Joined
·
4,469 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
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