What was that liberal chick doing snooping around at midnight when she found it? Tripping on mushrooms?
Easy fix...
Does only in heavily populated areas.
Will do more for limiting populations and folks who hunt for meat can get their fill.
I find it funny that their primary argument for allowing urban hunting is to reduce population, but they pass up 99% of the deer that walk under them.
Same thing for depredation permits...
Sounds good. But what exactly does that fix? Neighborhood karens' will still see "pet" deer being killed. There's still gonna be bad hits. Deer are going to make it onto adjacent properties before expiring. There will be blood trails and blood-spattered porches and garden sheds. Bucks will be dying of disease, or by being hit by cars. In most cases, a much more cruel way to go than versus the quicker, more humane, death from a hunters arrow.Easy fix...
Does only in heavily populated areas.
Will do more for limiting populations and folks who hunt for meat can get their fill.
I find it funny that their primary argument for allowing urban hunting is to reduce population, but they pass up 99% of the deer that walk under them.
Same thing for depredation permits...
You didn't hear about it because it was pre internet. Not because it was pre seek 1.
Actually, when I talk to suburbanites - especially the Karens - about deer, it is THE issue they are most concerned about. You used to be able to get them to admit that deer numbers must be controlled, and legal hunting is one way to do that (although not their preferred way). But now, with all the stories of wounded deer and killed pets (pet deer), they are absolutely 100% against hunting in any manner, shape, or form. It has really turned them against hunting in a BIG way. And I legitimately blame Seek One and his ilk.Everything you see today was happening then. Bad hits, trespassing, poaching, bragging, but because you didn't see it, it was ok. Then there's a simple fix. Ignore it. Don't feed it. It ain't going away no matter how much bellyaching any of us do. Let them city boys do their thing and I promise you it's not the issue you guys are making it out to be.
Here's one cover story from 1993. There have been numerous others.Absolutely without question the internet, and especially YouTube, is driving much of this. However, I read almost every hunting mag out there - and I was a subscriber to North American Whitetail for many, MANY years - and never heard a word about this stuff.
Okay.Actually, when I talk to suburbanites - especially the Karens - about deer, it is THE issue they are most concerned about. You used to be able to get them to admit that deer numbers must be controlled, and legal hunting is one way to do that (although not their preferred way). But now, with all the stories of wounded deer and killed pets (pet deer), they are absolutely 100% against hunting in any manner, shape, or form. It has really turned them against hunting in a BIG way. And I legitimately blame Seek One and his ilk.
Fixes everything.Sounds good. But what exactly does that fix? Neighborhood karens' will still see "pet" deer being killed. There's still gonna be bad hits. Deer are going to make it onto adjacent properties before expiring. There will be blood trails and blood-spattered porches and garden sheds. Bucks will be dying of disease, or by being hit by cars. In most cases, a much more cruel way to go than versus the quicker, more humane, death from a hunters arrow.
So in other words, take away opportunities for local folks who have done the right thing for who knows how long, because of the actions of a few bad apples, and open the door to tax-payer funded population controls?Fixes everything.
If doe only, hunting will virtually stop. Still legal if populations need to be reduced, but effectively there won't be any more hunting. Very very few of those types are willing to sit in a stand for only a doe.
I don't object to not being able to shoot elk in Yellowstone, or Deer in Cades Cove. While those urban deer don't 'belong' to the local homeowners, they feed them, name them, and have semi- domesticated them.So in other words, take away opportunities for local folks who have done the right thing for who knows how long, because of the actions of a few bad apples, and open the door to tax-payer funded population controls?
So that's a yes? You're tip-toeing around a little bit.I don't object to not being able to shoot elk in Yellowstone, or Deer in Cades Cove. While those urban deer don't 'belong' to the local homeowners, they feed them, name them, and have semi- domesticated them.
So... going doe only actually INCREASES opportunity... since you can shoot 3 does per day.So that's a yes? Your tip-toeing around a little bit.
How does it solve the issue of "pet" deer being killed. And bad hits, and deer expiring where hunters don't have permission to retrieve?So... going doe only actually INCREASES opportunity... since you can shoot 3 does per day.
As far as 'tax funded population controls'... again not necessary with doe only. Shooting only the top 1% of the gene pool for antlers alone does NOTHING for population control. Still have to have tax funded population controls (if needed) with what is going on currently.
Again, all problems solved by changing regs to doe only in those areas.
@AT Hiker had recently sent me the regs for an urban hunt, near his house, where they could shoot anything, but the antlers needed to be cut-off below the burr and forfeited to the game warden, by a certain date. Something like this could always be an option too.Easy fix...
Does only in heavily populated areas.
Will do more for limiting populations and folks who hunt for meat can get their fill.
I find it funny that their primary argument for allowing urban hunting is to reduce population, but they pass up 99% of the deer that walk under them.
Same thing for depredation permits...
I hate that idea, maybe the most. I can't think of a worse way to dishonor a lawfully taken whitetail.@AT Hiker had recently sent me the regs for an urban hunt, near his house, where they could shoot anything, but the antlers needed to be cut-off below the burr and forfeited to the game warden, by a certain date. Something like this could always be an option too.
Solves it by 99%... again because 99% of hunters will choose not to hunt if antlers are off the table. As far as bad hits, and being unable to retrieve deer... well that's still 100% on the hunters. Perhaps choosing better shot selections and avoiding hunting on 1 acre properties should cross their minds.How does it solve the issue of "pet" deer being killed. And bad hits, and deer expiring where hunters don't have permission to retrieve?
You're advocating for less opportunity. It's a work around by your own admission, but that's what it is. For obvious reasons, this should always be a last resort for the hunting community.Solves it by 99%... again because 99% of hunters will choose not to hunt if antlers are off the table. As far as bad hits, and being unable to retrieve deer... well that's still 100% on the hunters. Perhaps choosing better shot selections and avoiding hunting on 1 acre properties should cross their minds.
I just am not convinced 'opportunity' should always take precedence. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important.You're advocating for less opportunity. It's a work around by your own admission, but that's what it is. For obvious reasons, this should always be a last resort for the hunting community.
There's plenty of guys doing the right thing there for a long time. Once we start limiting opportunities because of the actions of a few bad apples, it's all down hill from there. Our community should always strive for more freedom and more opportunities.I just am not convinced 'opportunity' should always take precedence. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important.
Then simply don't shoot a deer with antlers .I hate that idea, maybe the most. I can't think of a worse way to dishonor a lawfully taken whitetail.