🚀 go-pugleaf

What's this trash doing in a fishing news group anyways?
"Malcolm" <Malcolm@malcsplace.com> wrote in message
news:9084dc55b604373861f420d99cd904c6@free.teranews.com...
> http://www.api4animals.org/doc.asp?ID=70&print=y
>
> The Fallacy of Sport Hunting
>
> Every year, hunters kill more than 130 million animals in the United
> States. Except for a few aboriginal cultures that still hunt for food,
> most hunters in the U.S. hunt for "recreation" -- for the apparent
> pleasure of stalking and killing. Sport hunters kill animals for
> trophies in the form of pelts, heads, antlers, and other body parts.
> Commonly hunted species include deer, bears, mountain lions, wolves,
> foxes, coyotes, raccoons, opossums, badgers, skunks, boar, moose,
> pronghorn antelopes, bobcats, ducks, turkeys, woodcocks, mourning
> doves, geese, grouse, swans, rabbits, hares, and squirrels. Below are
> some of the myths and common arguments used to justify sport hunting.
>
> Myth: Americans consider sport hunting to be an acceptable "use" of
> wildlife.
>
> A growing number of Americans believe sport hunting is unethical,
> wasteful, and unnecessary. When the Associated Press asked in a
> December 1985 poll, "Do you think there are circumstances where it is
> perfectly O.K. to hunt an animal for sport?", 51% responded that it
> was always wrong. In a 1994 statewide poll, 73% of Arizona voters said
> they disapproved of hunting animals for recreational reasons.
>
> The success of recent hunting-related state ballot initiatives across
> the country also highlights the growing opposition to unethical
> hunting practices. Since 1990, voters in six states have banned
> bear-baiting; the use of hounds to hunt bears, cougars, and lynxes;
> hunting wolves from airplanes; and spring bear hunts. These successes
> demonstrate that Americans clearly and resoundingly oppose cruel and
> unethical hunting practices.
>
> Myth: Hunting is an increasingly popular "sport."
>
> Despite claims made by hunting proponents that sport hunting is a
> popular, widely accepted traditional American pastime, the number of
> hunters in the U.S. has declined over the past 20 years. In 1996, only
> 5.1% of Americans purchased hunting licenses, compared to 7.4% in 1991
> and 9.9% in 1975, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
>
> In response to declining hunter numbers and growing opposition to
> sport hunting, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife
> agencies have joined with private pro-hunting organizations to try and
> boost hunter numbers. To improve the public image of hunting, wildlife
> managers refer to hunting as "regulated" as opposed to "sport,"
> "trophy," or "recreational." Additionally, hunters downplay their
> desire for a big rack (antlers) and emphasize the "need" for meat to
> feed their families, and state wildlife agencies actively recruit
> women and children to increase hunter license sales.
>
> Studies have shown that if a young person has not started hunting
> before age 18, it is unlikely they will ever hunt. With that in mind,
> the $21-billion-a-year hunting industry works with state wildlife
> agencies to recruit young men and women before they graduate from high
> school. A 1995 Fund for Animals survey revealed that three out of four
> states offered "hunter education" classes in public schools. These
> classes, which teach children how to kill animals in the name of
> so-called "sport," are often funded by the very state agencies
> mandated to conserve and protect our wildlife. Funding also comes from
> hunting groups such as the National Rifle Association, the National
> Shooting Sports Foundation, Safari Club International, and Ducks
> Unlimited. On the federal level, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
> has joined state wildlife agencies to sponsor regular Youth Hunts and
> "Becoming an Outdoors Woman" programs across the nation. Moreover,
> such programs work directly against efforts to decrease youth violence
> by desensitizing children to animal suffering, and by extolling
> killing as entertainment.
>
> Myth: Hunting provides a primary source of food.
>
> A popular argument made by sport hunting groups is that hunters "live
> by their wits" and put food on the table through hard work, skill, and
> intelligence. A very small percentage of indigenous and rural hunters
> do kill animals as their main source of food. However, the vast
> majority of hunters do not. Licensed hunters spend $1.8 billion on
> hunting-related equipment in the U.S. and it is estimated that after
> license fees, equipment, and travel expenses, it costs an average of
> $20 per pound for a deer hunter to put venison on the table.
>
> Most hunting today is done for "recreational" purposes -- for the pure
> pleasure of pursuing and killing an animal. Hunters generally target
> trophy animals; i.e. those with the largest racks (antlers), the
> biggest horns, etc. Often the prized parts are removed, while the rest
> of the body is left to rot in the field.
>
> Myth: Hunting involves fair chase.
>
> Hunters often claim that hunting is a sport involving fair chase.
> However, a fair sport involves two individuals on equal grounds who
> have a mutual agreement to engage in the activity. It is hard to argue
> that an animal pursued by a hunter riding a snowmobile or off-road
> vehicle and equipped with high-powered firearms and electronic calling
> devices is on equal footing. Moreover, since hunting involves
> deliberate death, no mutual consent, and no outside judges, hunting
> can never be considered a "sport."
>
> Here are just a few of the devices and particularly unethical
> practices employed by hunters today:
>
> Predator Calling: Electronic calling devices, which emulate distress
> calls of predator young, are used by many hunters to lure foxes,
> coyotes, bobcats, and wolves into point-blank range. With such
> devices, hunters can literally wait for their prey to appear, and
> simply blast away when the distressed and confused animal comes into
> view.
> Hounding: Radio-collared hounds are used to track and tree black
> bears, cougars, raccoons, foxes, lynx, bobcats, and other animals.
> Using a portable receiver, the hunter can determine when the pursued
> animal is trapped in a tree and ready to be shot at point-blank range.
> Hounded animals are sometimes maimed by the hounds during the pursuit.
> Baiting: The practice of bear and deer "baiting" -- where hunters bait
> at specific sites and await their quarry with readied guns -- is
> considered to be one of the most unethical hunting practices allowed
> in the U.S. today. Although baiting is still allowed in many areas of
> the country, a number of states have banned this practice through
> legislation or citizen initiatives.
> Bowhunting: Bowhunting (the use of bows and arrows) causes more
> injuries to wildlife than any other hunting practice. Scientific
> studies indicate that for every animal killed and retrieved by a
> bowhunter, another is left to die a slow and painful death from
> wounds.1
> When educated about such unethical hunting practices, few Americans
> believe the claim that hunting involves "subsistence survival skills,"
> "intelligence," and a "fair chase." The facts disprove such arguments.
>
> Myth: Hunting is a necessary management tool that controls "surplus"
> animals and prevents overpopulation and starvation.
>
> State wildlife agencies often argue that our cities and rural lands
> would be overrun with wild animals if hunting were disallowed.
> However, the biological truth is that animals regulate their own
> populations, based upon available food and habitat. In nature,
> unaltered by humans, there is no such thing as a "surplus" animal.
>
> It is indisputable that humans have not only disrupted ecosystems
> across the globe, but have also altered the natural controls that
> maintain wildlife populations. Sometimes this disruption is a result
> of development or human encroachment into wildlife habitat. Other
> times, the alteration is more deliberate, as when state wildlife
> agencies kill predators in an attempt to boost the numbers of "game"
> species for hunters.
>
> One example of mismanagement is the manipulation of white-tailed deer
> populations. Hunters most often seek out the largest buck (male deer)
> with the biggest rack, though many hunters shoot the first deer they
> see. This practice weakens the gene pool by removing the healthiest
> animals from the population and skewing the population's sex ratio,
> leaving more does (female deer) to reproduce. Natural predators are
> opportunistic hunters and usually take the youngest, weakest and/or
> sickest animals, keeping the deer population healthy and balanced. The
> practice of hunting more bucks than does increases the number of deer
> available to hunters. Our state and federal wildlife agencies purport
> they aim to maintain healthy deer populations and to reduce deer
> overpopulation. If this were true they would direct hunters to seek
> out and shoot the weakest does.
>
> Myth: Sport hunting of predators is needed to protect the public.
>
> Some state wildlife agencies promote trophy hunting of mountain lions
> and bears on the grounds that such culling is necessary to prevent
> overpopulation of these species and thereby minimize interactions with
> people. Yet sport hunting does not result in an overall population
> decrease, as demonstrated by an eight-year study of mountain lions in
> Canada. The mountain lion population recovered from hunting and
> stabilized at an optimum density for its habitat range. The
> researchers argued further population growth would likely be curtailed
> at a level regulated "by social interactions and/or prey densities,"
> not by hunting.2 In another study, an area in Utah was closed to
> mountain lion hunting for 9 years while researchers monitored the
> mountain lion population. During the same period, despite heavy
> hunting, the deer population increased, yet the number of resident
> adult mountain lions "generally remained stable through this period."
> The increases in the deer herds did not appear to affect the number of
> adult mountain lions significantly.3
>
> Myth: State wildlife agencies work to protect wildlife and their
> habitats.
>
> Though our state wildlife agencies are mandated to protect wildlife
> and their habitats, their policies and regulations generally reflect a
> different agenda. The active promotion of sport hunting and the
> perpetuation of "game species" over the interests of non-hunters and
> "non-game species" clearly indicates whose interests these agencies
> serve. Most state wildlife agencies are monitored by a non-elected
> commission (or council or board) whose members are usually appointed
> by the state governor. These commissions, vested with ultimate
> authority over wildlife management, are often comprised of hunters and
> trappers eager to ensure the perpetuation of their "sports."
>
> Instead of protecting wildlife and their habitats, these
> hunter-dominated commissions manage and manipulate wildlife
> populations to provide ample targets for hunters and trappers.
> Predators such as foxes, coyotes, and wolves are frequently killed so
> that more game animals, such as moose, deer, caribou, and birds, are
> available for hunters. The results of such mismanagement of wildlife
> can be disastrous, causing irreparable damage to the balance of local
> ecosystems.
>
> As more and more people see through the "we have to shoot them or
> they'll overpopulate and starve to death" smokescreen perpetuated by
> many wildlife agencies, an increasingly vocal and informed public will
> challenge these policies at the ballot box, in the courtroom, and in
> the legislature.
>
> Myth: Hunters pay for wildlife conservation through fees and taxes on
> guns, so it's their right to control wildlife management policies.
>
> There is no refuting that wildlife management in our country is
> controlled primarily by "consumptive wildlife interests" -- those who
> view wildlife as a resource to be "stocked," "harvested," and
> "managed." "Non-consumptive wildlife users" -- those who enjoy
> viewing, photographing, and observing wildlife in nature -- have had
> very little say in policies and regulations concerning our nation's
> wildlife and their habitats.
>
> One reason for this disparity is the source of funding for state
> wildlife agency budgets. In 1937, Congress passed the Federal Aid in
> Wildlife Restoration Act (formally called the Pittman-Robertson Act)
> to help finance state wildlife agencies by establishing an excise tax
> on guns, ammunition, and fishing gear. These funds are then
> distributed to state wildlife agencies based upon the state's land
> area and the number of hunters in the state. The more hunting licenses
> sold, the more funds a state receives from this act. States therefore
> have an incentive to cater to hunters over non-consumptive wildlife
> users because they will receive a larger slice of the federal funding
> pie.
>
> The "we pay for wildlife conservation" argument made by hunters is
> refuted by the fact that the majority of gun purchasers do not hunt.
> Of the 60 million gun owners in the U.S., only a quarter of these are
> hunters, and yet every gun owner must pay the congressionally mandated
> excise tax when they purchase a gun that then goes to help fund state
> hunting education programs. Consequently, gun owners who do not hunt
> are unknowingly supporting and perpetuating hunting and the
> mismanagement of our nation's wildlife.
>
> Hunters are not the only source of funding for state wildlife agency
> budgets. Many states receive funding from the Endangered Species Act,
> from state general funds, penalties paid by poachers, the sale of
> environmental license plates, and from voluntary contributions made by
> individuals through income tax check-offs and similar voluntary
> contribution programs. Moreover, while the funds generated from gun
> and ammunition taxes have purchased ~10 million acres of land, over
> 600 million acres have been funded by general tax dollars. Many of
> these taxpayer-funded lands, including our National Wildlife Refuges,
> are open to hunters, thereby subsidizing their activities.
>
> Non-consumptive wildlife users do contribute to wildlife conservation,
> but have been given little opportunity to increase funding of non-game
> programs and have been essentially excluded from state wildlife
> management decision-making.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> What to Do
>
> Wildlife advocates must work to change the focus of our wildlife
> management agencies and their funding sources. Only then will the
> interests of non-game wildlife and non-consumptive users be equitably
> represented within state wildlife agencies.
>
> Some inroads have been made, as evidenced by the recent passage of
> legislation and state initiatives banning unethical wildlife
> management practices. In November 1996, five states banned or
> maintained bans on bear baiting, bear and cougar hounding, hunting
> wolves from airplanes, and/or trapping of wildlife. Increased public
> participation and public outcry against the mismanagement of wildlife
> and misuse of public funds will lead to changes in the system and
> force wildlife agencies to carry out their mandate of humane
> stewardship and true wildlife protection.
>
> For more information about hunting and wildlife management in the
> United States, please visit the Wildlife Page or contact API.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> For additional reading on hunting, API recommends the following books:
>
> Baker, Ron. The American Hunting Myth. New York: Vantage Press, 1985.
> Cartmill, Matt. A View to a Death in the Morning: Hunting and Nature
> Through History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.
> Livingston, John A. The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation. Toronto:
> McClelland & Steward, 1981.
> Mighetto, Lisa. Wild Animals and American Environmental Ethics.
> Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991.
> Petersen, David. A Hunter's Heart: Honest Essays on Blood Sports. New
> York: Henry Holt and Company, 1996.
> Reisner, Marc P. Game Wars: The Undercover Pursuit of Wildlife
> Poachers. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.
> Body Count: The Death Toll in America's War on Wildlife. New York: The
> Fund for Animals, January 2000.
> Numbers of Birds and Other Animals Killed by Hunters Each Season
>
> Each year hunters kill more than 100 million animals. The following
> statistics are selected species from state wildlife agency reports
> from the 1996/97 hunting season (courtesy of the Fund for Animals).
> These figures do not include the hundreds of thousands animals killed
> by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Wildlife Services" agency
> each year.
> Bear 24,465
> Cranes 12,628
> Deer 6,084,531
> Doves 35,000,000
> Ducks 16,569,100
> Geese 3,134,100
> Grouse/Quail/Partridges 12,209,159
> Pheasants 6,861,987
> Rabbits 12,873,454
> Raccoons 3,518,888
> Squirrels 26,655,926
> Swans 1,463
> Turkeys 615,548
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Notes:
>
> 1. Benke, Adrian. The Bowhunting Alternative. San Antonio: B. Todd
> Press, 1989.
>
> 2. P. Ian Ross & Martin G. Jalkotzy. "Characteristics of a Hunted
> Population of Mountain Lions in Southwestern Alberta." Journal of
> Wildlife Management, Volume 56 (1992), No. 3.
>
> 3. Frederick G. Lindzey, et al. "Mountain Lion Population Dynamics in
> Southern Utah." Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 58 (1994), No.
> 4.
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So, you dont like reasoned,
> well thought out, civil debate?
>
> I understand.
>
>                           /��/)
>                          /�../
>                         /..../
>                   /��/'...'/���`��
>                /'/.../..../......./��\
>             ('(...�...�.... �~/'...')
>              \.................'...../
>               ''...\.......... _.��
>                 \..............(
>                  \.............\..