Home
News
The notion that hunting will be phased out by 2050 is one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve ever tried to mentally process.
Hunting has been an everyday staple of mankind since Grog, Tak and Ugh fashioned that first spear to stick in the ribs of some animal, somewhere. They weren’t out there for the “blood sport” of it, they killed so their families had some food in their stomachs each night.
I guess it wasn’t an everyday affair if Tak was able to get a bison, but if Grog continually brought home squirrels and rabbits, then there would have been a daily hunting jaunt.
Today, the scene is a lot different. Yes, across the United States the number of hunting licenses has been in decline. I think that is more due to the multitude of grocery stores than the want to get away from blood sports. And, as a society as a whole, we are moving away from our once rural homes into the towns and cities.
I really don’t like the “blood sport” connotation that has been attached to hunting by those who oppose it. That word seems to say that hunters are only out there to get blood on their hands.
I don’t know why the Colorado Division of Wildlife would want to de-emphasize hunting programs. Herd populations need to be kept in check so disease doesn’t run rampant, wiping out an entire herd.
The numbers need to be kept down so we don’t have animals coming into town and eating gardens and running the risk of getting hit on the road.
If hunters aren’t the ones keeping the populations at manageable levels, then the DOW will have to go out into the woods and start eliminating animals.
Does it matter if DOW officers have to kill 600 elk or a couple thousand mule deer? One way or another, those animals need to have their herds kept in check by humans.
I don’t think it would be a good choice to shut the hunting programs down. I don’t think the DOW would be able to raise enough money through animal watching alone to keep up with the demand of culling the herd. Hunters bring more to the economic table in terms of annual purchases, as hunting licenses are the main funding for the DOW.
License sales funnel directly back to the DOW, what part of wildlife watching could do that?
If you take away the hunters, you take away the money. If the money isn’t there, then how can it go towards keeping those animals around?
Preserving wildlife is just fine by me, but the herds can’t be allowed to multiply to a point where they are eating themselves out of the very woods they live in.
Hunting has been an everyday staple of mankind since Grog, Tak and Ugh fashioned that first spear to stick in the ribs of some animal, somewhere. They weren’t out there for the “blood sport” of it, they killed so their families had some food in their stomachs each night.
I guess it wasn’t an everyday affair if Tak was able to get a bison, but if Grog continually brought home squirrels and rabbits, then there would have been a daily hunting jaunt.
Today, the scene is a lot different. Yes, across the United States the number of hunting licenses has been in decline. I think that is more due to the multitude of grocery stores than the want to get away from blood sports. And, as a society as a whole, we are moving away from our once rural homes into the towns and cities.
I really don’t like the “blood sport” connotation that has been attached to hunting by those who oppose it. That word seems to say that hunters are only out there to get blood on their hands.
I don’t know why the Colorado Division of Wildlife would want to de-emphasize hunting programs. Herd populations need to be kept in check so disease doesn’t run rampant, wiping out an entire herd.
The numbers need to be kept down so we don’t have animals coming into town and eating gardens and running the risk of getting hit on the road.
If hunters aren’t the ones keeping the populations at manageable levels, then the DOW will have to go out into the woods and start eliminating animals.
Does it matter if DOW officers have to kill 600 elk or a couple thousand mule deer? One way or another, those animals need to have their herds kept in check by humans.
I don’t think it would be a good choice to shut the hunting programs down. I don’t think the DOW would be able to raise enough money through animal watching alone to keep up with the demand of culling the herd. Hunters bring more to the economic table in terms of annual purchases, as hunting licenses are the main funding for the DOW.
License sales funnel directly back to the DOW, what part of wildlife watching could do that?
If you take away the hunters, you take away the money. If the money isn’t there, then how can it go towards keeping those animals around?
Preserving wildlife is just fine by me, but the herds can’t be allowed to multiply to a point where they are eating themselves out of the very woods they live in.
