Quote:Most of the anti-hunting logic is just ill founded. The fact is that , in most states the fees for licenses and associated fees and wildlife management fees not only cover the "costs" of the state reg agencies (who, even if there were no hunting, would be required to manage both game and non game animals), they py for the acquisition of new State Forests
Firstly, that "logic" refers to a set of well-formed moral arguments in reference to
sport-hunting, and not hunting in general; the latter may involve hunting for animals
in order to feed a family, etc. Secondly, is it that you are saying anti-sport-hunting "logic" is "ill-founded" because of the established aggregate amounts for fees and the like, and that such fees and related costs contribute to State budgets on the acquisition of new forests?
Quote:In Pa , the fees (guides, for profit game lands, game farms,ammo, etc) all pay for theDNR and Game Commision and pay for almost 1.5 million acres of open land that is maintained for multi use activities, not only hunting.Pa has bought about 1000 acres a year from revenue raised from hunting and furtaker fees. Since 1920 weve set aside areas bigger than most New England States. By law, unlike some of the Western states, the game commish money is pre ordained, it doesnt go into the general fund to pay for a new gilded "dome"
I am glad that PA is progressing toward that direction, though I am certain "...open land that is maintained for multi-use activities, not only hunting" is an understatement. It is estimated that one in three state governments in the USA reverts such monies into budgets for purchasing and maintaining sport-hunting grounds, among other items in direct relation to sport-hunting.
Quote:Insurance companies also dont like to see areas that dont allow hunting , so factored into the "urban premium" is the fact that deer/auto interactions are more frequent than in rural areas. Deer have become a serious suburban pest and a safety hazard . In Delaware county PA. one of the most urbanized "ruburbs" the deer herds have become quite at home with housing developments. Last year, in the 7 county area including the more rural Lancaster County, Delaware led the area in deer strikes, fatalities, and had the highest insurance claims reports for deer hits.
From this, the implication is that the National Insurance Agencies, with a certain degree of authority, favor sport hunting, or all sorts of hunting for that matter, due to their profit-loss margins. And so, because of this, I will not say such "for-profit" corporations have a proper moral stand in relation to the ethics of sport hunting- they can not afford it. In essence, those that reside in such suburban areas are, in effect, paying for the degree of probability of a deer incident that may arise due to the animal concentration. The question, then, is this: what are the reasons for these concentrations of animals in suburban areas? Do they belong to human population progressions or to animal population progressions?
Quote:I think trophy hunting is kind of weird, but hunting and eating the game you kill,to me, is a right and a privilege. In contrast Nobody seems to say anything against inland fishing , or salt water for that matter. Why not? its just as big a dealer in death as is hunting. And we dont have a lot of tuna crashing into and sinking ships.Fishing is quiet death to an animal.
And it is this right and privilege that is under question- under moral scrutiny, that is. As for fishing, or fish in relation to the daily "catch," the matter approaches the same principles, but not quite. It depends on whether or not the catch is for game or for food; most game-catchers return the fish to the lake or sea, whereas this may prove to be difficult with a heavily wounded deer on his way to the young and untrained deer with food. Sorry; this last statement is emotively charged.
Quote:I dont understand this elite PETA herd mentality about hunting.To me it sounds so phony baloney.
Just cause you dont like hunting, fine, youve bitched. I happen to think that all golf courses should be taken out and returned to rural landscape because they are a big source of groundwater contamination and they abuse water resources in desert areas. Think of all those schmucks that are playing golf while the Colorado River doesnt even flow to the sea anymore.
I agree; of course, empty rural landscapes may benefit our ecosystem and quality of life (in relation to water and soil quality, etc.), but it will not benefit the entrepreneur with his or her investment and profit return.
Quote:AS far as "feral" animals, most wild boars in the US are ferals. Only javelinas and peccaries are native wild species. The true megafaunal wild boars were pretty much wiped out in the early contact period.Pigs that have escaped farms and have bred in the wild for 20+ generations , have reverted back to their european "wild stock"
My thought is that there must exist some method of controlling or eliminating these feral animals other than hunting them for sport or "environmental concern." Any alternatives?
