|
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
|
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Pharzeone:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by Bippity10:
Again, I am not a hunter, could never hunt and am sickened by the thought of shooting an animal. But for those who are city boys and not from New England and the West, there is a reason behind LEGALIZED HUNTING. If you don't thin the deer population they mulitply. They destroy their food supply in a short period of time and run out of food. They then die a sickenly horrible death due to starvation. Other animals that eat the same food source also begin to die out because of the reduced food supply. As these animals die out they reduce the food supply to their predators and soon those animals begin to die out, or move into other areas in search of food. In a lot of cases this results in bears and lions and other hunters hunting in suburban areas. Children are often targets of these inevitable attacks.
Instead of going through all of this they figure why not just set aside a time during the year to thin the heard and avoid it. Is it right or wrong that's for the individual to decide. But unless we are willing to allow mountain lions, bears, deer and the rest start occupying our towns and cities it is a viable alternative. Assuming thats true, then Deer hunting is about population control. Still isnt a sport.
Actually this refers only to what I know of deer hunting and the hunting of other grazers and some meat eaters. For example mountain lion hunting is made legal on those rare occassions when the population grows. As for bird hunting and some of the other animals that are hunted I don't know if what I said above rings true. In those situations it just may be done for the hell of it.
[Edited by - bippity10 on 23-08-2007 12:53 PM]
Deer hunters have claimed that their purpose is to control the population. Their cause gets thrown out the window when they are found to sponsor hunting ranches and take part of programs whose purpose is to attract wildlife to be hunted.
Conservation and Management Programs Fail
To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies implement programs—often termed “wildlife management” or “conservation” programs—to boost the number of “game” species so that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses.
Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state wildlife agency to direct $100,000 a year toward “reduced predator impact,” which involved trapping foxes and raccoons so that more duck eggs would hatch, giving hunters more birds to kill.8 The Ohio Division of Wildlife teamed up with a hunter-organized society to push for clear-cutting (decimating large tracts of trees) in Wayne National Forest to “produce habitat needed by ruffed grouse.”9
In Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game is trying to increase the number of moose for hunters by “controlling” the wolf and bear populations. Grizzlies and black bears have been moved hundreds of miles from their homes—two were shot by hunters within two weeks of their relocation, and others have simply returned to their homes10—and wolves have been slaughtered in order to “let the moose population rebound and provide a higher harvest for local hunters.”11 In the early 1990s, a program designed to reduce the wolf population backfired when snares failed to kill victims quickly, and photos of suffering wolves were seen by an outraged public.12
Colorado is dealing with an overpopulation of elks, but programs aimed at controlling their numbers have led to “mistaken identity” killings of protected moose.13 Although more hunting permits are being issued and tens of thousands of elks are killed every year by hunters, there has been no reduction in the population.
Hey Pharzeone: All I did was give you the reason behind the legality. That's the reason behind the law. But I don't have control over whether hunters follow the laws correctly or not. And as you can see by this sentence
"wolf population backfired when snares failed to kill victims quickly, and photos of suffering wolves were seen by an outraged public"
Hunting is in place for a reason but hunters don't always folow it thoroughly and the public(at least out here in the country) is outraged when it isn't followed properly. The reason the city people don't hear of this outrage is because we aren't catching celebrities torturing the animals. Right or wrong, followed or not followed, laws are normally put in place for a reason. Bip, you must be missing my point. The laws are a joke. It doesn't protect animals. It protects what it perceives are domestic animals. Game hunting is as immoral as dog fighting. The point that Marbury seem to be making is that some people view dog fighting as much as a sport as some people view game hunting. I could care less what some good old boy making backroom deals constitutes as a law. Like I mention before laws are subject to change for any reason. I take issue with the fact that you believe hunting is in place for a reason. As I said what's next? Canned Hunts
Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill native and exotic species in “canned hunts.” These animals may be native to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals who are trafficking unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses. They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with an exotic “trophy.”
Canned hunts are becoming big business—there are an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 game preserves in the U.S.19 Ted Turner, who owns more land than any other landowner in the nation, operates 20 ranches where hunters pay thousands of dollars to kill bison, deer, African antelopes, and turkeys.20
Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and are usually unable to escape from the enclosures, which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres across. Most of these ranches operate on a “no kill, no pay” policy, so it is in the owners’ best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this by offering guides who know the location and habits of the animals, permitting the use of dogs, and supplying “feeding stations” that lure unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait.
Only a handful of states prohibit canned hunting,21 and there are no federal laws regulating the practice at this time, although Congress is considering an amendment to the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act that would prohibit the transfer, transportation, or possession of exotic animals “for entertainment or the collection of a trophy.”2[Edited by - pharzeone on 23-08-2007 11:04 AM]I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
|
8/23/2007 4:34 PM