Printable View
The city is considering "culling" deer in the northwest part of the city. At a recent neighborhood meeting the councilman said contractors would be used at a cost of about $500 per deer culled, removed, dressed out, butchered. This would be done on city owned land.
Any idea who these contractors might be?
I wish they would let me hunt from my deck. We have some decent bucks through daily.
I was pretty disappointed when I heard them say they would not allow archery to help with this. Funny how it would offend people and children if there was designated archery hunts in specific areas, yet some guy being paid with tax dollars killing does not upset people.
Where do I sign up to get paid $500 to hunt deer?
This is ridiculous ... all because a bunch of Fucking Californians living in Manitou showed up to bitch and moan now we're going to pay $500 ea to have deer culled instead of collecting money from hunting licenses.
Bambi still dies, dumbasses!
I suspect they may not be utilizing archery due to forecast of high quantities... With archery, there is a statistically greater chance of injury or inefficient "culling", and they want to minimize the chances of offending someone who sees a maimed animal with an arrow through their gut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter45
A suppressed 22 mag bolt gun doing head shots at dawn and dusk would have been much more efficient than a bow or crossbow.
The big town of Elizabeth used bow hunters to cull a few in the past couple of years. I didn't sign up to do it for a couple of reasons. I don't think they got many killed, BUT they had requirements for the hunter/shooters to go through. Such as, they had to prove efficiency with bow and arrow by target shooting at certain ranges, not sure what that range was. Each hunter/shooter had to have 6 numbered/identifiable arrows. If they took a shot, had to be reported, kill or no kill. They had a few designated hunting/shooting areas in town and if you were going to hunt, you had to check in and tell someone where and when you were going.
Several other things didn't sit well with me. The hunter/shooters didn't get to keep the meat, at least not the first year they did this. Maybe they changed that last year, not sure. But yet the hunter had to buy the tags.
It was a good idea, but who ever wrote up the rules wasn't thinking straight. Who wants to pay for tags, take the time to go hunt, and then not get any of the meat? Didn't make since to me.
Lot of places back east, where they do truly have big numbers of deer, allow hunting within city limits. One day it may catch on here, and probably not.
I can't believe we're paying people to do something when others would gladly pay for the opportunity. Heck, I bet they could do a low cost lottery just to get the right to pay for a license to do the hunt and make the city a small amount of money.
Morons... the city council.
Screw feelings when setting policy and making public policy decisions. I would rather guilt trip those wanting the cull into letting bambi live, than have mercy killings of bambi.
Why pay hunters to hunt? Idiots!!!
Was listening to a podcast recently that had a state widlife official on (can't remember what state) but he said that they use suppressors and shoot at dawn and dusk. Another tactic they sometimes use is to set up a feeding station to get them to come in to a desired shooting area.
At Rabbit Mtn in Lyons they are culling deer but are making permits available to the public. Rifle only, no archery.
They can pay me $100 per deer. .308 suppressed headshots, thermal or night vision scope. All meat donated to the truly needy.
RonDog should get at least one deer, since the first year he put in, he didn't realize he was snagging a white tail only in a 100% private property area.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Done deal!
Now let’s talk these people into doing the right thing
I don't understand the argument against archery. Seems to me a rifle bullet is much more dangerous in an urban setting that an arrow shot at close range.
An arrow through the heart/lungs area is just as effective at killing a deer (and potentially more quickly) than a rifle.
Having read some of the comments on the articles about this, it's painfully obvious that both citizens and city council have literally no understanding of how things die and how to make them do that.
The way a bow and arrow kills is different than how a rifle bullet kills. With bow and arrow, the critter has to bleed out, with a well placed bullet the critter takes extreme shock to the body. With bow and arrow, the critter often/usually runs at least a little ways before running out of blood and falling into a heap, with a well placed bullet the critter never takes a step. In other words, a bow shot critter COULD potentially end up in the wrong spot where as that can be avoided with a well placed rifle bullet.
That's the main reason a rifle makes more sense then a bow.
This is not to argue that a stray bullet could be more dangerous, but that aside, there is a reason the rifle is the preferred kill method.
The only biological way to DRT is to hit the CNS. But in a deer, that means a head shot in all likelihood, correct? And since animals are dynamic targets, that may result in a deer running around with no skull cap or missing the front of its jaw, etc., depending on movement at the moment of the shot.
The argument puts forward the urban solution of subsonic ammo w/ suppressor, which I think would largely negate the reality of any perceived advantage on the part of a rifle and necessitates an easily expandable bullet if going for the vital zone.
What are the paid hunters using? Does the reality of their kills hold up to perception and claims? Seems to me it's like bringing in contractors in lieu of internal assets to a company. A lot of big claims, but I'm not sure the reality pans out that way.
Not necessarily. A hit into high shoulder/spine will certainly send shock throughout the bone structure and drop a deer in its tracks.Quote:
The only biological way to DRT is to hit the CNS. But in a deer, that means a head shot in all likelihood, correct?
Lots of heavy hitting rifle/bullet combos that could be used at 50 yards and closer that could be subsonic. BUT I don't think subsonic would be a requirement as simply suppressed would probably be acceptable in most areas.
Yeah, a good rifle shot and an Elk will drop instantly to the ground, instant lights out. Even the best arrow shot will allow that animal to move. They are afraid of a deer running and falling on someones back patio while they are having a backyard BBQ or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by TRnCO
The reason they use hired marksmen is for liability reasons. Lawyers have more say in these decisions than neighborhood groups.
My hero!Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving