WildRivers, your reputation preceeds you and pretty much everything you say can be taken to the bank. Sometimes I refrain from saying what's really on my heart when talking about controversial matters, especially if it is just my opinion. Speaking from my heart...I think some border closings were political and others were "monkey see, monkey do". I believe the public concept of high fencing will always be regarded as "abusing " that which is natural. What is "natural" , a horse and plow working 40 acres, or an 8wheel drive 400hp tractor working 4000 acres? It strikes me odd that science revolves around research when 75% of everything we know we have learned in the last 100 years and 75% of that has been in the last 20 years. We have deer farmers who have been in the business over 20 years who I qualify as cervadae scientist...with NO government funding!! Roger targets his response with no rhetoric...hoo-ra!. But it doesn't sway public opinion. I have said and can be quoted as saying that if some of these departments were to put their money and efforts into fighting poaching, illegal hunting, and qualitative management, the "hunters on the street" would be better served, indeed. TRUTHFULLY, however, you have to interpret it for that. Some of the most vocal of the hunters on the street are "hunters on the road" and God forbid this sacred right be taken from them!!! If YOU were a game warden, which would threaten you more...policing game farms and borders, or pulling up on a drunk spotlighter at night in the middle of nowhere? If YOU were a politician, which would you choose...closing down game farms and gaining some media attention, or reading about some game warden being killed in the line of duty? God bless them. If you were a scientist...
