🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Powlesland wrote:
> 
> Actually, Mike makes perfect sense.
> 
I'm sorry Jim, I suppose that my post was a bit unclear.
My response reflected the context of our ongoing debate as well
as the specific quote from his message.

In case you missed Mike's earlier posts,

Monday, 8:49am Mike introduced himself to the debate:

>>A "YES" vote on 197 is a vote for FREEDOM OF CHOICE. 
>>IT IS A VOTE AGAINST THE ENVIRO-NAZIS WHO WANT TO 
>>CRAM THEIR WAY OF THINKING DOWN THE THROAT OF EVERYBODY ELSE!!

Then at 8:58am:

>>SEE THE TRUTH!!!

>>Vote "YES" on 197 to preserve the right of human beings to choose!!!

>>Vote "YES" on 197 to say "NO" to the environmental fascists!!!

>>Vote "YES" on 197 to preserve personal freedom!!!

I beleive these comments helped clarify the debate
for many people, just in time for them to head for
the polls and kill 197.

Mike's comments since that time--including his little tantrum
about the top-secret society of poaching fly fishermen--are
mostly sour grapes over 197's defeat.  (Besides,
without a pack of specially trained dogs and some real high-tech
gear, it is unlikely that these mythical killer fisherman would 
ever be able to *find* a mountain lion, let alone bag it.)

Now then, on to your comments.

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

Of course it won't.  I think I had better clarify my position.

I don't know that I've ever suggested the 
wholesale banning of hunting.

What I do think is that the methods employed in the sport
hunting of cougars are pretty damn cruel and hardly
constitute sportsmanlike conduct.

Truth be known, what *really* pisses me off the most 
is when legislators try to slip a fast one by us by using
euphemistic and obscure language.

These were my primary reasons 
for specifically opposing 197.

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

Of course it will. And I don't even need to reference a study.
Any unauthorized hunting is, by definition, poaching.

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

First of all, how does voting for sport hunting of mountain
lions magically convey "ethical" status upon it? 

I did read your other post, but as you are well aware, 
examinations of ethics and morals are highly subjective
and prone to interpretation.  

In particular, I'm still not quite convinced
that flying in on your helicopter after your radio-collared
hounds have treed a lion and then standing there
and blasting the cat to kingdom come fulfills the 
"ancient mystery of the kill" hypothesis in any
meaningful way.

Oh, and I'm also not quite sure that sex and hunting are all 
that closely related.  

Nobody gets killed during sex,...usually.     :)


Second, DFG still has all the authority they need
to control mountain lion populations.  Obviously--should
they decide to do their job right--all killing will not be
uncontrolled, hidden or inhumane.

-- 
Keith G. Wagner             ----------------------------
mailto:keithw@tidepool.com  
mailto:kgw@axe.humboldt.edu   "Visualize Whirled Peas"        
mailto:kwagner@igc.apc.org
                            ----------------------------
    http://www.tidepool.com/environment/action.htm