Ontario spring bear hunt to resume

lukin2006

Ontario spring bear hunt to resume, Wynne’s office confirms

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/06/ontario_spring_bear_hunt_to_resume_wynnes_office_confirms.html

A quote from the article ...

Mark Ryckman, senior wildlife biologist for the hunters and anglers federation, disputes that number. He said “bear baiting”— a practice whereby hunters leave out food for bears day after day and then shoot them at that spot — allows hunters more time to determine the gender of animals coming regularly to the site.

Mike McIntosh, who heads the Bear With Us animal sanctuary near Haliburton, Ont., says it’s ludicrous to think hunters can tell male bears from female, especially with their shaggy winter coats. He called it “shameful” to hunt bears in the spring because they have the slowest rate of reproduction among any animal in North America.


The return of the spring bear hunt reeks of a government so in search of any votes it can muster for a potential spring election. Here's an idea ban the practice of hunters baiting, many of the baiting going on is done so not that far out of town, so of course the closer to town you attract the bears then my guess is they are going to stay and follow the food trail. There are also bear proof containers that have been known to work ... people need to learn to live with and co-exist with wildlife ... people are so fucked.

Smellyman

ban the guns, give them a knife and then see how tough these mother fuckers are

brianlux

I'm thinking of another great Forest Whitaker/Jim Jarmusch film , "Ghost Dog"-- the scene where Ghost Dog has come across a couple of shit-for-brains bear hunters and evens the score. Hey, I know, it's brutal, but it's Ghost Dog! Great film- don't miss it!

chadwick

i wish folks looking after bears could just shoot bear hunters this spring. think about it, folks. how fucking useless is a fucking guy when he's killing bears for no reason. same with mountain lion big tough hunters pulling the triggers on these cats. this is bizarre behavior & many step up to the plate just to shoot & kill something.

to bad these nasty folks can't be thrown off a cliff or something

rgambs

without hunters and all the fees they pay for their sport we would not have the national parks, forests, and wildernesses that we have today, and the measely ones we would have would have zero funding because hikers hike for free. The most beautiful spot in all of West Virginia is only accesible because bear hunters painfully cleared a trail through 6 miles of tangled Rhododendron, so I appreciate that effort. Spring bear baiting is a shameful tactic that a self-respecting hunter would never use.
If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to judge a hunter.

JonnyPistachio

rgambs said:

If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to judge a hunter.

So these people are eating the bears?

lukin2006

rgambs said:

without hunters and all the fees they pay for their sport we would not have the national parks, forests, and wildernesses that we have today, and the measely ones we would have would have zero funding because hikers hike for free. The most beautiful spot in all of West Virginia is only accesible because bear hunters painfully cleared a trail through 6 miles of tangled Rhododendron, so I appreciate that effort. Spring bear baiting is a shameful tactic that a self-respecting hunter would never use.
If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to judge a hunter.

National parks are federal. I'm pretty sure hunting fees are state fees. I don't see the state turning over their hunting to fees to the federal government ... at least here in Canada that's how it works.

lukin2006

As far as I'm concerned the spring bear hunt is being allowed by a government in search of votes in the run up to a potential spring election ... and bears don't vote.

rgambs

JonnyPistachio said:

rgambs said:

If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to judge a hunter.

So these people are eating the bears?

Most make bear jerky, yes...I am sure many don't consume the bear or respect it and that is very sad. My point though, is even if the carcass is left to rot us meat eaters are in no position to judge. We participate willingly in the ubiquitous lifelong torture of American livestock.

rgambs

lukin2006 said:

rgambs said:

without hunters and all the fees they pay for their sport we would not have the national parks, forests, and wildernesses that we have today, and the measely ones we would have would have zero funding because hikers hike for free. The most beautiful spot in all of West Virginia is only accesible because bear hunters painfully cleared a trail through 6 miles of tangled Rhododendron, so I appreciate that effort. Spring bear baiting is a shameful tactic that a self-respecting hunter would never use.
If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to judge a hunter.

National parks are federal. I'm pretty sure hunting fees are state fees. I don't see the state turning over their hunting to fees to the federal government ... at least here in Canada that's how it works.

it is an interesting and complicated relationship the state and federal "parks" share. In the case I referred to, the exact most beautiful spot in WV lies within the Monongahela Nat. Forest, Dolly Sods Nat. Wilderness, Seneca Rocks Nat. Rec. Area, and possibly Spruce Knob State Park (not sure of the boundaries) While you are correct that hunting licenses are paid to the state, I think the Fed gets a cut...pretty sure I read that somewhere but I can't stand on it. I know that hunters pay and hikers don't and if I had the internet I could whip up some links to illustrate.
Aside from that, in America Teddy Roosevelt started the whole public lands trend to preserve the animals he liked to kill. Muir was the man, but without Teddy, all our parks would be like Niagara, where you have to pay just to put your eyeballs on it.

lukin2006

If your hunting for for food for personal consumption ... I have no problem. But far too many of these hunters its more about ego and getting the animal mounted. I know hunters ... everyone has an animal mount in their home and plenty of pictures where there prey to show you how tough they are.

I don't know of any cattle. pig, chicken etc.. that have there dinner mounted or have pics taken with them.

brianlux

rgambs said:

lukin2006 said:

rgambs said:

without hunters and all the fees they pay for their sport we would not have the national parks, forests, and wildernesses that we have today, and the measely ones we would have would have zero funding because hikers hike for free. The most beautiful spot in all of West Virginia is only accesible because bear hunters painfully cleared a trail through 6 miles of tangled Rhododendron, so I appreciate that effort. Spring bear baiting is a shameful tactic that a self-respecting hunter would never use.
If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to judge a hunter.

National parks are federal. I'm pretty sure hunting fees are state fees. I don't see the state turning over their hunting to fees to the federal government ... at least here in Canada that's how it works.

it is an interesting and complicated relationship the state and federal "parks" share. In the case I referred to, the exact most beautiful spot in WV lies within the Monongahela Nat. Forest, Dolly Sods Nat. Wilderness, Seneca Rocks Nat. Rec. Area, and possibly Spruce Knob State Park (not sure of the boundaries) While you are correct that hunting licenses are paid to the state, I think the Fed gets a cut...pretty sure I read that somewhere but I can't stand on it. I know that hunters pay and hikers don't and if I had the internet I could whip up some links to illustrate.
Aside from that, in America Teddy Roosevelt started the whole public lands trend to preserve the animals he liked to kill. Muir was the man, but without Teddy, all our parks would be like Niagara, where you have to pay just to put your eyeballs on it.

The problem with giving TR all the credit he gets for creating parks is that when we hear this we are rarely told also that his original intent was to set aside large areas for him and his elite country club buddies to do their hunting. It was not really an altruistic gesture.

Here's my two suggestions for allowing hunting:

1. Realistic suggestion: If hunters are hunting for food should it not be because they need that food for survival? We live in a society in which hunting is also exclusively unnecessary. AND if someone is going to hunt they should go the full measure and live totally off the land. No weekend warrior hunting. Seems like a fair choice: live in civilization or live off the land- no going back and forth as one pleases- that's cheating!

2. Not-so realistic suggestion but hey, why not! Try this one on: We humans have outgrown our numbers. Without the cheap non-renewable energy source that is oil we would be well beyond carrying capacity. Considering that and the reasonable idea of fairness, why not take the same percentage of our population as the percentage of animals hunted and feed that percentage of people to wild animals? Kill one out of 10 bears, feed one out of 10 people to bears. And since it is the hunters that choose to do the killing they should step up to the plate and be the hunted. The bear population will be more stable and 9 out of 10 hunters will be happy. Seems fair, right?

rgambs

i agree that the attitude of many hunters is just sad and pathetic looking from the outside. I also empathize because I enjoy fishing and there is an instinctual drive to bring in the biggest, most impressive game. Although the macho-man attitude is annoying at the least, I personally don't care why an animal is killed, only the amount of suffering it is subjected to in life and death. Eat it, don't eat it, the animal doesn't know, doesn't care, and it doesn't really matter.

brianlux

rgambs said:

i agree that the attitude of many hunters is just sad and pathetic looking from the outside. I also empathize because I enjoy fishing and there is an instinctual drive to bring in the biggest, most impressive game. Although the macho-man attitude is annoying at the least, I personally don't care why an animal is killed, only the amount of suffering it is subjected to in life and death. Eat it, don't eat it, the animal doesn't know, doesn't care, and it doesn't really matter.

But rgambs, it does matter because we are driving too many species out of existence. And I believe all unnecessary death is very unfortunate. Dang- gotta go to work. Good discussion- will catch up more later. :-)

chadwick

"The most beautiful spot in all of West Virginia is only accesible because bear hunters painfully cleared a trail through 6 miles of tangled Rhododendron, so I appreciate that effort." - rgambs

so the only folks out that a way who have or will clear tangled up rhododendrons & other thick ass bushes to make trails are bear hunters? bear hunting dollars generated by licenses & hunting gear expenses & every single thing else bought & spent is what is saving or at least keeping these forests going?

bears wanna get in where people are not. so guess where bears & other critters get off to? you guessed it, rhododendron thickets


wow! genius hunters doing a lot of wonderful skilled trail blazing work for hikers to hike...

how about leave the bears alone? i bet that would help the forest

but then someone would declare bears are eating all the deer
blah blah blah

fucking what the fuck

chadwick

bear jerky

holy shit that is pretty fucking out of control don't ya think?

like this one fucking asshole waitress we had at lake quinault in WA. she eats mountain lion her neighbor murdered because the cat just so happen to be there out in the forest nearby

who the fuck eats cougar when they are a big ol' fat ass american & even work at a lodge/restaurant? to my notion these people are fucking useless

unsung

If someone hunts for food what difference does it make if they also go to the grocery store? Is it really about their choice or your inability to control what they eat?

brianlux

Huh? I don't think anyone here is trying to control what anyone eats. It's 2014 and until civilization collapses- which it very likely will some day- there is not only no need to hunt but many of us believe it is our human obligation to leave alone what little remnants of wild life and wild lands remain. Jeez Louse man, do you libertarians really think you should be able to do whatever you feel like doing at whatever expense to anyone and anything else in the world? I don't get that... at all.

chadwick

eating bear meat? this is ridiculous
it's like saying, "im going to shoot & consume a fucking horse or zebra just because i have a gun, a little john & i am an asshole"

"i think im hungry, im flying countless hrs to africa, murdering a lion, elephant & gorilla family... burgers for me & my pals"

or... "i could stay home, spend $20 at the grocery store & put on a nice roast beef crockpot extravaganza"
"hell, maybe bbq the deer i shot last fall or fry up some fish"

"yep, let's murder a horse & zebra"

http://youtu.be/ETgmlcIED6E

ted & his pals are some true sportsmen as they hog hunt from the sky
i don't mind a guy quietly killing a wild hog to feed his family
these fuckers here are just cruel & loud about it like smearing it in folks' faces, 'look at us, look what we can do'

please next time wreck that helicopter

rgambs

mr lux i agree that i wouldn't wish for anything to die without a reason, but reasons are mostly just excuses for indulging..it is still death and it is gonna happen one way or another!

Mr chadwick what is the criteria that makes bovine and porcine meat edible and yet equine and ursine are not to be eaten?? Is it purely admiration?? Have you ever seen a black angus steer in person? They are beautiful magnificent animals and we slap them on the grill nonetheless. Horses, zebras, bears, these are animals and I will tell you what they don't do. They don't work to understand each others differences, they don't love, they don't sacrifice themselves and form lifelong attachments to their offspring and parents. Ted Nugent, as annoying and vile as he is, has family that loves him and depends on his love and thats more than you can say for a wild hog...all that is not to say animals don't deserve our respect and fair treatment, only that wishing for the death of human beings who kill animals is...

20$ at the grocery store buys an unhealthy animal that suffered for every minute of it's life, and then died without a shred of dignity. I can't think of a worse scenario for an animal, no matter how many helicopters or bait traps are involved.

rgambs

mr lux i agree that i wouldn't wish for anything to die without a reason, but reasons are mostly just excuses for indulging..it is still death and it is gonna happen one way or another!

Mr chadwick what is the criteria that makes bovine and porcine meat edible and yet equine and ursine are not to be eaten?? Is it purely admiration?? Have you ever seen a black angus steer in person? They are beautiful magnificent animals and we slap them on the grill nonetheless. Horses, zebras, bears, these are animals and I will tell you what they don't do. They don't work to understand each others differences, they don't love, they don't sacrifice themselves and form lifelong attachments to their offspring and parents. Ted Nugent, as annoying and vile as he is, has family that loves him and depends on his love and thats more than you can say for a wild hog...all that is not to say animals don't deserve our respect and fair treatment, only that wishing for the death of human beings who kill animals is...

20$ at the grocery store buys an unhealthy animal that suffered for every minute of it's life, and then died without a shred of dignity. I can't think of a worse scenario for an animal, no matter how many helicopters or bait traps are involved.

brianlux

rgambs said:

mr lux i agree that i wouldn't wish for anything to die without a reason, but reasons are mostly just excuses for indulging..it is still death and it is gonna happen one way or another!

Not me, man. Saaaaaaave my ass!

lukin2006

Everybody raises great points in this discussion.


The point being missed here by some is the fact that the bear hunt in the spring is very likely being allowed in order for the governing party to gain votes in a possible election. Experts say its impossible to distinguish between male and female in the spring ... meaning many bear cubs will be orphaned.

JonnyPistachio

Personally, I just dislike the idea of murdering something for sport. This is just my opinion, but I think there is something very wrong with someone who spends a tons of money, tons of time, and dresses like an idiot and hides in the bushes for a week to shoot an animal for "sport" (especially if they arent going to eat all of it). It sickens me a bit because of the motive.

"Its death and its going to happen one way or another"?? ....ahhh, um Ok. good grief man.

brianlux

""When a man wants to murder a tiger he calls it sport; when a tiger wants to murder him he calls it ferocity."

"Whenever I see a photograph of some sportsman grinning over his kill, I am always impressed by the striking moral and aesthetic superiority of the dead animal to the live one."

... Edward Abbey

PJPOWER

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

lukin2006 said:

rgambs said:

without hunters and all the fees they pay for their sport we would not have the national parks, forests, and wildernesses that we have today, and the measely ones we would have would have zero funding because hikers hike for free. The most beautiful spot in all of West Virginia is only accesible because bear hunters painfully cleared a trail through 6 miles of tangled Rhododendron, so I appreciate that effort. Spring bear baiting is a shameful tactic that a self-respecting hunter would never use.
If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to judge a hunter.

National parks are federal. I'm pretty sure hunting fees are state fees. I don't see the state turning over their hunting to fees to the federal government ... at least here in Canada that's how it works.

it is an interesting and complicated relationship the state and federal "parks" share. In the case I referred to, the exact most beautiful spot in WV lies within the Monongahela Nat. Forest, Dolly Sods Nat. Wilderness, Seneca Rocks Nat. Rec. Area, and possibly Spruce Knob State Park (not sure of the boundaries) While you are correct that hunting licenses are paid to the state, I think the Fed gets a cut...pretty sure I read that somewhere but I can't stand on it. I know that hunters pay and hikers don't and if I had the internet I could whip up some links to illustrate.
Aside from that, in America Teddy Roosevelt started the whole public lands trend to preserve the animals he liked to kill. Muir was the man, but without Teddy, all our parks would be like Niagara, where you have to pay just to put your eyeballs on it.

The problem with giving TR all the credit he gets for creating parks is that when we hear this we are rarely told also that his original intent was to set aside large areas for him and his elite country club buddies to do their hunting. It was not really an altruistic gesture.

Here's my two suggestions for allowing hunting:

1. Realistic suggestion: If hunters are hunting for food should it not be because they need that food for survival? We live in a society in which hunting is also exclusively unnecessary. AND if someone is going to hunt they should go the full measure and live totally off the land. No weekend warrior hunting. Seems like a fair choice: live in civilization or live off the land- no going back and forth as one pleases- that's cheating!

2. Not-so realistic suggestion but hey, why not! Try this one on: We humans have outgrown our numbers. Without the cheap non-renewable energy source that is oil we would be well beyond carrying capacity. Considering that and the reasonable idea of fairness, why not take the same percentage of our population as the percentage of animals hunted and feed that percentage of people to wild animals? Kill one out of 10 bears, feed one out of 10 people to bears. And since it is the hunters that choose to do the killing they should step up to the plate and be the hunted. The bear population will be more stable and 9 out of 10 hunters will be happy. Seems fair, right?

Let me start off by saying that I AM a hunter. My freezer is stuffed with deer year round. This greatly offsets the expense of overpriced meat in the meat market and is a lot healthier than most of it. I also hunt coyotes and wild pigs, not because I am in love with killing, but because they kill the cattle that all of you steak lovers find tasty. Just last week we had two calfs killed by coyotes as they were being born... The coyote population in many areas are going crazy and they are starting to also feed on domestic pets. The pigs cause havoc on the farmlands and are reproducing exponentially. Your beef is not born on a store shelf, or a feed yard. Every farmer and rancher I know is a hunter to some extent. So before you throw all hunters under the bus, realize that they also are the ones putting the food on your table. How many heads do I have on my wall? ZERO!

rgambs

lukin2006 said:

Everybody raises great points in this discussion.


The point being missed here by some is the fact that the bear hunt in the spring is very likely being allowed in order for the governing party to gain votes in a possible election. Experts say its impossible to distinguish between male and female in the spring ... meaning many bear cubs will be orphaned.

yes that point was glossed, I don't think you will find anyone who really condones bear baiting or spring bear hunts. Shameful.

I jump at the chance to defend hunting because I know people who hunt and none of them are motor city madmen.
You think it is very wrong, a hunter would say that your disconnect from nature and your food is wrong. Hunting is an experience that has been around for a few million years and has only come under criticism is the last 2 decades or so. I understand the knee-jerk reaction but you have to understand that most hunters are full of respect for the animals and are humbled each time they harvest one. I am not saying that just makes it ok, but people who ¡ren't connected to hunting don't think about hunting they only feel about hunting.
Again, if you eat meat from a grocery store, you have no right to judge. Go to a farm and look your food in the eye while it dies and maybe you will come closer to understanding the cycle of life and death. I have watched humans die and I have watched animals die...suffering is my enemy, not death, death comes for everything eventually.

hedonist

PJPOWER - you make a good point (actually, many of you do, as lukin mentioned), and I have no problem at all with non-sport hunting. I recall watching that old MTV series about celebrities' homes awhile back, and Jerry Cantrell had two freezers devoted to meet *edit - MEAT, jeez! - he and his family had hunted. It wasn't for the fun of it, but for food, sustenance, survival. A-OK with that.

Two asides - one, the comment up there earlier about bears, horses, animals, not loving their offspring, relatives? Hell, even other species including human beings? From what I've seen, they sure do. It's eye-opening and humbling.

Second, this past weekend I got up earlier than usual, flipped on the tv while doing the old wake-n-bake, and came upon a childhood favorite - Family Affair. Jody was sleeping in the den and was scared of the tiger head mounted on the wall. He asked what happened to the tiger's body, and Uncle Bill laughed and said "I don't know, I just took the head!"

Sure it was a different era but man...that really tainted Uncle Bill for me.

brianlux

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

lukin2006 said:

rgambs said:

without hunters and all the fees they pay for their sport we would not have the national parks, forests, and wildernesses that we have today, and the measely ones we would have would have zero funding because hikers hike for free. The most beautiful spot in all of West Virginia is only accesible because bear hunters painfully cleared a trail through 6 miles of tangled Rhododendron, so I appreciate that effort. Spring bear baiting is a shameful tactic that a self-respecting hunter would never use.
If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to judge a hunter.

National parks are federal. I'm pretty sure hunting fees are state fees. I don't see the state turning over their hunting to fees to the federal government ... at least here in Canada that's how it works.

it is an interesting and complicated relationship the state and federal "parks" share. In the case I referred to, the exact most beautiful spot in WV lies within the Monongahela Nat. Forest, Dolly Sods Nat. Wilderness, Seneca Rocks Nat. Rec. Area, and possibly Spruce Knob State Park (not sure of the boundaries) While you are correct that hunting licenses are paid to the state, I think the Fed gets a cut...pretty sure I read that somewhere but I can't stand on it. I know that hunters pay and hikers don't and if I had the internet I could whip up some links to illustrate.
Aside from that, in America Teddy Roosevelt started the whole public lands trend to preserve the animals he liked to kill. Muir was the man, but without Teddy, all our parks would be like Niagara, where you have to pay just to put your eyeballs on it.

The problem with giving TR all the credit he gets for creating parks is that when we hear this we are rarely told also that his original intent was to set aside large areas for him and his elite country club buddies to do their hunting. It was not really an altruistic gesture.

Here's my two suggestions for allowing hunting:

1. Realistic suggestion: If hunters are hunting for food should it not be because they need that food for survival? We live in a society in which hunting is also exclusively unnecessary. AND if someone is going to hunt they should go the full measure and live totally off the land. No weekend warrior hunting. Seems like a fair choice: live in civilization or live off the land- no going back and forth as one pleases- that's cheating!

2. Not-so realistic suggestion but hey, why not! Try this one on: We humans have outgrown our numbers. Without the cheap non-renewable energy source that is oil we would be well beyond carrying capacity. Considering that and the reasonable idea of fairness, why not take the same percentage of our population as the percentage of animals hunted and feed that percentage of people to wild animals? Kill one out of 10 bears, feed one out of 10 people to bears. And since it is the hunters that choose to do the killing they should step up to the plate and be the hunted. The bear population will be more stable and 9 out of 10 hunters will be happy. Seems fair, right?

Let me start off by saying that I AM a hunter. My freezer is stuffed with deer year round. This greatly offsets the expense of overpriced meat in the meat market and is a lot healthier than most of it. I also hunt coyotes and wild pigs, not because I am in love with killing, but because they kill the cattle that all of you steak lovers find tasty. Just last week we had two calfs killed by coyotes as they were being born... The coyote population in many areas are going crazy and they are starting to also feed on domestic pets. The pigs cause havoc on the farmlands and are reproducing exponentially. Your beef is not born on a store shelf, or a feed yard. Every farmer and rancher I know is a hunter to some extent. So before you throw all hunters under the bus, realize that they also are the ones putting the food on your table. How many heads do I have on my wall? ZERO!

First of all, sorry my post offended you.

There isn't a problem with coyotes killing cattle, the problem is that it's 2014 and there are just too many humans, especially humans consuming meat. In some areas wild pigs were introduced and are a problem. That much I agree with, but not killing coyotes. If you know anything about the history of north America you know coyotes are an important part of natural life cycles. (Hopefully we are not to civilized to discuss natural cycles.)

As for farmers being hunters- no. My brother has been a farmer for over 30 years. I worked with him a few summers as well. He has never and would NEVER kill an animal of any kind. I know several local farmers through our farmer's market. None of them kill animals.

And please don't assume anything about "my beef". I don't eat beef anymore and I'm not so stupid as to believe it is born on a shelf.

hedonist

Brian - on your earlier post, I'm not sure I get this:

1. Realistic suggestion: If hunters are hunting for food should it not be because they need that food for survival? We live in a society in which hunting is also exclusively unnecessary. AND if someone is going to hunt they should go the full measure and live totally off the land. No weekend warrior hunting. Seems like a fair choice: live in civilization or live off the land- no going back and forth as one pleases- that's cheating!

Why would it be either/or? If it's legit hunting, it's no one's business that they get their meat via that method and maybe hit up the store for other stuff such as rice, fruit, bread, etc.

What about suburban folks going on the occasional fishing trip? Honest question - is that considered hunting as well? Does method (rod & reel vs. spear, for instance) make a difference?

PJPOWER

brianlux said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

lukin2006 said:

rgambs said:

without hunters and all the fees they pay for their sport we would not have the national parks, forests, and wildernesses that we have today, and the measely ones we would have would have zero funding because hikers hike for free. The most beautiful spot in all of West Virginia is only accesible because bear hunters painfully cleared a trail through 6 miles of tangled Rhododendron, so I appreciate that effort. Spring bear baiting is a shameful tactic that a self-respecting hunter would never use.
If you aren't a vegetarian you have no right to judge a hunter.

National parks are federal. I'm pretty sure hunting fees are state fees. I don't see the state turning over their hunting to fees to the federal government ... at least here in Canada that's how it works.

it is an interesting and complicated relationship the state and federal "parks" share. In the case I referred to, the exact most beautiful spot in WV lies within the Monongahela Nat. Forest, Dolly Sods Nat. Wilderness, Seneca Rocks Nat. Rec. Area, and possibly Spruce Knob State Park (not sure of the boundaries) While you are correct that hunting licenses are paid to the state, I think the Fed gets a cut...pretty sure I read that somewhere but I can't stand on it. I know that hunters pay and hikers don't and if I had the internet I could whip up some links to illustrate.
Aside from that, in America Teddy Roosevelt started the whole public lands trend to preserve the animals he liked to kill. Muir was the man, but without Teddy, all our parks would be like Niagara, where you have to pay just to put your eyeballs on it.

The problem with giving TR all the credit he gets for creating parks is that when we hear this we are rarely told also that his original intent was to set aside large areas for him and his elite country club buddies to do their hunting. It was not really an altruistic gesture.

Here's my two suggestions for allowing hunting:

1. Realistic suggestion: If hunters are hunting for food should it not be because they need that food for survival? We live in a society in which hunting is also exclusively unnecessary. AND if someone is going to hunt they should go the full measure and live totally off the land. No weekend warrior hunting. Seems like a fair choice: live in civilization or live off the land- no going back and forth as one pleases- that's cheating!

2. Not-so realistic suggestion but hey, why not! Try this one on: We humans have outgrown our numbers. Without the cheap non-renewable energy source that is oil we would be well beyond carrying capacity. Considering that and the reasonable idea of fairness, why not take the same percentage of our population as the percentage of animals hunted and feed that percentage of people to wild animals? Kill one out of 10 bears, feed one out of 10 people to bears. And since it is the hunters that choose to do the killing they should step up to the plate and be the hunted. The bear population will be more stable and 9 out of 10 hunters will be happy. Seems fair, right?

Let me start off by saying that I AM a hunter. My freezer is stuffed with deer year round. This greatly offsets the expense of overpriced meat in the meat market and is a lot healthier than most of it. I also hunt coyotes and wild pigs, not because I am in love with killing, but because they kill the cattle that all of you steak lovers find tasty. Just last week we had two calfs killed by coyotes as they were being born... The coyote population in many areas are going crazy and they are starting to also feed on domestic pets. The pigs cause havoc on the farmlands and are reproducing exponentially. Your beef is not born on a store shelf, or a feed yard. Every farmer and rancher I know is a hunter to some extent. So before you throw all hunters under the bus, realize that they also are the ones putting the food on your table. How many heads do I have on my wall? ZERO!

First of all, sorry my post offended you.

There isn't a problem with coyotes killing cattle, the problem is that it's 2014 and there are just too many humans, especially humans consuming meat. In some areas wild pigs were introduced and are a problem. That much I agree with, but not killing coyotes. If you know anything about the history of north America you know coyotes are an important part of natural life cycles. (Hopefully we are not to civilized to discuss natural cycles.)

As for farmers being hunters- no. My brother has been a farmer for over 30 years. I worked with him a few summers as well. He has never and would NEVER kill an animal of any kind. I know several local farmers through our farmer's market. None of them kill animals.

And please don't assume anything about "my beef". I don't eat beef anymore and I'm not so stupid as to believe it is born on a shelf.

Yes, there IS a problem with coyotes killing cattle. One or two coyotes every now and then are no big deal, but when there are so many of them that they start killing livestock, they are a problem. Yes, pigs were introduced and yes, humans are overpopulating. That does not mean that the pigs are not causing major problems. All of the farmers around here are hunters because it is an area populated by these problem animals. You may not be ignorant to where food comes from, but you do seem pretty ignorant about hunting and general predator control on cattle ranches in Texas.