For starters, Ms. Pratt, my name is O'Brien, not O'Brian. You immediately damage your credibility when you cannot even correctly transpose the spelling of a name. This lends credibility to my statement about your capability for ignorance.
To further this point, at no point in my letter did I say that I was a hunter. Yet you made an assumption that I am, based upon very limited information that you had in hand. This is again quite damaging to your credibility.
Second, again you've presented no facts, only a poorly presented emotional argument (and weak personal attacks) in an attempt to rebut factual arguments. In fact, you've misinterpreted the known facts that have been presented to you so badly that it would appear you need direct clarification.
Food supplies and predators mitigate herd populations. At present, and largely due to the influence of humans, the natural predators are no longer in the correct areas in sufficient numbers to adequately control deer herd populations. This is fact. Due to this fact, we have a responsibility to control those populations to safe levels.
Third, the laws of nature and physics do not vary between Vermont and Arizona. The same policy that resulted is mass starvation due to overpopulation there, would have very similar results here. In all likelihood, the results would be far worse due to the larger areas and larger available food supplies.
Finally, Game and Fish uses decades of data to determine the number of tags that will be issued in any given year, assuming that a majority of hunters will go home empty handed. Every year their actual harvest goals are very accurately predicted and achieved. Again, those darn facts just keep getting in the way of your arguments.
Who is the greater barbarian? The person who spends his life trying to prevent the pain and suffering of mass starvation, or the person who sits at home on their smug little beliefs trying to achieve that very suffering. You're as much the barbarian as I am.
Bob O'Brien, Payson