goodsearch!)

Quote: "A hunter born after 1968 must carry a valid Hunter Education card. A card is also required of youth applicants for permit hunts. Hunters under 16 do not need to have a card if they are under the direct supervision of a holder of a valid hunting license at least 21 years of age."

Not sure about the age requirements for a license. I'll bet it is similar to the reg quoted above regarding adult supervision.

"When a man wants to murder a tiger he calls it sport; when a tiger wants to murder him he calls it ferocity." ~ George Bernard Shaw

I grew up in WV and I don't think there was any age limit there. We were hunting under landowner status so I didn't need a license. I live in a different state now and just about the time I was going to have my parents sell me an acre of their land so I could qualify as landowner they changed it to be resident landowner. And residnet status must meet a minimum number of days living there which exceed the number of vacation days I get so I lost out there and now have to have a license. They still have a lifetime license though that I'm going to get one of these days.

Yea, It looked like an H&R youth rifle. If that's the case they currently comes in 243 Rem, 223 Rem, 243 Win., and 7mm-08. Plenty for large game with a good shot.

Eugene, there are usually mobile butchers who will come out to your place, kill and butcher the animal right there, and then hand it over to you.

You could probably find them in the Yellow Pages under Butchering, or have a word with your local large animal veterinarian.

Sue

I think, since there are only a limited number of tags given out, that subsistence hunters should be given priority, because believe it or not, many would starve if not for hunting. Why should sport hunting interfere with a family merely trying to survive? Also, if I were the dude, anyone who killed on public lands merely for a rack or head would lose hunting priveledges for life. Tough doohdoohs!
Also, if deer populations were not curtailed as much by hunting, the reduced predator populations would probably rebound, which might actually be a good thing. Predators are much better at "thinning out" the herd, genetically speaking, thus promoting better offspring. Human hunting, as casual as it is, probably only serves to weaken the herd by removing the strongest reproductive members.
I am all for hunter/gatherer living and for permaculture. Anything else seems overly inefficient, destructive and cruel.
We humans used to live by nomadic hunting/gathering, but some weak guy decided to settle down and the forests were destroyed to make way for agriculture and the meat industry, so he could sit there and create cities. Cough, cough! We can't just up and be hunter/gatherers again. The carrying capacity of the land is already full. But, if we replace agriculture and the meat industry with family permaculture farms, we would all be fed, healthier, happier, probably live longer, and the carrying capacity of the land would be maximally increased. Then maybe some of could go back to a hunter/gatehrer lifestyle without contributing to the dwindling of already strained resources.

My parents farm is way out there and the closest town doesn't even have a grocery store anymore. The trip charge for anyone to come out is more than what it would cost to buy the meat in the store. Its gotten to where they hate to even call the vet because the trip charge is so high. UPS won't deliver there if I try to ship them something.

I still have my "youth" rifle. I have a 22hornet and 20 gauge barrel for it and looked it up on their web site and can send it in to have others fitted such as 12 gauge, etc. The youth part is as others have said shorter. Its my bug out shotgun now since its small and lightweight.

"...UPS won't deliver there if I try to ship them something..."

Wow, that must really be "the boonies"...

UPS wouldn't deliver to a friend of mine either and he didn't live in the sticks. He lived in Camden.


Well, that's a lie. They would sometimes deliver, but they wouldn't stop the truck.

I disagree. In over 40 years in hunting camps I have never met a hunter who was there "trying to survive." On the contrary, with rare exceptions, anybody capable of hunting should be capable of working. A 2nd job is going to provide for the family a lot better than hunting is (unless you are willing to break the law and poach.) I suspect that many people who claim to be "hunting to survive" simply would rather be hunting than working. I know I would....



That is unfortunately irrelevant. With the encroachment of "civilization", all species are having to live in increasing contact with humans. Prey species are much better at surviving this contact than predators. And deer populations have never been higher. I forget the study, but there are now more deer in the continental USA than there were in colonial times.



Nonsense. Even a cursory examination of the big game animals taken by hunters will show the overwhelming number of them to be young. Larger, trophy animals typically require a special permit that is far more difficult to get than a regular license. At least that is the way the experienced wildlife biologists in my state handle things. If things are different where you are maybe you need a new wildlife management team.



It is illegal in every state that I am aware of to kill a game animal and take only the horns and/or head. I happen to like the meat, so I pack it out. But even if I didn't like it I still would. Why? Because it's ethical and it's the law. For those few who don't, the punishment can include fines, loss of hunting priviledges, and the forfeiture of gun and vehicle. That is why it is exceedingly rare (except for poachers, who don't care anyway.)

Yea, I used to want to call them when they would play their ads on TV about shipping to anywhere in the world and ask what world they thought WV was on since they wouldn't deliver there. Last time I tried to ship my parents something I called to see if they recieved it since it showed delivered on the UPS tracking page and it ended up being at the town hall. My dad had to leave work early to get it since he worked 8-5 and the town hall was open from 8-5 only.

" I disagree. In over 40 years in hunting camps I have never met a hunter who was there "trying to survive." On the contrary, with rare exceptions, anybody capable of hunting should be capable of working. A 2nd job is going to provide for the family a lot better than hunting is (unless you are willing to break the law and poach.) I suspect that many people who claim to be "hunting to survive" simply would rather be hunting than working. I know I would.... "

Don't tell them that in Alaska. Besides there, there are many places in America and elsewhere, where subsistence hunting is necessary, as there are not enough jobs nearby. Besides, like you alluded to, if it is better to hunt than to work, what are the factors keeping people from doing just that? Or growing a five acre garden and raising half a dozen chickens for that matter? It is because people have not been taught that living closer to the land is a viable option. I would rather have a ten acre permaculture farm than a job anyday. All the pollution and wasted energy from shipping food grown far away laced with chemicals is not my ideal. If people can't grow their own, they should buy local organic. I would rather live in a functioning village than a city. All cities rely on periphery communities, and that is called urbanization, and that is what is destroying our planet. Jobs are not the answer. Jobs are what displaced indigenous peoples who's forests are being destroyed all around them eventually must resort to getting...sweat shop jobs. They used to hunt. Now MacDonald's owns their land. I hate MacDonald's. I hate sweat shops. I can rant all day, but I'll stop here.

" That is unfortunately irrelevant. "

What "might" be is never irrelevant.

" With the encroachment of "civilization", all species are having to live in increasing contact with humans. Prey species are much better at surviving this contact than predators. "

Coyotes, skunks, raccons, foxes, bobcats, and even mountian lions are just some of the examples of predator species that are just as competent if not more so at surviving near and in human habitat. Basic rule of thumb: Where there is prey there are predators. I know you meant wolves, but there is a reason why I mentioned those others. Animals are evolved to live in niches nature provides. Humans have opposable thumbs and inventive minds so they can "seemingly" live outside of the ecosystem for a short time if they want to, but even so, most humans haven't yet learned that existing within the ecosystem is mandatory.

" And deer populations have never been higher. I forget the study, but there are now more deer in the continental USA than there were in colonial times. "

Seems likely to me.

" Nonsense. Even a cursory examination of the big game animals taken by hunters will show the overwhelming number of them to be young. "

Young, but not diseased or showing subtle signs of unfavorable genetic traits. I think you might have misunderstood my meaning on this one. I'll try to explain things better in the future. Humans don't have any real way of determining whether these younger animals are the best choices for removing from the herd. I think that animals can sense which animals to remove from the herd because they are not interested in wasting energy pursuing the more capable individuals, which are stronger or more highly valued by protective parental instinct, which enables evolution of the species. I think humans have a tendency to cause species stagnation and even devolution, because humans aren't hunting with energy efficiency in mind.

" Larger, trophy animals typically require a special permit that is far more difficult to get than a regular license. At least that is the way the experienced wildlife biologists in my state handle things. If things are different where you are maybe you need a new wildlife management team. "

That might be of benefit to herd viability. I don't know why humans are so indignant in trying to prove themselves by hunting animals they would little chance of catching if they had no modern equipment. Most people scope and shoot. When was the last time you killed a deer with a knife? It sounds ridiculous, but that would rely on instinct, and only the unaware would be taken, to the benefit of the herd. Guns are like random mutation, or an influence coming in from outside the system, like a meteorite. Guns and other easy methods don't discriminate, and it is a roll of the dice whether or not this benefits the herd gene pool. The only positive for guns is a potentially clean, humane kill.
I'm sure you see my point, as irrelevant as it might be to you.

" It is illegal in every state that I am aware of to kill a game animal and take only the horns and/or head. I happen to like the meat, so I pack it out. But even if I didn't like it I still would. Why? Because it's ethical and it's the law. For those few who don't, the punishment can include fines, loss of hunting priviledges, and the forfeiture of gun and vehicle. That is why it is exceedingly rare (except for poachers, who don't care anyway.) "

I'm glad to hear that.

Animals love to go after the young of the herd. Hardly a good thing for the gene pool. They will also go after any animal that has an accident, drowns, whatever. The Walt Disney idea that they "magically" know which animals to cull because of their ESP is utter nonsense. Managed herds do much better than when they are left alone.

We use guns because God gave us the brains to make them. Whether or not we could kill animals with our bare hands (knives are a modern tool also), who cares? I don't hunt to prove anything, I hunt for meat, and I love being outdoors. You have some strange views of hunters, sounds like they are all negative. Perhaps you should meet a couple to break down all these stereotypes you have.

You must have missed my comment about "rare exceptions." These exceptions include Inuits and other native peoples, who hunt to keep their way of life alive as well as themselves. But that is a tiny minority of hunters, at least in the United States.



Where is the source for this claim? Sorry, but it sounds more anecdotal than factual as far as the USA is concerned. Native peoples aside, if I lived in an area where I literally had to hunt to survive, I'd move--particularly if I had "a family to feed."



I never said it was "better". I am saying that for many folks it is simply more enjoyable. And the main limiting factors would have to be game laws and bag limits.



I never said they couldn't survive near human habitat. I said they are not as likely to survive contact with humans as prey species are. Mountain lions and coyotes get shot by sheepherders while mule deer do not. Elk don't typically attack hikers but bears with cubs sometimes do, with disastrous results for the bear. Racoons and skunks are by and large considered pests and are therefore trapped, poisoned, and shot. You don't see that happening with ruffed grouse.



Actually we do. If they are slow enough and unwise enough to be shot by a human then they are removed from the gene pool. The smarter, stronger ones get away. I personally see it just about every year.



I'm not sure what you mean by "indignant", but last fall I hunted mule deer and spike elk with a bow, and later I hunted cow elk with a rifle. I was in the mountains a total of 2 weeks and I never got a shot. (My time was drastically cut short by a serious bout of pneumonia. I make no apologies though; sometimes you are successful and sometimes you are not.)



"Ridiculous" is a good word for it. By limiting hunting to knives you are essentially assuring that no culling takes place, which results in overpopulation of prey species followed closely by widespread starvation. I saw mule deer starving in the deep snow by the thousands in 1983. It's not something I care to see again.

" The Walt Disney idea that they "magically" know which animals to cull because of their ESP is utter nonsense. "

I don't know what this means.

" Managed herds do much better than when they are left alone. "

I guess it all depends on what you mean by better.

" We use guns because God gave us the brains to make them. "

Guns were invented to give people the advantage in war. Their use for hunting is secondary. God doesn't have anything to do with our invention of guns, but Satan might.

" (knives are a modern tool also) "

No.

" who cares? "

I stalk animals for the challenge and because I love outdoors. I can get so close I can touch them, including deer. I think it is funny that people who hunt with guns feel challenged. It is a personal thing. If I were hungry I would kill with my gun, probably at the first deer I saw. I am every bit the opportunist you are, believe me. But I would not pride myself on how much of a hunter I am because I can pull the trigger. For me, hunting is much more than killing an animal for meat. Hunting is a philosophy and a skill set that no man can master in his lifetime.
Don't give me that bull about how hunters aren't out to prove anything. A successful hunt is reason to celebrate and increases the status of men in every culture. It has always been the icon activity for men, and how they prove themselves to be skilled and of value to the community. I think that if you don't understand this, then you have strange ideas about human nature in general as well as about hunters.

" Where is the source for this claim? Sorry, but it sounds more anecdotal than factual as far as the USA is concerned. Native peoples aside, if I lived in an area where I literally had to hunt to survive, I'd move--particularly if I had "a family to feed." "

You are obviously from the middle or upper class. Believe it or not, there are MANY people in the lower US who hunt to supplement a low income. Many of them poach because they can't afford the hunting fees. You rich people can go to your grocery stores as far as I am concerned.

" Actually we do. If they are slow enough and unwise enough to be shot by a human then they are removed from the gene pool. The smarter, stronger ones get away. I personally see it just about every year. "

The smart, strong deer are fast and wise enough to know I am scoping down on them from 50 yards, so they get away. BS!

My father was a partner in a commercial hunting lodge when I was a kid so I grew up around hunting and hunters, I would say that it was almost as big a part in my life as school.

I am still an active hunter today and have introduced my wife and children to the activity. My wife and second daughter enjoy the camp atmosphere but prefer not to actively participate, but my two other children are very involved.

In the Province of Ontario, at age 12 a youth with parental consent can take the Provincial Hunter Course and Federal Firearms Safety Course, including passing two strict exams. The Apprentice is then allowed to share one firearm under the close supervision of a licenced adult Mentor until the apprentice is 15 years at which time the youth can carry their own firearm but still under the direction of a licenced adult. At 18 years the young adult is of age to apply for their own Federal Firearms Licence.

My son has recently completed the 3 year apprenticeship program and is much better trained in safety and hunting ethics than I was at his age.

We are traditional meat hunters and butcher/utilize the game harvested right at our home. If a member of our group is successful in collecting a trophy type animal then that is celebrated (photographs and a toast at dinner) but the trophy is truly secondary to the fellowship, outdoor adventure and quality food harvested.

I find that outdoor activities and especially hunting draws our family together (including a large extended family), it is an activity I hope I can continue to enjoy throughout my life.

Mike

P.S. My son shot his first deer at age 12 with a "youth rifle", a short stocked/short barreled, scoped, bolt action Ruger Mark II compact, stainless/laminate in .260 Rem. A very effective firearm that is scaled to a smaller person and without heavy recoil.

And you were holding up your side of the debate pretty well until this silliness slipped out. Too bad. I guess it was all anecdotal after all.

"Animals love to go after the young of the herd."

They go after the WEAKEST of the herd, very young or old or sick or injured. That's called natural culling.

Sue

TQS: "Besides there, there are many places in America and elsewhere, where subsistence hunting is necessary, as there are not enough jobs nearby."

Eugene: "My parents farm is way out there and the closest town doesn't even have a grocery store anymore... UPS won't deliver there if I try to ship them something."

Norad45: "...if I lived in an area where I literally had to hunt to survive, I'd move--particularly if I had "a family to feed."

So, Norad, exactly WHERE would you move to? The high rent of a city where your minimum wage job just pays the rent? In case you hadn't thought about it, farm/country people often don't have the skills needed to do anything but manual labor.

(If someone's next comment is that they need to go to school, think about that for a few minutes.)

The excess deer population exists in most part because they are rather heavily protected. The ranchers have gotten permission to kill off a lot of the predators because of the ranchers' "right" to graze dumb livestock far into the public lands, and they want to protect them from everything, all the time, under all circumstances. The ranches even see the deer and elk as competitors for the grass, but there, their lobbyists are up against the hunter lobbyists, which are about equally matched.

Here in WA, there are a lot of poachers. It's sort of like "Deliverance" country. I don't begrudge someone feeding their family, but I suspect they just do it because they can. There was a state worker whose father found FOUR untagged deer hanging in his shed. I asked the father if he was going to turn him in, and he said, "Probably not. If he loses his job [which he probably would], he would probably want to move his trash family in with me, and that ain't gonna happen."

I don't mind REAL hunters hunting and observing the rules and regs, but I DO mind those once-a-year weekend hunters who think they know it all without ever taking a gun safety course, can't shoot worth da*n, shoot at anything that moves, take the rack and a haunch and walk off, etc. I know those people tend to kill off each other, but not enough.

I worked for a vet in OR who was out jogging, and heard a shot. As he jogged around a curve, he saw the taillights of a pickup just going around a curve. The big elk's rack had been sawed off. His comment: "Trash begets trash". (Which has become my second rule, after #1: To get to the truth, follow the money.)

And I still don't think the kid killed the bear by himself.

Sue

I'd like to meet the people who entrust a loaded firearm with a 5 year old.

You don't know, dude. Simply put, my opinion, no debate necessary: Sport hunting is wrong. Subsistence hunting is fine. Just do your best to make a humane kill. It is basic math that many people hunt and fish to supplement a low income. You might have a privi-position in society, so I can understand how you might not see the other side of the coin, but it is there. I only fish and hunt for meat that I can't otherwise afford to raise myself. I don't want your industry meat. The meat industry is profit driven cruelty and product integrity is compromised by this fact, in terms of healthiness and morals. Personally, I would rather see more family permaculture farms than grocery stores. People need to get back to the land harmoniously, providing for themselves. We need to love nature by re-establishing predator populations so the wild is the wild once again. Adventure, I am but a spark in the grandness of this once wild wilderness. "Loving" nature by taking the place of the predators is fear-based weakness and is not indicative of what I call being human and is certainly not love of nature at all. It is a widely accepted fact that ecology suffers from lack of wild predation. Humans were never meant to function as nature's band-aid. You have your opinion and I have mine. I don't know where you get your facts from, other than from your circle of sport huntin' buddies, whom it seems you are convinced I should meet for the betterment of my understanding of my place in this world, but I get my facts from two bachelor's degrees, daily master's thesis research, and talking with people who know more than me. Nothing I say slips out. I speak deliberately. The occassional passionate response is a symptom of being a concerned human living on a planet that is dying by way of wealthy human hands, mostly middle and upper-class American, Canadian, and Japanese product consumers, just like yourself. Yes, its true that I care, and it's too bad others can't escape from the group-opinion that they seek out convenient to them and for their own ego-aggrandizement. I choose not to go there, because it is a trap that I don't want to fall into, despite how social it could be. There are two kinds of humans: Those who are destroying the planet, directly and indirectly, and those who's lives are negatively effected by the first group. I tend to place upper class sport hunters in the first group. If you don't understand why, go to the library and read a few books on environmental science and a few others on globalism and urbanization. Then maybe we can have an intelligent debate. I know sport hunting might be a small part of the overall problem, but if the entire problem isn't dealt with, the entire problem won't be solved. If you hunt for the meat, you are supplementing your income, otherwise you would only be there to kill someone. I have no problem with killing for meat, just be aware that there are people who actually need to supplement their income's who are getting left out because some rich guys like huntin' too. It's the truth, and if you have to tell yourself it isn't because you can't bear the burden of responsibility, then you are a typical American, which comes as no surprise to me, and which might not ultimately be your fault.
I just think that low-income hunters should be given priority on public lands. Why shouldn't they? There are only a certain number of tags given out each season. Why should the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer? Do the basic math. I also think liscences should be discounted for low-income hunters and fishermen.
A bit off topic:
Just because people are only harming indirectly, doesn't mean they aren't harming, but it does mean that they are either unaware of what they are actually doing all if not most of the time, or they just don't care. Having an open mind enough to discover the far-reaching results of your actions is rare these days, and when it does occur, it happens because a child has become a true adult. True adults care. A bit off topic, I know, but I have found that the best conversations flow. While I am more than capable of debate, I don't debate with just anyone. Forums are more about opinions and feelings, not about debate or credible info. There are scientific journals for that. They are in the university library. Have a nice day.

Since you are apparently laboring under the delusion that you can magically divine my socio-economic class by the mere fact that I like to hunt, I think that further discussion with you on the subject would be pointless. If you ever come up with any evidence (other than your opinion) that true subsistence hunters make up any more than a tiny fraction of hunters in the USA then I'll be happy to listen to it. Until then, I'm out.

Sue, I would do what my father did: I'd work 2 jobs. If they had to be minimum wage then so be it. Yeah, I'd rather hunt too, but a freezer full of deer meat don't put shoes on the kid's feet.

Poachers are thieves. It's too bad your vet didn't get their license plate number. The state would have acquired a new pickup, some guns, and a good amount of cash (assuming your state laws are similar to the laws here.)

Correct. My point is that it is not the most efficient or best way to improve the overall health of the herd. It is, however, nature's only way. Humans can (and often do) perform this task better.

Because its the fees for specific hunts and licenses that make having those lands available to hunt possible. License fees are relatively minor. Small game and fish here is $28 for the year. Big game w/ rifle adds $28. At least in this end of the state, public land to hunt on is readily available to everyone. True there are some managed hunts but these are limited in number based on herd numbers inside a wildlife management area. The national forest that makes up a good part of our eastern border is open to everyone as long as what you hunt is in season.

Nice reply norad45 (you beat me to it), we have similar laws where I live with the fines/forfeitures going to support Fish and Wildlife programs.

I have utilized wild fish/game in my home all my life as many of my neighbours do, it is quite normal here. I do not know if this would be called sustainance hunting though, we each purchase an annual small game licence for about $20.00, big game licences range from $35.00 to $45.00 depending on species and there are millions of acres of Crown Land to hunt on. Licence fees go back to support government Fish and Wildlife programs. All meat fit for human consumption must be utilized by law, there is no such thing as "Sport Hunting" where only the antlers are taken. The closest thing we would have to sustainance hunting/fishing would be legal Native or Aboriginal unlicenced harvesting.

I think there are many misconceptions about hunters and hunting. Hunters are usually just normal people who utilize natural resources in a consumptive, yet sustainable manner.

My 0.02 cents.

Mike