" 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.