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?
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....
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.
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.
Human hunting, as casual as it is, probably only serves to weaken the herd by removing the strongest reproductive members.
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.
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!
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.)
Previous Topic
Index
