They don't need hunters

All sounds great, until the bill comes due.

It's one thing to name a deer. It's another to fork over $$$$ yearly to support it
 
Zoo’s are apparently sufficient for the majority of our population. Urban populations visit the zoo, rural populations visit the public lands. The urban populations out number the rural populations. More urban legislators equal more zoos and less wildlife.

Simple as that, imo
 
It's getting to be the same all over.

The game departments mismanage, libs introduce wolves and protect other predatory animals to the detriment of the undulates, big cities vote for leftist agendas, hunters are conservative for the most part and so it goes.

Our way of life is under attack and we're being controlled by the big cities.

Zeke
 
It's getting to be the same all over.

The game departments mismanage, libs introduce wolves and protect other predatory animals to the detriment of the undulates, big cities vote for leftist agendas, hunters are conservative for the most part and so it goes.

Our way of life is under attack and we're being controlled by the big cities.

Zeke
Those napkin meeting’s in rural Utah and else where have been stopped and they’re never coming back. Call I hear a great big, “Hell ya.” It’s about damn time the front got control!
 
Last edited:
Even Nevada is enlightened. Cool.

While some traditional hunters may dismiss these perspectives as “woke” or overly sensitive, wildlife managers are wise to pay attention to how social trends influence their work, says Tony Wasley, director of Nevada’s Department of Wildlife and a leader of the Relevancy Roadmap effort.

“Here’s the challenge,” says Wasley. “In my state, less than three percent of our citizens are engaged in any kind of hunting activity. Only eight percent of the species that we are statutorily charged with managing are pursued recreationally by hunters. So we have this challenge of getting money and support from the other 97 percent of the citizens of Nevada to take care of the other 92 percent of the species that we manage. We cannot do this with hunters alone.”
 
Fundamentally flawed system at the funding and expectation level. It’s like telling a rancher he has to over see red ants, and aphids if he’s going to raise cattle.
 
Last edited:
Zoo’s are apparently sufficient for the majority of our population. Urban populations visit the zoo, rural populations visit the public lands. The urban populations out number the rural populations. More urban legislators equal more zoos and less wildlife.

Simple as that, imo

Until the urban populations are no longer sustainable. Simple as that...
 
In the zoos, they keep the different species in different enclosures to protect them. That doesn't happen in the wild.
 
Eventually, with the direction of the country, this will take hold I fear. And the "who pay's for it" will go away. Libs have no problem taxing us for their agenda. So instead of buying licenses and paying taxes on sporting goods- you'll be forking over more income tax and have no hunting experiences to show for it.

Or I could be dooming and glooming a bit:)
 
Eventually, with the direction of the country, this will take hold I fear. And the "who pay's for it" will go away. Libs have no problem taxing us for their agenda. So instead of buying licenses and paying taxes on sporting goods- you'll be forking over more income tax and have no hunting experiences to show for it.

Or I could be dooming and glooming a bit:)

Don't work as much, they won't make as much. Why work hard for a bunch of sewer rats?
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom