I too have a very healthy yet dry sense of humor, but I'm not getting it. It is entirely possible that I am completely misunderstanding your point of view here, and if I am, I apologize. I also completely understand the irritation at people's claim("my" deer/coyotes/etc.) and agree with you to an extent.
Now that my disclaimer has been said, I have to comment as to my "understanding" of your post about the balance of nature. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that wildlife needs no management or intervention by man? Is this correct? Because I've heard this all before, but can't say I've ever heard it from another hunter. Generally those comments are reserved for those that like to throw red paint on people wearing fur or eating a bacon cheese burger. If I got you wrong, then again I apologize.
Are you a hunter? If you are, you are a killer. The "reason" you kill is inconsequential, killing is killing regardless if it's for food or sport, and that is my take on the "facts" as I see them.
BTW, facts don't have a POV, they are black and white without shades of gray. When you start looking for "takes" on facts, it means you have no self support for the argument of your beliefs.
Chupa
Nature found its own balance as it always had until modern man created the need for wildlife and habitat management, to suit his desires, to prevent species from becoming extinct that he himself was causing through over hunting and habitat destruction.
It matters not whether you are a hunter or not, but yes I was a very serious hunter AND killer, almost from my diaper days. Mostly for food, ADC to protect what amounts to for food mostly, sometimes to protect old two legs. But like most hunters also some for the challenge as a sport (ego). With the predators utilizing pelts if possible, when younger on the ranch sometimes some meats for food. And I would still be doing it if I could . I am not a bunny or tree hugger or an anti at all and never have been. And I do consider sound management as beneficial to the species as well as old two legs. But I do respect wildlife and the preservation of them as well, they have as much right to be here as we do. A few other species do kill for sport as well as to eat/survive, but not in the shear numbers that old two legs does. Nor do other species destroy habitat that has even close to such a profound impact on all species that called it home.
I don't see killing as always being inconsequential. Killing to eat or protect, killing for sport but utilizing what you killed is one thing. Killing just to be killing is not moral, wanton killing in excess is not ethical. Old two legs has proved that many times all through history by driving species to at least the brink of extinction, species that he himself utilized for food or survival and not just for sport.
Maybe it would have been easier to understand my thoughts if instead of typing them as my "take" on the facts, I had said my opinion because of the facts. Same thing to me. The facts hold water, I have no good reason to doubt them and do not.
Regardless, I see no further reason to defend my opinion or take. It is what it is, what it has always been and always will be.
(wink)
