🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Powlesland <powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca> writes:
In article <4jhgtm$2kfk@acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca> powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim Powlesland) writes:

    Jim> Do you think the killing of animals will stop automatically
    Jim> by banning hunting? It won't.

Let me just interject here that anyone who DOES believe that making
something illegal actually STOPS it should probably refrain from
operating motor vehicles, power tools, heavy equipment, and computers.

    Jim> Studies in California have shown that as hunting declines,
    Jim> poaching increases.

Indeed, if *all* forms of hunting were legal, poaching (ie, illegal
hunting) would be impossible.  As you go to the other end of the
scale, poaching necessarily increases.

    Jim> Now, instead of having control over the killing of animals by
    Jim> making the act legal and ethical through managed hunting, you
    Jim> will have the situation where ALL killing is uncontrolled,
    Jim> hidden, and probably inhumane. Some improvement.

Uncontrolled and hidden, yes, but who cares?  "Inhumane"?  Why should
illegal hunting be any more inhumane than the legal sort.  Sure, a
poacher may be less likely to finish off a wounded animal -- maybe
not, since the kind of unscrupulous person who becomes a poacher is
likely to be an unscrupulous hunter who would let an animal bleed to
death even if his activities were legalized.  On the other hand,
poachers are certainly less likely to use dogs.

M.