Hunters should be able to get buck of their dreams

" I would just like to comment on the fact that this letter to the editor was actually a school project written by a fifteen year
old boy. I can say for a fact that the deer "Mr. Roskamp" shoots are not only trophys, they also feed my children
during the winter months. I understand the original letter doesn't state that so I just wanted to make that FACT clear.
"

" I love this article it is awesome anyone that doesnt like this is a bad person "

" Gunskill,

OK lets assume that you had written to the paper instead of posting on this forum. By reading your initial response,
" Heres a thought...go deer hunting with a camera instead of a gun.You'll still get your precious trophy without killing one of Gods creatures. " one could ASSUME (a.k.a. "read between the lines") that you were an anti-gun anti-hunting person. You have said that this is not the case. Mr. Roskamp didnt follow through for whatever reason on his comment. He didnt have the luxury of explaining himself to you as you have to us. So you ASSUMED (a.k.a. read between the lines) that he wasnt interested in the meat.
The "trophy" factor is something I guess youd have to be a sportsman to understand. Heres a hypothetical situation not related to animals. Lets say you have a week Sun through Sat. S, M, and Tu if you see a Ford Escort you can keep it. Wed., if you see a Corvette you can keep it, but theres none to be found. Th, F, and Sat is back to Escorts, and wouldnt you know it you see a Corvette Th morning! Who wouldnt rather have the 'vette? Yes they're both cars, yes they will both get you from point A to B, but one is something most anyone can have, the other is a prize. Dont you think that a person might be inclined to say "a person should have another chance to get the car of their dreams"?
And as a last Point, I think I am more enlightened to Mr. Roskamps comment (a.k.a. less confused) than you.
"

" Hunter,if you are reading between the lines,I suppose you could find any meaning that you might be looking for.However,since I was reading what Mr.Roskamp had actualy written (and not between the lines),I came to the conclusipn that he was upset that he could not legally shoot this buck for trophy.He didn't say that he was going to eat the meat,so naturally I didn't concern myself with that issue.He did say that he wanted a trophy buck,That is what his letter was about (note the title of his letter).so I did concern myself with issue.When a person writes a letter to the editor and the title says "Hunters should be able to get buck of their dreams",its pretty darn evident to most people that his letter is about killing a buck for its trophy value!As I have repeatedly stated,I agree with everyone about the issues they brought up.Unfortunatly those issues have NOTHING to do with story.I can't put it any plainer than that.Have a wonderful but oh so confused life.
"

" Gunskill,
I AGREE with you, hows that! IF and I do mean IF the ONLY reason you want to shoot that big buck is to have a head on the wall to look at , then in my opinion, take that picture...

I think that Mr. Roskamp might not have felt the need to explain that he would also use the meat. To a large majority of hunters, this is a "gimme", you know like "of course I'm going to eat the meat, get the 'taters ready!" Perhaps your not a hunter and/or dont know many, but I think you jumped to conclusions. He stated that the time frame was the third antlerless season, so apparently he wasnt out in the woods freezin his butt off to get a "wall hanger". He saw a "trophy" buck, which is some exciting stuff, trust me, and wished that the Any deer season was longer. Thats it.

As to my "2 cents worth", I was just saying that I had the same thing happen, and while it was frustrating, I agree with having the seasons as they are. This is relevent to the whole point of the original comment by Mr. Roskamp, as I see it. I dont know if you were refering to my post, but I did read every post and was writing to the others as much as to you.

And as I stated earlier, when someone reads your first post, and sees your name, they are going to feel the need to express their opinion. We hunters are always under the magnifing glass of the ANTIs' . Your FIRST post was nearly as vague as the one that started this whole thing! Anyway, I appreciate that your not against us, let me know if you would like to give it a try sometime. You might like it! Peace.

"

" I was just going to let this subject run its course and die a natural death,but there still seems to be some people out there that don't know how to digest what they read.They jump to the wrong conclusions,even when told that I agree with them.I guess they are just wanting to add their two cents worth to the story.Let me make myself perectly clear.I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE REASONS THAT YOU GOOD PEOPLE HAVE FOR HUNTING DEER.What I don't agree with,and I've tried to make you understand,but you refuse to believe me,is that the original letter to the editor written by Trenton Roskamp of Sutter was ABOUT KILLING A BUCK FOR ITS TROPHY VALUE!It was NOT about all of the other reasons that you people have expressed to me.If you will go back and read Mr.Roskamps letter you will find that he did not mention any of your reasons for killing a buck.His letter was ONLY about getting a trophy buckI just happen to think that getting a picture of the buck is just as good as killing the buck,cutting off its head and hanging it on the wall.Now,if you still feel the need to tell me why hunting is a good way to put food on your table and a good way to keep down the deer population,then go ahead,but it will be obvious that once again you took something away from my post that was NOT there. "

" mr gunskill whitetail deer numbers are higher across the country now than in any other time in the last 100yrs
this is a direct result of sportsmen aka deer hunters through the pitman robertson act and other state ran taxes
on firearms fishing equipment ammo ect. hunting is legal ethical and necessary to a healthy deer herd
thanks for allowing me to contribute terry "

" I had the same thing happen to me, in the Nov. antlerless season. Nice 10 pt. walked to within 20 feet of me. He was still kickin the last day of the Jan season. He'll be bigger next yr. if he doesnt get smoked by a car. I didnt shoot him, and still got 5 this past season. I dressed, processed, and filled my freezer with them. I can see both sides of this. It was frustrating to have a "trophy" so close that I couldnt legally shoot, but I still ended up with enough meat to feed my family for awhile. I've read that if you harvest a doe, you are removing an average of 3 deer from the population, (short term) more if you look at it like a family tree. One also has to remember that a "trophy " is different things to different people. Many who have hunted for along time would let a buck walk if they knew that it was going to be better next yr., and theres a bigger one out there.

So I guess what I'm saying is that there are reasons that the seasons are the way they are. Harvest (notice I didnt say kill) does for meat and to help control the population. When the Any-deer season comes, go for the "trophy" buck. You cant eat the antlers, but you cant put a steak on the wall either.

And Gunskill, I would think that you would realize that your name alone would make people think that you're anti-gun / anti -hunting. I mean no disrespect, just stating the obvious. "

" Let me put this more simply. Tracking or locating prey and taking a picture is what Naturalists do. We're taking about hunting, not resource conservation, animal behavior studies, or ecology... hunting. The sucessful end result of hunting is a dead animal, not a photograph. I hate to put it so bluntly, but that's the facts.

The original editorial letter is pointless if the goal is not to kill the animal. Of course they could have taken a photo. Their point was how hard it is to resist breaking the law and getting that trophy buck. What they did with the anumal afterwards doesn't matter to this subject. A conclusion was drawn that they were hunting only for the trophy.

The other posts point out that deer are killed all the time by motor vehciles or through natural causes. They are so overpopulated, that quite frankly, who cares if it gets eaten or not. Even if you leave the carcas in the field, something else will eat it anyway...such is the circle of life. in nature. "

" Mike (and everyone else that has posted),Go back and read the Letter to the Editor again.This mans letter did NOT concern itself with any of the issues that you have all brought up since my first post.The only issue in the Letter to the Editor was in KILLING A BUCK FOR THE TROPHY.If,as i took from his letter,he is going to hunt a deer ONLY for its value as a trophy,it would be better to go hunting with a camera instead of a gun.I have no problem with any of your reasons for hunting,as a matter of fact,I agree with most of them.I do have an issue with those of you that assume that I'm a vegetarian and an anti-gun nut that doesn't believe in hunting.You folks obviously read something into my post that wasn't there. "

" Gunskill, I don't think people are argueing for the sake of arguing, I think they honestly feel that you are wrong, and that taking pictures of deer, although challenging to get a good shot, shares many of the same elements, but is not the same as hunting. It only encompasses 1/2 the challenge, getting close to the deer, the second, areguably more difficult task is killing the deer.

I think the issue you are overlooking is that hunting not only allows sport for hunters, but it also serves the purpose of reducing the population. Even if the carcus is left in the field, it still supplies food to coyotes and later to scavengers. But again, it's not the norm for hunters to kill a deer and only cut it's head and or antlers off. Althouhg I have seen to done to roadkill.

I will agree with the DNR about limiting killing to does. To maintain a good genetic pool, you need the strongest, healthiest Bucks ot breed and continue their strong genetic lines.

I don't hunt, but I do support the need for hunting and respect the desire and right of others to hunt deer legally. That being said, if I did hunt, it would be hard to resist going after that big buck.

Although these are God's creatures, although I'm not a biblical scholar, I'm pretty sure it's not banned in the bible, but I suspect is recommends that you eat them. "

" Carskill,I won't debate the subject with you because you are arguing for the sake of arguing. "

" Even if the deer isn't eaten . Being killed by a rifle, shotgun or even bow, is far more humane in my opinon that dieing from a collison with a motor vehicle, starvation, disease, and the most painful and torturous death of all, a very natural death by a predator.

I agree that hunters should either eat or donate the meat from their deer to a chartiy or shelter. I've never met or heard of a local hunter that doesn't do this.

The deer population are so far out of control that I've been chased by a young buck while jogging along Grand Avenue after dusk. I've nearly missed several on my bicycle. car and motorcycle. I've seen one motorcyclist killed last year on river road by one.

Since we've eliminated most of their natural predators, it's our responsibilty to help maintain and control the population and bring it back down to reasonable levels. If God had blessed these animals with a little more intellegence, they might be less of a nuisance as well as more difficult to track and hunt. "

" True, he didn't write that he was going to eat the deer, I kind of took that as an "implied" comment. I have seen more deer killed on the highway than by some mindless person looking for just a head on their wall. I don't see you advocating that we stop driving cars. You ever count how many grease spots their are on the highway between Keokuk and Fort Madison. Each one of those represents an animal killed pointlessly, and they don't even get to be a trophy. I think the creatures of the earth have less to worry about with guns than they do cars. If you examine even further you would probably find that you have killed many of Gods creatures that are a little smaller than a deer but just as important to the eco system. But I guess that doesn't matter because you don't see it or are unaware of it happening. Death of any kind is sad but it is a part of life........ "

" If he had stated in the article that he was going to eat the buck,I wouldn't have posted.All he stated was that he wanted a "trophy".I am against killing animals just so someone can have a trophy to hang on his wall.If he wants a trophy,let him hunt with a camera.If he wants to feed his family,then continue to hunt with a gun. "

" There are too many deer roaming around out here where I live and too many laying dead along the highway. There was lousy hunting weather last fall and not enough were harvested in the regular hunting seasons. It's not unusual to see deer crossing the road in broad day light so you can imagine what it's like to drive at night. Instead of giving does birth controll, let 'em hunt and get that trophy! If they don't want the meat, they can always find someone to take it. "

" Dear gunskill,
Yes, that is what a gun is designed to do. It is true that a camera would assist in "capturing" that trophy buck. I only have one question, you ever try to eat that picture? A deer is God's creature that he put on the earth so us humans could have something to eat, note that we are designed to eat both meat and vegetables. That same God created us in his image and gave us the freedom to use our minds to choose what path we follow. If the guy wants to hunt a deer then so be it, if you want to eat veggies so be it, let God be the judge...unless you feel you are qualified to sit in his seat and be the judge. "

" My son had this happen to him last year. It was rifle season so only antlerless and spikes are allowed. In his sights was a spike buck BUT behind him was a trophy buck. I know that it took all he had NOT to shoot the big one. He knows the rules of hunting but it doesn't mean we always agree with them. We think that if it's your property then you should be able to hunt whenever. The deer population is out of control. The DNR knows this and has allowed more hunting seasons but it only makes a small dent in the population. I heard recently that the DNR even thought of giving does birth control!

As for taking "a picture" of God's creature instead of shooting one, I'd rather be in both of those worlds. However, a picture would not provide the food on my table that was needed for my family to eat this winter. Have you seen the price of meat in the grocery stores? I'm glad my son is able to kill a deer to eat. Not every hunter kills for the sport, we eat what we kill whether it's deer, rabbit or squirrel. God put creatures on this earth not only to learn about but to eat too. "

" Heres a thought...go deer hunting with a camera instead of a gun.You'll still get your precious trophy without killing one of Gods creatures. "