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