Why is it better to give a person meat, than allow him or her to hunt it for themselves? Doing so, takes away the modicum of pride the low income person gains, by supplying their own meat. For those who don't or can't hunt, YES, it's a great idea, but for those who can, what's the real harm, provided they're hunting in an area where they're helping manage excessive herd levels?
and for point 2, what makes you think these folks aren't required to hunt specific species, in areas where those species are at too high a population, due to the lack of hunters & severe winters? Like ANY tag hunt, it only makes sense that these folks be required to hunt in areas where the populations need managing.
Further, NOT every person who COULD qualify, will apply. Nor does every person who COULD qualify under the financial or dietary requirement, have the qualifications TO hunt. AKA not every poor person in the province is going to be blasting out the wilderness at every scrap that moves. AKA the "sky is falling" mentality toward this program is sorely misplaced. Not many people know about it, there are strict guidelines they have to follow to qualify and it's like any other managed hunt, is how it was described to me, by the gal at the Edmonton Fish & Wildlife office when I called yesterday.
AKA treating low income hunters, as anything less than ethical hunters, is rude & uncalled for. Especially given the restrictions and requirements of the program.
What makes you think for an instant that wildlife management ISN'T the first priority??? Neither the article, nor the gal I talked with (and by all means, call em up on Wednesday next week & ask about it if you're REALLY that worried!), indicated that it would be even close to a "free for all" for those who do qualify.
AND again, for the literary impaired... NOT all hunts are expensive. FOR EXAMPLE, once again, My hunt: My BIL or friends out east, help me out by bringing me along on their hunts. AKA NO GAS cost, NO vehicle cost to me, the low income person. My sister GIVES me ammo, or charges me cost, which is at MOST, $10 per box of 20 bullets... SO $10 cost so far... AGAIN, even on several trips, NO COST to me for vehicle use. If I'm kind, which I tend to be with friends, I trade that cost for some housesitting. NO COST TO ME. Still at $10. Get 70 lbs of meat, for say an investment of the whole box of ammo, which allows for some practice rounds & sighting in rounds, that works out to what? 17 to 18 CENTS per pound... That's pretty damn cheap in my book! ESPECIALLY as my friends tend to enjoy the great outdoors & if they can help me out, by trading a bit of time & gas, in exchange for housesitting or puppysitting, everyone wins.
Even when I hunted from my motorcycle, my average hunting trip rarely cost more than a tank of gas... Even adding a pop & sandwich in there, for $25 + ammo at $10, that works out to ONLY 50 cents per pound. Damn cheap, considering the quality IMHO.
Now here's the BIG CLUE IN MOMENT... (yeah, think big booming voice about to bestow a revelation)... The program is NOT designed to feed the poor! NOT REMOTELY! It's so SOME people can get fed. It's NOT meant to feed em all! Only a crazy person would assume it would feed everyone!
AKA it's only for a VERY small number of people, in the overall scheme of things. It helps out a FEW people. That's all it's there for! WHY WORRY??? The number of people who CAN take advantage of the program, CAN'T come close to replacing those hunters who have given up the sport, or who have passed on, leaving fewer & fewer folks out in the bush.
You can think it's politically motivated all you want. I've seen it mentioned in the synopsis for at LEAST the last 3 years though... And it's yet to become a serious burden on the management of the cervid populations.
Oh & as far as "cultivating contacts and scouting areas" goes... WHAT THE HELL do you think these hunters would do? Anything LESS??? Just because they're low income, doesn't mean they're unethical hunters & the insinuation that they would be, is WAY the hell out of line. They STILL require permission. They STILL can't just shoot willy nilly. They STILL have to use ALL the regs that any other hunter uses, with the ONLY exception being of WHEN they can hunt. They STILL have to "pay dues and wear out a few pairs of boots" just like ANY other HUNTER. Hint, these people are HUNTING. NOT POACHING.
Or do you take a position that bowhunters are abusing the system because they get to hunt earlier than rifle hunters too? No? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??? They're a SMALL speciality group. EXTREMELY small. And VERY highly regulated.
Again, another person who I'm guessing DIDN'T call the office, making rude & unjustified assumptions. CALL the office, tell them your concerns. ASK HOW MANY get to hunt!
Until you do THAT, you're basically just crying foul for nothing.
L
In all of this argueing there are two major issues.
1) Providing food for those in need.
This can be accomplished in a far better manner such as donation of wild meat or direct financial support from the government .
2) Protection of the wildlife population. There may seem to be a healthy population now but a few bad winters or disease can change that drastically. If the numbers take a big hit it would be pretty hard to call back all the sustenance hunters and the result would be disatrous. Case in point the Sask government opened pronghorn hunting to anyone and not a draw system. In one year the population was trashed and it took over a decade to even start to recover. They tried to blame it on coyotes but that is BS it was over hunting pure and simple.
The cost of wild game taken by hunting is expensive. For example a big deer will provide perhaps 70 lbs of deboned lean meat. If you are lucky to take it on your first trip out its not too bad but that isn't always the case. Fuel, vehicle wear and tear,ammo etc. put the price at over $2/lb. If you have to travel a fair distance and set up camp even if you are after elk or moose the cost per pound of meat is high.
Using the feeding the poor arguement in this type of program makes no sense from a financial standpoint. We all have the right to hunt but it must be managed in a way that protects the game first and foremost. Using hunting to solve a social issue like poverty is a recipe for disaster. This plan is a politically motivated scheme that has nothing to do with helping people.
We all have the right to hunt and I believe in sharing but if I've spent years cultivating contacts and scouting areas. I'd be a little pissed to have someone else just walking in and helping themselves. Share what you know and work with other hunters but in this game you've got to pay dues and wear out a few pairs of boots.
