Originally Posted by Buffalobob
That is about the way I was taught to hunt when I young and was just starting out. Go hunting and have some fun but make sure you leave enough to repopulate for next year. As I got older and better at hunting and graduated up from a single shot 22 to a shotgun, I had to expand my hunting territory to avoid having too big of an impact on the game populations. There are hunters who just kill and kill and then there are hunters who consider the future and conserve the species. Of course back in 1954, I only hunted small game as there were no deer in that part of north Alabama. Perhaps the tree huggers had killed them all.
What Mach V says makes sense given some of the documents I have read on the internet. While some pieces of the picture are still not clear to me, the whole thing has the smell of James Connaughton. It is his style of operating and it could not have happened with his approval.
So if you need the name of someone to blame for the prairie dogs situation, try him. One of the good things about being retired is I no longer have to sit across the table from him and try to protect the fish and animals and the children from him.
If you can get past who is to blame, then you can consider the future and ponder how you deal with the current situation with the prairie dogs.
Bob ---- you nailed it! That is what we do as well. In the over 30 years I have been hunting we have seen the game population go up and down. Jackrabbits, coyotes, coons, misc vermin populations all go up and down in time. On our land we have seen this cycle several times and now there are only 3 animals (feral hogs, dogs and coyotes) we kill on site every single time we see them. I quit killing bobcats several years ago because we have so many little furry 4 legged varmints running around.
Personally, and both the Federal and State Biologists agree that in our area the feral hog is by far and away the worst problem we have......