Archery Talk Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The main point I am trying to make is, that if our hunting rights ever came down to a vote, the most influential group would be the non-hunting public (not to be confused with the anti-hunting public). This is only due to the fact that the "Non"-hunting population makes up approx. 80% of the total population.

We as hunters have always tried to lead the pro-hunting argument, by saying we keep game/deer numbers in check. Basically, with out natural predators, we must selectively harvest animals to control their populations. This in turn, prevents damage to crops, forestry, home gardens and even precious estate landscaping. Furthermore, the reduction of deer also helps reduce vehicle damage and injuries from deer/car collisions.

I have never heard an old lady say "That Monster Buck keeps eating my roses" or a soybean farmer from West Tennessee say "That massive dropped-tined buck ate up 10% of last year's profits". Actually the opposite is true, while big bucks do their share of making themselves a nuisance; it is for the most part does and their yearling offspring that are most visible problem makers. To prove this theory, fawns need to consume large quantities of food to nourish growing bodies, and does need to eat more to replace weight lost in the lactation process and energy lost from the birthing process.

While we all have dreams of huge trophy class bucks, in the real world we have made the argument to the rest of the world that we are the stewards of the game animals. I hate to hear anybody chastise or ridicule my fellow bowhunters for doing their part in reducing/maintaining the population of deer and enjoying the outdoors while doing so. In this economy hunters help provide food not only for their families but also those that are less fortunate than us with vital healthy meat/protein.

This is why I hate to hear people in a position to relay information to the public, only put forth information about and try to glorify trophy-only hunting/management.

Thanks for your time,


Jason Wilborn :)
 

·
My Elk Hunting Home
Joined
·
32,447 Posts
There are also laws against speeding, but how many of us still speed? I'm not so sure that anybody can do anything to stop hunting........legal or otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
There are also laws against speeding, but how many of us still speed? I'm not so sure that anybody can do anything to stop hunting........legal or otherwise.
There is only legal Hunting, the illegal act of similar technique would be Poaching
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The problem is this though. While poaching is wrong in the eyes of the law, if the law changes to where all hunting is illegal then all hunting is poaching.
Yep, but isn't nicer the way we have it now? It will be harder to get back if we ever allow it to leave in the first place ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Not trying to be rude, but you do not quite understand the management practices of today. To grow Trophy Bucks we as stewards of the land must make sure that the carrying capacities are not overboard meaning we take out more deer to to thin the herd and make healthier animals. We then shoot a ton of does for meat and to keep the sex ratio to as close to 1 to 1 as nature intends. You might hear about Trophy bucks and that is our passion but we are doing a whole lot of work to make sure we have them to hunt. Most of that work goes unnoticed.

In fact TROPHY BUCKS is the best sign around that we are doing a great service to our wildlife. If a area is producing a great number of "Trophy" bucks then that area is a real healthy herd.

So I Believe Trophy Management has been the best thing for our wildlife. In order to grow big bucks the HERD MUST BE A HEALTHY HERD.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Not trying to be rude, but you do not quite understand the management practices of today. To grow Trophy Bucks we as stewards of the land must make sure that the carrying capacities are not overboard meaning we take out more deer to to thin the herd and make healthier animals. We then shoot a ton of does for meat and to keep the sex ratio to as close to 1 to 1 as nature intends. You might hear about Trophy bucks and that is our passion but we are doing a whole lot of work to make sure we have them to hunt. Most of that work goes unnoticed.

In fact TROPHY BUCKS is the best sign around that we are doing a great service to our wildlife. If a area is producing a great number of "Trophy" bucks then that area is a real healthy herd.

So I Believe Trophy Management has been the best thing for our wildlife. In order to grow big bucks the HERD MUST BE A HEALTHY HERD.....
No I do understand and I commend you for any management. I know you guys that practice QDM walk the walk, and do get things for the herd (as long as yo are also taking does of course). My comments are more directed to those who would chastise a fellow legal hunter for taking a deer "That doesn't make the grade". Even though you QDM guys are helping everyone, so to speak, some people don't need or want the help, and that should also be their right to harvest and be proud of any legal deer they chose to harvest.

The going thing on blogs/forums today is the let'em grow, and you should have let that one walk. This is fine for some, but the people whom care little about the horns get kinda turned off by the whole "Down their throats" attitudes of others. I guessasking fellow hunter's not to be QDM Nazis. :)

My $0.02......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
ttt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
781 Posts
The main point I am trying to make is, that if our hunting rights ever came down to a vote, the most influential group would be the non-hunting public (not to be confused with the anti-hunting public). This is only due to the fact that the "Non"-hunting population makes up approx. 80% of the total population.

We as hunters have always tried to lead the pro-hunting argument, by saying we keep game/deer numbers in check. Basically, with out natural predators, we must selectively harvest animals to control their populations. This in turn, prevents damage to crops, forestry, home gardens and even precious estate landscaping. Furthermore, the reduction of deer also helps reduce vehicle damage and injuries from deer/car collisions.

I have never heard an old lady say "That Monster Buck keeps eating my roses" or a soybean farmer from West Tennessee say "That massive dropped-tined buck ate up 10% of last year's profits". Actually the opposite is true, while big bucks do their share of making themselves a nuisance; it is for the most part does and their yearling offspring that are most visible problem makers. To prove this theory, fawns need to consume large quantities of food to nourish growing bodies, and does need to eat more to replace weight lost in the lactation process and energy lost from the birthing process.

While we all have dreams of huge trophy class bucks, in the real world we have made the argument to the rest of the world that we are the stewards of the game animals. I hate to hear anybody chastise or ridicule my fellow bowhunters for doing their part in reducing/maintaining the population of deer and enjoying the outdoors while doing so. In this economy hunters help provide food not only for their families but also those that are less fortunate than us with vital healthy meat/protein.

This is why I hate to hear people in a position to relay information to the public, only put forth information about and try to glorify trophy-only hunting/management.

Thanks for your time,


Jason Wilborn :)
I agree completely
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,793 Posts
The recent polls I've seen suggest that the non-hunting (but not anti-hunting) public support hunting and fishing. I know polls can be manipulated but it is encouraging. The folks that practice QDM help all of us in one way or another. Some state DNRs try to do the same thing by having higher antlerless tags than antlered (like Ohio). It works for fishing in certain areas by having slot limits.

But the OP is right--ultimately it is how the general public sees us. That may be why it is so important to keep bringing new hunters as some of the older ones start fading away. And to keep ourselves in a positive light as the anti's increase their rhetoric. When was the last time you saw a hunter or hunting organization interviewed on a national news show? But you've seen PETA and the head a-hole from HSUS on camera repeatedly. If they can show us as being nothing but a bunch of butchers of innocent animals then they win. :darkbeer:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,864 Posts
The one who win the war is the group who convince that 80 % that there way is the best way. When we post game lost on here we are give the anti more ammo to fight against us. They all think now we loose haft of deer we shoot and post it on there web page. We are killing are selfs by raising big bucks because the think we are killing all the good one and letting the weak and sick go. Leasing and having guide services. Just go to Peta page and you see they cut this down all the time. Leasing is making this a rich man sport and the common man can't hunt any more because theres no place for them to hunt. When we fight between a recurve, gun. black powder and compound shooter we are hurting are self. They are thinking we can't even get along with each other. We need the numbers and to get along with each other. Between the anti and or selfs we are killing or sport. They stopped trapping and I think we are next on hit list just go to there web page and see want they are saying. They are making us out to be real ass loosing game because are bow don't make a clean quick kill and that game suffer a bad slow deaf. We are raising deer to are benefit like cattle and are taking there freedom a way from them. We are trying to make hunting all about who has the most money and it's going to kill are sport of archery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
I don't think we're in danger of loosing our right to hunt anytime soon. Changes in law are generally not sweeping, they are gradual. Lawmakers learned this lesson early on, when sweeping new tax laws brought revolution and an end to monarchy in the colonies. They will start (actually they already have) by placing fairly minor restrictions. Seasons, limits, rules. Then as time progresses the seasons shorten, the rules stiffen. Eventually you're down to a two-week season with a limit of one. Then they say this isn't worth the trouble and cost, and eliminate that. By that point most have lost interest anyway because of the restrictions, so few will be left to protest. I'm not saying I think this is what will happen to hunting, but this is how laws progress.


A good example is smoking and tobacco. They've known for years that it's bad for your health, but they couldn't alienate the public or piss off the tobacco lobby, so they regulate it, tax it, rail against it. Then they restrict advertising, sales to minors, etc. Now it's illegal to light up in most restaurants and public buildings, and some communities want to make it illegal to light up in a public outside space. People are quitting because of the restrictions, which is a good thing, so by the time they make tobacco illegal there will be relatively few to complain.

I don't think they will ever be successful at outlawing hunting. Our conversion of the landscape for agriculture and development has created unnatural population levels in animals like whitetail deer, and these populations have to be controlled. The public may or may not be aware of this, but when they are faced with either paying for this control through higher taxes or allowing the hunters to do it for free, I have confidence that my fellow Americans will side with their wallet. They usually do.
 

·
My Elk Hunting Home
Joined
·
32,447 Posts
There is only legal Hunting, the illegal act of similar technique would be Poaching
Correct. And there is "legally driving the speed limit", the "illegal" act of similar technique would be "speeding". So how many here would be OK with breaking one law (speeding), but find it unacceptable to break another law if hunting became illegal? I'm not promoting or saying that either is acceptable, just saying that everyone has their own limitations on laws, as is the same with ethics. If hunting became illegal suddenly, I'm quite sure that many would choose to ignore that law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Take away hunting, economically its a bad Idea also we spend alot of money as you all know. Besides if theres no hunting theres no game wardens so whos gonna stop you... Well I guess the sherriff could! but hey you wont have to pay for tags!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,864 Posts
Ther trying to take away smoking look how much that puts into the economically.

They are trying to take away guns look how much that puts into the economically .

They are trying to make all vegetarians out us saying meat is bad for you look how much that would take out of the economically.

They shut down the fur market Look how many jobs it took out of are economically

They stopped the drilling of oil were there is oil look what that has done for our economically.

So what makes you think they wouldn't go after hunting. They have money and are making all the rules and don't care about the common man. Once peace at a time they will get us. We are out numbered and will get it there way in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Ther trying to take away smoking look how much that puts into the economically.

They are trying to take away guns look how much that puts into the economically .

They are trying to make all vegetarians out us saying meat is bad for you look how much that would take out of the economically.

They shut down the fur market Look how many jobs it took out of are economically

They stopped the drilling of oil were there is oil look what that has done for our economically.

So what makes you think they wouldn't go after hunting. They have money and are making all the rules and don't care about the common man. Once peace at a time they will get us. We are out numbered and will get it there way in the end.
You're right Bowdon. :thumbs_up


Those PETA folk and their little, formal funraiser events and bought airtime/advertising add money to the economy too. :( I don't think that hunters adding money to the economy would stop alot of folks from voting against us, we still have to provide a useful outlet to the commuities and I feel that would fall-back to our animal population control. The thing about money is, that someone always has more of it.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top