Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 10:45:14 GMT -5
A little adder. After time the local gang members would come and watch and a few got very interested in bow shooting. One I know for sure bought a bow and would come over and practice with me. What a novel idea. Even the worst ones slowly came by. In fact they would watch my place. I would respected them and they respected me.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Feb 1, 2018 13:11:13 GMT -5
But these folks are pure anti-hunters. They do not want see anyone get pleasure from hunting and killing any animal. IMO - There will never be any deer hunting here, just deer killing by sharpshooters.. Which is precisely why it would take some very organized and different approach to explaining why death by hunter is in the county's, city's and community's best interest over paying sharpshooters. Fiscal responsibility is just one aspect of why that would make sense. If fiscal responsibility was truly the goal, this would never have been allowed to happen to begin with. I think in cases like this I think it becomes "it's taxpayer money, so who cares what it costs?"...
|
|
|
Post by featherduster on Feb 1, 2018 15:42:04 GMT -5
Considering the cost for one law suit if ANYTHING would happen to go wrong with hunters trying to reduce the numbers, I think it was money well spent to get this terrible deed done in a timely manner.
Even if they did allow archery hunters there are those that would wait for a trophy deer to come along. A private company just wants to get the job done and get out of there.
|
|