Quote:
Originally Posted by hilt134
Why shouldn’t the landowner bare the burden of an over abundance of animals on their land? Not sure how it’s anyone else’s problem. If there really is too many the choices seem pretty simple. Let more hunters on to deal with the problem or let the government fund a cull with your own tax money. Both have positives and negatives. The alternative is don’t let it happen and deal with the crop damage.
I understand that peoples tolerance and patience wears thin after years of dealing with crappy and disrespectful hunters. They have the right to limit hunting on their land, however there is a consequence for wielding that right too much.
Also if you don’t want people’s opinions maybe limit your post to a group chat with locals to that area. It’s a public forum that is extremely well known for being opinionated 
Having said that and fair warning I have zero experience in the area we are talking about. Make it a general tag for a season or two. Either the elk population will be lowered or the farmers will hate the amount of extra hunters and stop complaining about the elk. |
The area I live in had no elk back in the day. In the mid 90's people would occasionally see some and it would be talked about. Now there is lots and some people do have depredation problems. Should the landowner still bare the burden if there was no elk when they began farming and 20 yrs later the population explodes, and maybe in part to elk being relocated by the province? Peoples opinions tend to rapidly change when they are personally affected financially by wildlife. It's easy to tell others what to do when you have no first hand experience yourself