It is a sad indictment that Art reminds us about. For too many years our concerns about conservation and wildlife management were essentially non-existent, and it is true that even still we encroach where the land was open and animals went about their business. Fortunately, minds and ways of doing things are changing. The neighborhood development I moved into outside of Denver two years ago was constructed in such a way as to be more favorable to wildlife. In fact, the resident deer and antelope herds there have done well enough that they now exceed the numbers present before development of the area was planned. The reason being more forage was made available to them, no hunting pressure at all, and better cover, as transition zones were included in the development plan with trees and shrubs and gulleys. It was not uncommon to sit in the kitchen some days and watch a herd of 20 or more Mule deer walk by through the yard, browsing the brush and drinking from the birdbath. Yes, it is more artificial than the natural environment. The point is I think it is an improvement.

So even though things are bad in places, and you will find examples of unethical activity anywhere you care to look, you can also find where men have made the effort to improve the chances for wildlife to thrive. With every box of ammo I buy, every pair of socks with the Browning logo on the side, I am doing much the same thing, maybe not on such a grand scale personally, but along with millions of other hunters and fishermen across this land, we are making a tremendous difference. It won't fix everything, but it has made it better in some places than it ever was before. That's one reason why there are more whitetail deer in North America now than there were when Columbus landed in 1492. It may not be ideal for all, but it is better by a darn sight than to just leave it as it is, or was, in many cases.

Art does balance our argument out. He points out that we still have a long way to go, but I think participating in hunting and fishing can still be a big part of that effort when done for more than just the sport of killing that he refers to. That is never acceptable behavior, I don't care what jurisdiction you find yourself in. It certainly is not what is taught by any state agency, and is not part of the hunter's code of ethics anywhere I've hunted yet.

I am overweight, and I do hunt and eat venison and other wild game in addition to eating beef and chicken etc. Not only do I like the taste of wild game better in most cases (except the Armadillo I've eaten, blecch!!!), but I also eat it because it is usually better for me than the domesticated stuff. If I had a choice between eating beef or elk, I will always go for elk, even if I have a thousand pounds of beef in the freezer. Is killing an elk any different to me than killing a beef cow? Only in method and the amount of respect I have for the animal (beef cows being less desirable a food source and lacking in the fair chase process and the collateral experience of the hunt).