Post by Bobcat on Jan 13, 2004 17:44:01 GMT -5
Please take the time to read this. He puts it much better than I can.......
Risks to animals increase with hunters out of equation
By DOUG PIKE
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
An adage says that my enemy's enemy is my friend. That being the case, it must thrill anti-hunters to witness the current bickering between deer hunting camps at a time when sportsmen would be wiser to rally closely around each other.
High fence, low fence. Feed, don't feed. Hunters get themselves far too worked up these days over what amount to nothing but personal preferences among law-abiding sportsmen. And there in sheep's clothing to declare themselves allies and agree that anyone who hunts "the other way" is wrong and should be stopped are fanatics who would like nothing more than to end all hunting.
Not long ago, a group of anti-hunters launched a loose but loud campaign against bowhunting and, to the surprise of nearly everyone in the industry, actually garnered brief support from a fair number of rifle hunters.
That the challengers selected bowhunting as their demon was no accident. Archers make up only a small percentage of hunters, which rendered them vulnerable without support, and their method cannot be dressed up to look pretty.
Broadheads kill by hemorrhage. Some hunters and outdoor writers are hesitant to say so, but it is what it is. A well-placed arrow is as efficient in the long run as a bullet, however, and dead is dead.
Fortunately, so is that misguided and ill-informed effort to abolish bowhunting. In that case, bow and rifle enthusiasts got themselves back on the same page before any permanent damage was done to hunting. Hopefully, the same common sense will prevail among hunters arguing more current differences of opinion.
I have great faith in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's professional managers to watch over the state's deer herd. These men and women are among the best in the business, and it is as much in their interest as in ours to see that there are plenty of healthy whitetails.
Every year, however, fences and bait or no fences and bait, some of those deer are going to die. The only question is over how they will die and, ultimately, who or what will benefit from their death. Do I get the meat, or does it fill the belly of a coyote? Do I get those antlers, or do they lie on the forest floor and turn to dust?
People who have a problem with hunters killing wildlife might want to look at the management ramifications of removing sportsmen from the equation.
It is naive to think that we can lay the fate of wildlife in the hands of nature. We are major players in the natural equation and, as such, have an obligation to participate rather than just observe. Man's development of raw land displaces wildlife. Animals adapt as best they can to their remaining habitat and, in most cases, learn to live around or among people.
That interaction works well with some species, such as whitetails, not so well with others. People don't mind the occasional rabbit or racoon scurrying across the backyard. Make that visitor a coyote or, as has happened recently in California, a mountain lion, and suburbanites yank the welcome mat.
Those animals don't come to us. We go to them. Their interests and instincts are limited to survival and reproduction, which are equally important to any discussion of the role hunting plays in wildlife management.
The principals of oversight apply to all wildlife, but white-tailed deer make excellent and easy-to-understand examples.
Put a buck and three does in the same pasture in fall, and there is no mystery as to what will happen. Come spring, those does become does and fawns, and habitat that supported four deer must support seven. Now, apply that proportionate increase to the state's entire population of whitetails, all 4 million-plus of them.
That's too many deer for the habitat, so some must go. And should any of the brush or forest where they live be developed, or should there come a harsh winter, the herd will require an even greater adjustment.
Wildlife managers know that sport hunting works to keep game populations in check, and limits are set and adjusted carefully so that hunters remove a calculated percentage of animals each year. The objective, always, is to retain as many healthy animals as the habitat can support.
If hunting is removed from the management equation and nature is asked to assume that role, it will -- only nature isn't so careful or compassionate about when or where or how it "harvests" animals.
Starvation is one of nature's favored equalizers. If there are 100 deer in a pasture that can provide food for 90, then all 100 deer are deprived adequate nutrition. Each of those 100 deer grows weaker and suffers. Eventually, at least 10 but usually more die. The remainder regain their health slowly and, barring another bad year, eventually rebuild the herd.
Disease is another one of nature's "go to" population checks. When snow geese became overcrowded on southeast Texas roost ponds one dry winter, nature dealt up a sweeping epidemic of avian cholera that slowly but surely killed thousands of birds.
It was waterfowl hunters and wildlife managers, incidentally, who physically removed those diseased geese from infected roosts and paid to replenish the flats with fresh water. Local animal rights groups and anti-hunters were strangely absent from the cleanup effort and didn't donate so much as a dime.
Among whitetails, more recently, chronic wasting disease has claimed thousands of animals in what must be an excruciatingly painful and slow death. That is how nature deals with such things as overpopulation and habitat loss.
As a hunter, my first loyalty is to wildlife and second is to the sport. I am increasingly wary of people who criticize specific styles of hunting, especially opponents who never have hunted themselves. If hunters are gone, wild animals lose their most devoted advocates.
Risks to animals increase with hunters out of equation
By DOUG PIKE
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
An adage says that my enemy's enemy is my friend. That being the case, it must thrill anti-hunters to witness the current bickering between deer hunting camps at a time when sportsmen would be wiser to rally closely around each other.
High fence, low fence. Feed, don't feed. Hunters get themselves far too worked up these days over what amount to nothing but personal preferences among law-abiding sportsmen. And there in sheep's clothing to declare themselves allies and agree that anyone who hunts "the other way" is wrong and should be stopped are fanatics who would like nothing more than to end all hunting.
Not long ago, a group of anti-hunters launched a loose but loud campaign against bowhunting and, to the surprise of nearly everyone in the industry, actually garnered brief support from a fair number of rifle hunters.
That the challengers selected bowhunting as their demon was no accident. Archers make up only a small percentage of hunters, which rendered them vulnerable without support, and their method cannot be dressed up to look pretty.
Broadheads kill by hemorrhage. Some hunters and outdoor writers are hesitant to say so, but it is what it is. A well-placed arrow is as efficient in the long run as a bullet, however, and dead is dead.
Fortunately, so is that misguided and ill-informed effort to abolish bowhunting. In that case, bow and rifle enthusiasts got themselves back on the same page before any permanent damage was done to hunting. Hopefully, the same common sense will prevail among hunters arguing more current differences of opinion.
I have great faith in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's professional managers to watch over the state's deer herd. These men and women are among the best in the business, and it is as much in their interest as in ours to see that there are plenty of healthy whitetails.
Every year, however, fences and bait or no fences and bait, some of those deer are going to die. The only question is over how they will die and, ultimately, who or what will benefit from their death. Do I get the meat, or does it fill the belly of a coyote? Do I get those antlers, or do they lie on the forest floor and turn to dust?
People who have a problem with hunters killing wildlife might want to look at the management ramifications of removing sportsmen from the equation.
It is naive to think that we can lay the fate of wildlife in the hands of nature. We are major players in the natural equation and, as such, have an obligation to participate rather than just observe. Man's development of raw land displaces wildlife. Animals adapt as best they can to their remaining habitat and, in most cases, learn to live around or among people.
That interaction works well with some species, such as whitetails, not so well with others. People don't mind the occasional rabbit or racoon scurrying across the backyard. Make that visitor a coyote or, as has happened recently in California, a mountain lion, and suburbanites yank the welcome mat.
Those animals don't come to us. We go to them. Their interests and instincts are limited to survival and reproduction, which are equally important to any discussion of the role hunting plays in wildlife management.
The principals of oversight apply to all wildlife, but white-tailed deer make excellent and easy-to-understand examples.
Put a buck and three does in the same pasture in fall, and there is no mystery as to what will happen. Come spring, those does become does and fawns, and habitat that supported four deer must support seven. Now, apply that proportionate increase to the state's entire population of whitetails, all 4 million-plus of them.
That's too many deer for the habitat, so some must go. And should any of the brush or forest where they live be developed, or should there come a harsh winter, the herd will require an even greater adjustment.
Wildlife managers know that sport hunting works to keep game populations in check, and limits are set and adjusted carefully so that hunters remove a calculated percentage of animals each year. The objective, always, is to retain as many healthy animals as the habitat can support.
If hunting is removed from the management equation and nature is asked to assume that role, it will -- only nature isn't so careful or compassionate about when or where or how it "harvests" animals.
Starvation is one of nature's favored equalizers. If there are 100 deer in a pasture that can provide food for 90, then all 100 deer are deprived adequate nutrition. Each of those 100 deer grows weaker and suffers. Eventually, at least 10 but usually more die. The remainder regain their health slowly and, barring another bad year, eventually rebuild the herd.
Disease is another one of nature's "go to" population checks. When snow geese became overcrowded on southeast Texas roost ponds one dry winter, nature dealt up a sweeping epidemic of avian cholera that slowly but surely killed thousands of birds.
It was waterfowl hunters and wildlife managers, incidentally, who physically removed those diseased geese from infected roosts and paid to replenish the flats with fresh water. Local animal rights groups and anti-hunters were strangely absent from the cleanup effort and didn't donate so much as a dime.
Among whitetails, more recently, chronic wasting disease has claimed thousands of animals in what must be an excruciatingly painful and slow death. That is how nature deals with such things as overpopulation and habitat loss.
As a hunter, my first loyalty is to wildlife and second is to the sport. I am increasingly wary of people who criticize specific styles of hunting, especially opponents who never have hunted themselves. If hunters are gone, wild animals lose their most devoted advocates.
>:(It's just too much of the ole WIIFM! What's In It For Me, and the rest of you be d**n! 
our weight when we first started was dressed about 95-100# Jared shot a doe the end of Dec that dressed at 135# I feel that I am a manager of this heard, I have a good place to hunt plus the deer are healthy! what more could you ask for.
