Hunting on State Parks?
Posted: November 25th, 2015, 11:07 am
Carl Hiaasen, wrote a very condemning piece about the possibility of hunting, logging and cattle grazing on state park land.
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn- ... 60777.html
I enjoy his fiction but this sounded over the line to me.
My thought is public lands belong to all of us - Hunters, Fishermen, Bird watchers, and even the loggers and cattle men. This article is so politically biased that its hard to find the truth. He paints a charged picture of a tuber at Ichetucknee Springs dogging falling trees and bullets. I think that is unfair and highly improbable. Also, some of the most beautiful properties I've ever been on allow Logging, Grazing and Hunting. Go look at Tall Timbers or any plantation in our area. The question is about implementation. Hunting seems to be the most polarizing of all of the suggestions. It is important to manage deer populations on any large track of land. Even Killearn Lakes HOA is encouraging people to take deer within the subdivision because populations are too high.
The article is simply on side of a complex issue about public lands being used by the public.
What do the rest of you think?
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn- ... 60777.html
I enjoy his fiction but this sounded over the line to me.
My thought is public lands belong to all of us - Hunters, Fishermen, Bird watchers, and even the loggers and cattle men. This article is so politically biased that its hard to find the truth. He paints a charged picture of a tuber at Ichetucknee Springs dogging falling trees and bullets. I think that is unfair and highly improbable. Also, some of the most beautiful properties I've ever been on allow Logging, Grazing and Hunting. Go look at Tall Timbers or any plantation in our area. The question is about implementation. Hunting seems to be the most polarizing of all of the suggestions. It is important to manage deer populations on any large track of land. Even Killearn Lakes HOA is encouraging people to take deer within the subdivision because populations are too high.
The article is simply on side of a complex issue about public lands being used by the public.
What do the rest of you think?