When a hunter is stand hunting and sees his first buck, his heart will pound and he will suppress his breathing as this is the day he has waited and trained and imagined. The deer is a gift from someone or something greater than us all and has been placed here for us, as we become one with nature. It is an emotional thing, to kill this buck and from the emotional being of the event can only described by the individual to the individual.
One must experience for himself/herself the killing of the buck and also be mature enough to understand it. It is fall as a light wind has lowered the temperature, your cheeks become rosy from the cold and your fingers are numbing. On seeing the buck you silently raise your gun or bow but the bucks head snaps erect. He has detected something even though you were methodically quiet. You take aim and in a brief instance you watch as the life goes out of the bucks eyes.
We do not hunt to kill but rather we have killed so we could hunt. The elation of the kill is short lived as we hunters all know it is the satisfying conclusion to a successful hunt. It is in our blood to hunt as we are descendant from mankinds first hunter. For some the first deer kill is difficult, emotionally and some wish to throw the gun away, yet it comes back to the gift, placed here by someone or something greater than us all.

To the Anti's I say it is high time they recieved some education in relation to wildlife management. For the most part I percieve that the Anti-Hunting and Animal Rights Activist as people who seem more bent on seeing thier names in print and thier pictures on Television., doing little or nothing to benefit any wildlife. They seem to have limited knowledge of hunting and animal habits and habitat.
They speak only of preservation and nothing of conservation do they not realize that with preservation comes the demise of many specie as it becomes a non-use commodity. That controlled hunting, legally has increased most numbers in wildlife and is an effective wildlife management tool used and recommended by the biologists of the DNR. If the Anti's want to do sometihing constructive then I say go after the ones responsible for Habitat destruction. It seems most companies involved with the destruction of wildlife habitat are into the almighty dollar today and let's not worry about tomorrow, syndrome.

If the habitat is good then all species survive quite well. Yet when clearcuts open up in vast numbers in certain areas prey animals (deer) become susceptable to lack of cover during severe weather, easy targets for predators (coyote), starvation. It is estimated among the deer that 25% are lost to starvation, that is why hunters will take what could have been lost to starvation. Starvation, lack of cover, climate irregularities are all directly related to man's systematic destruction of habitat.
With regard to wildlife refuges, the only species that seems to have done well is the waterfowl. Big game animals ultimately enlarge thier numbers to the point the habitat will not support them. They more or less eat themselves out of house and home as well as do a little bit of habitat destruction themselves with thier increased numbers.

The big companies that have worked our forests are responsible for the habitat destruction with the big machinery that is being used today. Where a skidder goes nothing grows. They cause damage to rivers, lakes and streams as well as depleting food sources, cover and space. Then the Government and local DNR for given areas want us the Fisher and Hunter to rectify the problem by increasing our licensing costs and adding monies for funds to benefit wildlife even though we did not profit from the damage as others did.
In my home province of New Brunswick we pay an additional $5 to our license fee and this money is given to groups to study ways to aid our fallen numbers in wildlife. We the hunters and users of the natural resource give information all the time when asked but we are seldom taken serious as to know solutions and or causes to the problems. For one thing we have far to many OUTFITTERS in relation to our natural resources. I for one, do not mind paying extra if it is being used to aid the resource of which I pursue, yet on the other hand it has been the pulp mills that have polluted rivers, lakes and streams and the clearcut practices of the past has depleted habitat, and they should have to pay as well. It has been said by a world reknown Naturalist "that if New Brunswick logging practices don't change soon, our forests will be in the same shape as our fishery".

The logging companies went on a campaign of planting only softwoods for years until they finally realized that New Brunswick is a mixed boreal forest and the hardwoods they sprayed and killed were needed by the softwoods to grow properly. Wildlife feeds on the hardwoods especially in winter and when they do turn to softwoods they are already starving and most likely will die in a severe winter.
From the standpoint of biologists controlled legal hunting has never lead to the extinction of a wildlife specie or caused the same to become rare or endangered. It would be wonderful if the Anti's and the non- hunting public could come together and work with us the hunters to achieve a conservation program that would benefit us all. Laws that are made to protect our wildlife must be flexable, because if they are not, these laws then do more harm than good, as animals multiply and are protected with inflexible laws then nothing can be done to ease the situation.

To: THE ANTI-HUNTING & ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS

ALTERNATIVES TO HUNTING:

For those of you who are opposed to sport hunting allow me to bring attention to the alternatives in dealing with surplus animal populations and the negative impact the surpluses have on the animals and humans, both directly and indirectly.

To the Anti's I say, please do not make my decision for me. The animals you wish to protect from me, are going to die one way or another. If you want hunting banned, which alternative do you prefer?

DEATH BY STARVATION: Do to loss of habitat, animals die each year due to lack of cover and food sources and they die slowly and suffer greatly. Becoming weak, with erratic body funtions the animal becomes easy prey for wild and domestic predators, which most often eat thier prey alive. Controlled hunting lessens starvation through reduced numbers in relation to available habitat.

DEATH BY DISEASE: Now to the PRESERVATIONIST (NOT) this is not a form of conservation but a nonuse of an animal resource. The animal numbers are allowed to outgrow available habitat capacity, and starvation, and disease follow with the lack of nutrition and the disease is easily spread to other animals in areas with harsh winter conditions such as Northern New Brunswick.

DEATH BY DOGS: I am at a loss why some people do allow thier dogs to roam the woods and these same dogs will interbreed with the coyote population, making for a more vicious breed, the (COYDOG). Some domestic dogs only run deer down, causing a depletion of valuable fat reserves needed to get through the harsh winters and others just maim, leaving thier prey to die an unspeakable, horrid death. The coyote long thought by biologists to roam individually in search of prey have now learnt, especially here in N.B. that the coyote runs in packs much the same as wolves. They often attack the slow, sick and old but will also take healthy prey such as deer as deep snow will impede the deer's travel.
The dogs and or coyotes drag down thier prey by biting at the tendons in the rear legs and begin to eat thier prey alive, fully conscious of the pain, until so much damage is done that the prey welcomes unconsciousness.

DEATH BY ROAD KILL: Road kill accounts for thousands of animals each year as well as causing massive amounts of property damage as well as injury and loss of life to humans. Our average kill, annually during hunting season in N.B. is 18,000 animals(deer) whereas in the State of PA. thier average road kill is between 24-30,000 animals. An encounter between a moose and a car usually results not only in the death of the moose but the occupants of the car as well.
Some animals manage to flee the scene of the accident only to die, too hurt to recover, laying for hours, days and even weeks, unable to help themselves until death mercifully takes them. You take an animal with a broken jaw, crushed esophagus and/or a lacerated liver will surely die a slow agonizing death.

MY QUESTION TO YOU /THE ANTI-HUNTER AND/OR ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IS: "IF NOT HUNTING, WHICH OF THE ABOVE METHODS OF DEATH MEET YOUR APPROVAL"..........FOR THOSE OF US WHO CHOOSE TO BOWHUNT AND/OR GUNHUNT, THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER......THANKYOU.

Yours in Hunting,

BOBO BOB...

Thankyou, stay tuned as this page will be updated periodically.

To return home click(HERE)