I have just finished reading what is, without a doubt, the single most ignorant rambling that I have ever stumbled across.
Guadalupe Sandoval Pratt's letter to the editor decries hunting as "barbaric" and equates the killing of a deer to the murder of a human.
Now, mind you, she does not offer one single shred of evidence to support her position, only the uninformed ramblings of someone who has no fact-based knowledge on the subject.
I will not even attempt to rebut her letter, as there is no valid response to such emotionally based ramblings. What I will say is this, in Vermont during the 80s there were severe restrictions placed upon the taking of deer on public and private lands. These restrictions were passed through the state legislature at the behest of persons with the same arguments that have been used by Pratt.
Just three years later, a trip through the forest during the spring was a heartbreaking experience. Why? There were literally thousands of deer carcasses scattered around, a result of starvation.
Hunting exists today for the very necessary purpose of limiting wildlife populations. With the unavoidable circumstances of the modern world, nature is no longer able to achieve this balance without intervention. This is fact, and it is undisputed.
So, what is my point here? First, hunting is not barbaric, it is necessary. Second, beware the emotion-based arguments. History has shown that such arguments can turn into movements and then law very quickly.
Bob O'Brien, Payson