I completely understand that you may be aware of what you think you are doing. That is the sadness I write with you about. Pure and simple, it’s my intent to bring hunting, and trapping, trophy killing to the forefront of this discussion. Why you may ask? It’s animal abuse in its pure form, visited upon us within these postings day after day. I always find it interesting that when a spot light is focused into this world of killing shadows, these psychotic killers scurry away quickly. Usually before they hide, their first and foremost echo is that they want anybody that has the light to just “go away”. I’m also quite sure, that for the most part, the words we write here, the great majority of the stalk and kill crowd will most probably avoid discussing in this public square in a positive way. Another interesting aspect of the “hunter" group is that almost all the pictures of the kill are with other hunters. Sometimes the death scene is arranged in a gruesome pattern on the ground as if to say that it’s an art form for us to admire. If you are a thoughtful person, I’m certain that you are also aware that hunting is almost always a group activity. If you doubt this, just look at the photos with the death of the day proudly displayed with smiling faces. Sometimes young children are brought into the frame to introduce them to this unfortunate “sport". I strongly believe that the stalk and kill isn’t usually the reason why people go into the woods to sit in ambush to end the life of some animal. It usually isn’t about the meat for the table. When you examine this, not to far below the surface. it’s mostly about the excitement one gets after the killing is over to reminisce with other people about the perceived adventure. It’s not unusual to hear these same stories repeated for years with appropriate embellishments added for ego affect. In the first few pages of any well written art history book, one of the first art forms that you come upon are the cave paintings of primitive people having a story telling session about their survival hunt. Believe me when I say that I’ve spent many hours listening to the “tales” of the hunt that are brought out in “conservation” discussions around a campfire or dinner table. Hunters call themselves conservationists and environmentalists, but an examination of the true effects of hunting on the environment calls these claims into question. In general, hunters support habitat protection and want to see wildlife and wild lands protected so that there will be plenty of hunting opportunities. However, many hunters view the lands in the same way that they view animals - they have little intrinsic value and exist to serve the hunters’ purposes. In a nutshell, hunters want to know, will the killing of tomorrow be as good, better or worse than they were yesterday?" From hearing hunters talk about the overpopulations of deer, bears and other "game" animals, one would think they are practically tripping over this megafauna in the American wilderness. However, this is not the case, and both public and private lands are managed in a variety of ways to increase hunting opportunities, regardless of what is natural or necessary. The most egregious example is probably clearcutting. In an attempt to boost deer populations, state wildlife management agencies, which are run by hunters for hunters and make their money from the sales of hunting licenses, will clearcut the forests on public lands in order to create the edge habitat that is favored by deer. In their literature, they seldom admit that this is the purpose of the clearcutting, and often vaguely claim that it benefits "wildlife" or "game." Many Americans believe we already have too many deer, and would not tolerate attempts to increase the deer population. Hunters also tend to support the logging industry because like clearcutting, logging creates edge habitat for deer. Additionally, some hunters plant food plots to feed and attract wildlife, especially deer. Food plots artificially boost the deer population, cause deer to grow larger, and attract deer to the area. They are not good for wildlife and the ecosystem in general because they tend to be monocultures, which decrease biodiversity and foster the spread of crop diseases. Hunters claim to take the place of other predators in controlling the populations of prey species. There are several problems with this argument: The populations of prey species do not need to be controlled. As discussed above, deer populations are artificially increased to maximize hunting opportunities. Hunters increase the deer population to create the illusion of deer overpopulation in order to gain public support for hunting. Hunters do not act like other predators. While other predators target the old, the young, the sick and the weak, hunters target the largest specimens with the biggest tusks, antlers or horns. Instead of culling the weakest members of the species and helping the species to evolve to be stronger, hunters are "evolution in reverse" and "survival of the weak and scrawny." Bighorn sheep now have smaller horns compared to thirty years ago. If the deer in a certain area become overpopulated and the food is scarce, the lack of food will cause weaker individuals to starve to death and the fawns will absorb more embryos and have fewer offspring. This deceptive terminology gains public sympathy for hunting and creates an illusion that hunting is desirable or even necessary. Hunters claim that they pay for public lands but the amount they pay is trivial compared to what comes out of general funds. They are also constantly trying to pay even less. Almost 90% of the lands in our National Wildlife Refuge system came from the public domain. They weren't purchased at all. Only 3% of National Wildlife Refuge lands was purchased with funds from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, which has various sources of funding, one of which is the sale of duck stamps that hunters and stamp collectors buy. This means that hunters paid for less than 3% of the land in our National Wildlife Refuges. Funds from the sales of hunting licenses go to state wildlife management agencies, and some of those funds may go toward purchasing land. An excise tax on the sale of weapons and ammunition goes into the Pittman-Robertson fund, which is distributed to state wildlife management agencies and may be used for land acquisition. However, most gun owners are not hunters, and only 14% to 22% of gun owners who pay into the Pittman-Robertson fund are hunters and these people are unlikely to support habitat protection unless they are also allowed to hunt in that area. They generally do not support the protection of wild lands merely for the sake of the wildlife or the ecosystem. Lastly since I know by now that most of you have stopped reading after the first couple of paragraphs, and are now trying to convince yourself that you’re right, you’ve stopped listening and are not listening to what I have to say. As I stated earlier in a posting, I have tried to explain my reasoning to protect animals from trophy hunting. It’s now going to be interesting to read how some of you will respond to this question.

Screw the non-residents. If there's not enough game for resident hunters to each get a tag this season then there is no reason for any non-residents to receive a tag.

LEAVE THESE ANIMALS ALONE.

Me shooting a .500 Nitro Express double rifle. I hope I don't miss with the first shot.