Straightarrow & Moose75,
Consider this scenario:
25 hunters (we'll call them group A) have had access to 10,000 acres of land formany years. They've enjoyed hunting this land year after year, been able to encourage some of their family members and friends to learn to hunt by showing them how to hunt it. They plan to teach their children how to hunt on this land as well.
Then one day2 peoplecome along and offer the land owners something they can't refuse: a lease for $30,000/year. Now group A is left twittling their thumbs during the next hunting seasons, maybe some of them decide not to hunt anymore, maybe their kids grow up not appreciating hunting because they didn't have the opportunity to enjoy it.
Then these 2 people decide to put up high fences around all the property, trapping in the deer, affecting the population for all the other hunters surrounding the 10,000 acres. All so 2 people can control the herds andcharge outrageous feesto some doctors from NY who have never hunted in their life and decided one day that a nice big buck would look good on their wall. Now ofcourse I knownot all customersare like this, but I have seen this WAY too many times.
It would appear to me that if this trend would continue - the number of hunters would decrease dramatically as well as the amount of land available to hunt. I have always been and always will be againstlaws that challenge hunting, but I'm DEFINATELY against a trend that reduces the number of hunters like this does.
Since the first time man ever killed an animal to eat, the method he choose was completely irelevant
You mean back when the population of the animal he killed FAR outweighed the population of humans? Given todays human population and exponential increase in growth, if we still hunted deer like we did back when man 1st killed an animal to eat - deer would be extinct in no time. There is a good reason for regulating "how we kill our animals", its called population control.