Opinions on Hunt at state park

[MDM4AU 337]

Bow-toting hunters set to stalk park deer

01/26/04

LISA OSBURN

News staff writer, Birmingham News

Seventy bowhunters from across the state will travel to Pelham today in anticipation of Tuesday's and Wednesday's deer hunt at Oak Mountain State Park.

Randomly selected from more than 5,000 entries, the hunters have passed a proficiency test of archery skills and are ready to check in with state officials early Tuesday morning.

With a few tests remaining to be given, five of the hunters initially selected for the event had failed, resulting in the state calling up alternates, said Jerry de Bin, director of information for the state's Conservation Department.

"I think the skilled archers will tell you that the test did in fact determine a person's efficiency. It wasn't a cakewalk," de Bin said. "This helps us ensure a safe hunt and ensure us that the hunters will help us achieve our goal of reducing the herd."

State Conservation Commissioner Barnett Lawley made the decision to open the park to hunters after reading a November report detailing the failing health of the park's deer herd. Overpopulation has depleted the food supply for not only the deer but other wildlife in the park, he said.

The decision, while gaining support from hunters, has drawn some criticism from animal rights advocates.

Pelham Police Capt. Tommy Thomas said his department is ready for protesters.

"I think they may anticipate some protesters. That is primarily what we will be there for, although we will be there to help in any way we can," Thomas said. "We may just direct traffic or prevent people from straying into the area. There may just be some general curiosity. Overall, our purpose is to provide safety so they have a successful hunt and nobody gets hurt."

Area residents may rest assured their safety is not in jeopardy from the hunters, de Bin said.

"The folks living in the area surrounding Oak Mountain State Park will not likely even realize we have been there," he said. "With the steps we have taken to control the movements of hunters, there is no reason for anybody to alter their lifestyle."

Each hunter has been assigned to one of 11 hunting zones within the park and must check in and out with state officials each day.

Some of the participants have decided to camp or stay in one of the park's cabins, de Bin said.

"We have encouraged that, because it will help us recoup some of the loss of closing the park for two days," he said.

The state decided not to release the names of the hunters until after the hunt to protect them from harassment, de Bin said. The state has nothing to hide when it comes to the list of names, and the department has been pleased with the selection process, he said.

"There is zero human factor with this. I want to commend our whole management team for designing a process where you won't find any brother-in-laws, any cousins and friends of state employees getting special treatment," he said. "I even excluded my own two sons from registering, and I know the commissioner forbid his own adult son from participating. We wouldn't want anybody saying that we used our position."

Each hunter may kill two deer each day of the hunt, with the choice of keeping the meat or donating it to charity.

Bow Hunt at Oak Mt. State Park

[Guest AuNuma1]

I don't understand why someone would have a problem with it. First of all, the deer are overpopulated. Any treehugger knows that environments must be balanced and when it's not, you run into problems that aren't natural. Like in this case, the deer are diseased because there's too dang many of them and they're eating things they wouldn't normally eat. So the answer is to eliminate a good portion of them to allow for more balance. And secondly, the hunters are using bows, not hunting rifles so they can't say they will fear for their safety because the hunters are using bows...come on. A guy at work passes the main entrance to Oak Mountain on his way to work and he said that around 7:45 this morning there were about 9 or 10 women out there with their anti-hunting signs or whatever....idiots.

[Tiger Al 0]

I'm not a hunter but I don't have a problem with it as long as it's done for the purpose of acquiring food. I think that people who do it so they can mount a head on their wall are silly.

A few years back a friend of mine talked me into trying it so I bought a rifle and some other crap and went with him to the hunting lodge that he belonged to. There was this one guy there who was so decked out in his camoflage that he looked like some kind of paramilitary nutcase or something. Anyway, when we came back to the lodge later that morning GI Joe was bragging about the three kills he'd had so he took us out to show them to us. As he was prancing around the three bodies I was almost unable to hold back my laughter because his 'monster kills' were no bigger than large dogs! I think the largest one weighed about 95 lbs. The smallest one was just a baby with two little nubs sprouting out of his head. He said he accidentally hit that one when the 'huge' one in front of it moved as he fired.

My friend told me later that this guy would kill anything that moved. It seems like he brought in two more that afternoon. I asked him where he was going to put all that meat (!) and he said he'd keep one and try to give the others away but if he couldn't then he had a place where he could dump them because none of them were worth mounting.

[CCTAU 3,369]

I'm not a hunter but I don't have a problem with it as long as it's done for the purpose of acquiring food. I think that people who do it so they can mount a head on their wall are silly.

A few years back a friend of mine talked me into trying it so I bought a rifle and some other crap and went with him to the hunting lodge that he belonged to. There was this one guy there who was so decked out in his camoflage that he looked like some kind of paramilitary nutcase or something. Anyway, when we came back to the lodge later that morning GI Joe was bragging about the three kills he'd had so he took us out to show them to us. As he was prancing around the three bodies I was almost unable to hold back my laughter because his 'monster kills' were no bigger than large dogs! I think the largest one weighed about 95 lbs. The smallest one was just a baby with two little nubs sprouting out of his head. He said he accidentally hit that one when the 'huge' one in front of it moved as he fired.

My friend told me later that this guy would kill anything that moved. It seems like he brought in two more that afternoon. I asked him where he was going to put all that meat (!) and he said he'd keep one and try to give the others away but if he couldn't then he had a place where he could dump them because none of them were worth mounting.

Unfortunately you had a bad experience with a POACHER. In AL you are only allowed 1 buck and 1 doe a day ( a few years ago it was only 1 a day and had to have antlers unless it was doe days). This guy needed to be turned in for poaching. A buck must have at least 1 inch of tines showing above the hair-line. This is a guy that I first would have kicked his sorry ass and then called the game warden on him. Do not let a few bad apples spoil it for you. I always look for the biggest to put in the freezer. If it has a nice rack, I might consider mounting it. But NEVER, NEVER, NEVER would I kill it just for its horns. If I had enough meat in the freezer and saw a huge buck, I would take it and process it just like normal, pay for it, then give the "processed" meat to a relative or someone needy. I would not waste the meat. A TRUE hunter never wastes meat.

At least you guys were strong enough to fend off the animal rights terrorists. Over here in Red Top Mountain GA, they wined so much that now we have to pay for contraceptives. I wonder who's gonna stand around and rip the packages open for them. :unsure:

[Tiger Al 0]

That wasn't the main reason I was turned off to hunting. Mainly, it was boring as hell! No offense to those who enjoy it but it's just not for me. It would be different if it was a necessity for food.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

In this case, I would go against my normal position (hunt for food only) and say that culling the herd is a necessity even if they can't be eaten. Overpopulation and disease and the damage to the environment and habitat of other creatures are all more than enough reasons to justify reduction in their numbers. I would support this for ANY creature, not just deer. Like the folks in south Louisiana shooting nutria in the drainage canals - they are blocking up the canals, causing flooding, and are reproducing in HUGE numbers. I think there is even a bounty on them in some places. And they aren't good for much - some coonasses might eat them, but for the most part, they are trash. Still, they need to be killed. You can't justify relocating a giant water rat.

I wonder if Walt Disney ever realized how much damage he did to the environment of this country with the release of Bambi? :roll:

[CCTAU 3,369]

That wasn't the main reason I was turned off to hunting. Mainly, it was boring as hell! No offense to those who enjoy it but it's just not for me. It would be different if it was a necessity for food.

You have to learn to appreciate nature and quiet. Used to be fishing wasthat way. But now every yahoo on the lake/river has a 5ft boat with a 400 HP outboard attached. And he never stops to fish. Looks damn good though. It's an aquired taste. And besides, it lets me practice so when I cut loose with my assault weapons, I won't miss what I'm shooting at. :argue: