Question for Hunters see below for details?*?

Question

Do you agree with certain government officials who want to ban hunting on public lands? Yes....or....No

Answer 1

Public land is just that, public. If it is within reasonable safety to hunt the land without danger to people or property, then it should be allowed.
Isn't public land maintained by tax dollars? No taxation without representation. Hunters and the firearms lobby should be speaking louder to congress.

Answer 2

I don't agree.....Correct me if I am wrong, as my memory fails me on the location......In Theodore Roosevelt's day, a large portion of,.... I think it was the Kiabob plateau, in Arizona, and that may be wrong,.... but a large portion was set aside, hunter free, for the Mule deer. Within 15 years, the population had increased to over range, and the animals were found to be starving, and diseased, and a massive die off occurred which almost eradicated the deer from that area.....It was one of such magnitude that it helped prompt Wildlife agencies to realize that hunting was a valuable management tool, to control the over population of game animals. I remember reading the articles about it in Outdoor Life Magazine back in the 60's. I may have the location wrong, but the massive die off was a fact......And still is a fact. There are many areas today, that are so saturated with deer per sq mile, that it is a danger yet.......And government officials have enough to think about in an election year, than banning a valuable game management tool from being used on public land.......

Answer 3

NO

What these government officials do not understand is that most of the money used to fund habitat improvements and maintain wildlife on public lands comes from revenue generated by the sale of hunting licenses and the Pittman-Robertson act (since the 1930's an 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition and since 1972 archery equipment.)

If hunting is banned the source of revenue to maintain these lands will be so drastically reduced that the government will have no ability to care for them and it will have devastatingly harmful effects on the wildlife.

If they can't hunt less people will buy licenses and the associated equipment that is subject to the Pittman-Robertson Act.

Answer 4

No first of all it is "public use" lands. The land is not used for hunting 24/7 and everyday of the year. There are plenty of non hunting days in the year for the campers and bird watchers and nature lovers to "use" it as well. It should not become the private domain of those that do not condone hunting. I dont "condone" tree hugging but you wont see me trying to exclude them from doing it on "public" land. Just another attempt by a "fringe" few trying to make policy for the many.

Answer 5

No, straight out, no. I know many, many people who can only hunt on public land.

Answer 6

heck no then what can the people do that don't have places to hunt or get go out and enjoy themselves. i live in a city and i love to hunt and fish and let me tell you there aren't that many places to hunt in the city.

Answer 7

No, if they ban hunting on public land, then it is banned on private land, there is no wheres left to hunt..... stupid retarded politicians!!!! How about we hunt politicians on public land??

Answer 8

that is what the land says public. so no. i think that if it is public then we can hunt on it . cut and dry.

Answer 9

no i dont agree it is aginst our U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms


Amendment Text | Annotations
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Annotations (guns dont kill people dumb a-ss people kill people!!!!!!!)

Answer 10

Let me get this correct...
You are asking this in Outdoor Recreation > Hunting > ???



NO.

You didn't expect to get any yeses did you?