Should national parks have big game hunting seasons?

[yoopertoo]

Assuming game populations were healthy enough ...

Can a mod delete the same thread that was not a poll. It was my mistake.

[boehr]

I say yes taking into account the pleasure of everyone who uses the national parks along with game populations etc.

[KLR]

I would vote no. I see no problem with having a sanctuary for the animals. As of now there are still plenty of other places to hunt.

****HOWEVER****

If the population of animals warrant "thinning" I think hunters should be allowed to harvest game as opposed to privately removing the animals.

[huntincountryboy79]

I'd vote yes.

[bullcan]

I would vote no, they are a place the public can go to and see animals in their natural habitat that are not as skittish.

However, I do not like the iron clad no hunting rule that is in place now. I think there should be limited,controlled hunts from time to time if neccessary.

[Dave Lyons]

So you guys like the gov. to buy up land and push people out of there homes for less then they could sell it for and stop hunting. And then when the gov says they need to harvest some animals lets call the gov. in to do this also.

People are really blind about what the gov. is doing. The National parks don't call PRIVATE contractors to do the job. They call the USDA APHIS division.

All the while using your money to buy the land and kill animals off the land. Yes just kill them.

Wake up people this is happening right now.

[yoopertoo]

I started this pole because this is pretty big out west, I guess. I know of two controversies right now over elk populations. One in Theodore Roosevelt National Park in ND, and one, I'm pretty sure, in Rocky Mountain National Park.

I voted yes. I think as long as proper conditions are met it should be allowed:

Proper game management procedures followed
Consideration for the pleasure and safety of other park visitors
Proper restrictions to protect the park itself. For example TRNP protects the badlands so offroad travel should be properly restricted.In my eyes the animals don't need a sanctuary for the sake of having a sanctuary. What I mean is predation of some form is normal in the natural world. If an animal's population can sustain it then harvesting them is completely normal - in fact, required as evidenced in TRNP.

Also, to exclude hunters is wrong from a general principal standpoint since the park is woned by all of us.

[Splitshot]

Under the right circumstances yes.

[SteveS]

I would vote no. I see no problem with having a sanctuary for the animals. As of now there are still plenty of other places to hunt.

****HOWEVER****

If the population of animals warrant "thinning" I think hunters should be allowed to harvest game as opposed to privately removing the animals.

Animals will still die from predation and other causes, so I don't see it as much of a sanctuary. I don't see a problem with allowing hunting if it is done in a way to maintain a healthy population.

[RF2316]

I would vote no. I see no problem with having a sanctuary for the animals. As of now there are still plenty of other places to hunt.

****HOWEVER****

If the population of animals warrant "thinning" I think hunters should be allowed to harvest game as opposed to privately removing the animals.

:yeahthat: