I went hunting once, in my area, sat in a deer stand and obtained my deer. That was not much of a challenge, so I have not done it since. I can obtain plenty of meat otherwise so there is no need from that aspect.
I have several brothers-in-laws, who live in a rather rural area of the state, who hunt as a main source of their meat and have stocked freezers for the off season. (One of them also has chickens and (domestic) rabbits.) They use what they harvest and I partake when we visit.
But hunting has been beneficial for the animals. When I was a child many years ago, Kentucky had no deer population. Everybody had already killed them all (for all practical purposes).
They have started to re-introduce black bear to the state, which would not have occured the hunters monies.
With the introduction of regulated hunting (including the regulation of the type of ammo) and hunting permits, the deer population has soared over the years - from almost zero. The regulation protects the animals and the permits from hunters raised monies (and no monies from general revenues) which allowed the wildlife services to operate.
Now they are in the process of re-introducing Elk to Kentucky. Without the hunters and their monies, none of this would have occured.
The deer population has soared, actually beyond control. I am 3 miles south of Cincinnati as the crow flies, and the subdivisions go a further 6 miles south. Yet it is not unusual to see a deer cross the Interstate, or to see their bodies on the Interstate where they have been hit by a vehicle. Nor is it unusual to see them in my subdivision or in my yard (which upsets my wife when I point to them and say there is supper).
So hunting, properly and reasonably controlled, serves a purpose.
__________________
charlie
|