🚀 go-pugleaf

What's this crap doinf in a fishing news group? Just wasting space!
"Malcolm" <Malcolm@malcsplace.com> wrote in message
news:86a0bccd98355740c871ab3bb25ff06f@free.teranews.com...
>
> http://www.animalfrontline.nl/jagen/myths.php
>
> 1. Hunting is a right
>
> Wrong.
>
> Hunting is a privilege. ALL states recognize hunting as a privilege
> granted to certain individuals... not a right. Neither the federal nor
> any state constitution recognize hunting as a right. From the Illinois
> hunter education manual, page 5:
>
> "Privileges are extra benefits given to a person or group. They may be
> given only to people who meet certain conditions. Hunting is an
> example of a privilege." ALL states teach in their hunter education
> classes that hunting is a privilege.
>
> 2. Hunters control animal populations
>
>
> Wrong.
> Hunters manipulate animal populations for their own benefit.
>
> Whitetail deer have been manipulated to the point of overpopulation in
> some areas. From Mr. DuBrock, Director of Wildlife, Pennsylvania Game
> Comission:
>
> "The increase in deer in Pennsylvania is a direct result of hunting
> practices which have routinely killed large number of bucks, thus
> removing a large number of animals from the herd and causing the
> compensatory rebound. Furthermore, such hunting practices, by
> constantly killing males while leaving females alive, have upset the
> natural 1:1 female to male ratio to at least 5 females to every 1
> male." As rural areas have outgrown the ability to support a healthy
> deer herd, the animals have expanded into more populated areas and are
> now common in suburbs. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in
> auto/deer accidents, damage to property, and starvation of animals.
> Hunters actually cause overpopulation and the degradation of the deer
> herd in general by seeking to kill antlered bucks with no regard for
> the herd in general. This results in skewed sex ratios, as high as 25
> females to one male in some areas. Since deer are polygamous, the herd
> multiplies while the hunting kill increases. From the 1998-99 Kentucky
> Hunting Regulations Manual, page 12:
>
> "In 1976, the first year for mandatory check in, Kentucky recored
> 3,476 harvested deer. Herd growth accelerated in the 1980's. A
> two-deer limit was begun in 1987. By 1989 the quality of the deer left
> much to be desired. Lots of deer were being killed, but they were
> small with small racks [antlers]. Hunters blamed malnutrition, disease
> or poor genetics, but the real reason was lack of age. Kentucky had
> lots of healthy deer with good genetics, but they were young. The
> number of deer living long enough to reach their rpime was very small.
> 22% of the bucks were two years or older, less than 6% were three
> years old. Biologists determined that the quality of the deer herd
> would improve if more of the herd lived longer. Genetically superior
> bucks would naturally out-compete their unfit rivals." THAT is what
> hunting does to deer.
>
> What about other animals? There are 1145 species of mammals and birds
> in North America. 141 are classified as game animals. Of the
> remaining, almost 90% of the species, NONE are overpoulated and
> starving. Left to their own, animal populations will stabilize and
> meet the carrying capacity of their habitat.
>
> Among game animals, populations are declining. And have been for
> decades. Hunters stock millions of pheasants, quail, ducks, foxes,
> raccoons, and turkeys each year on private property expressly for
> hunting. Not to mention the breeding of exotics for hunting in
> enclosures. Why is this necessary? The US Fish and Wildlife Service
> has steadily reduced daily limits of ducks and geese in the past 20
> years. Duck limits are 1/3 to 1/10 what they were in the early to
> mid-1980s. The goose quotas for 1998 are reduced as much as 50% from
> 1997. This is partially due to reduced populations and partially due
> to hunter's lack of reporting kills under the federal H.I.P.S.
> program.
>
> Hunters disdain the competition of natural predators. Most states
> allow year round killing of fox, coyotes, raccoons and even mountain
> lions in some cases. Where year round hunting is not allowed, seasons
> are long and bag limits large or unlimited. In the past, bounties were
> paid on these animals. As late as 1980, Michigan paid $5 for a male
> coyote, $20 for a female.
>
> At the same time that hunters say they "control" or "reduce
> overpopulation" they will piont out that there are more deer than when
> the Pilgrims came in 1620. True enough. But gone are the bison, the
> wolves, the fox, the gray goose, the elk (once widespread in the
> east), the moose, the passenger pigeon, the prairie chicken, the
> prairie dog, the pronghorn antelope, the grouse and ducks that
> blackened the skies with their numbers. All have been eliminated by
> the hunter. To replace them we have an overabundance of deer, at the
> behest of game departemnts in search of dollars, immature herds and
> turkeys stocked in areas that are not native driving out native
> populations of birds.
>
> 94% of the population (non-hunters) have surrendered to the 6% of
> hunters who have manipulated our animals to their benefit. It is time
> this stops.
>
> 3. Hunters contribute to wildlife
>
>
> Wrong.
> Hunters contribute to hunting. Hunters contribute money to hunting in
> various ways, let's examine them.
>
> Hunting licenses and state stamps. These are sold and the money
> collected at the state level. The states use 71% of the funds
> generated by these sources to enforce the hunting regulations of the
> states (Iowa DNR studies). The remainder are used to improve and
> maintain state lands for hunting use. Cleaning up after the hunting
> season, providing parking areas, and even stocking game on state lands
> for hunters to kill. Illinois stocks pheasants on 8 state parks for
> hunter's exclusive use as targets. The parks are closed to other uses
> during the hunting season. Ed Rodniak, manager of the Chain O' Lakes
> State Park in Lake Co., IL states that carryover (survival) of the
> birds is "0 %". Those that are not killed by hunters die of exposure
> to the elements. These are pen raised, hand fed birds.
>
> These fees, then, become reimbursement to the states for regulating
> and catering to the hunters. It is not "for the wildlife".
>
> Federal stamps. These are issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
> The money is collected and redistributed to the states, after "an
> expensive night on the town in Washimgton, DC". After "costs", the
> states are returned approximately 43% of the funds for "wetland
> development" and law enforcement. Violation of migratory bird hunting
> rules is a federal offense, and fines are paid to the federal
> government, yet the federal government provides no law enforcement.
> This is done by the states. These funds are used to reimburse the
> states for the costs of enforcing federal laws with state employees.
> Wetland projects must be approved in advance, and the project must
> benefit migratory waterfowl or bird species, these species are, in
> turn, hunted. No non-game species directly recieve any benefit of
> these funds.
>
> The Pittman-Robertson Tax. This began in 1937 as a 10% federal excise
> tax on the sale of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition for them. During
> WW2, the tax was raised to 11% and has remained at that level. In 1970
> the fund was expanded to include handguns, reloading (ammunition)
> components, boats, outboard motors and fishing equipment. Fisherman
> and target shooters objected. Only 16% of America's firearms owners
> are hunters, and less than 10% of fisherman and boaters hunt. They
> objected to providing funds for hunters. So the act was modified to
> include lake and river improvement for boat access, public shooting
> range development, and hunter and boating education classes.
>
> These funds are distributed to states based on a formula of state size
> (square miles of area) and number of hunting licenses sold. Funds "for
> wildlife" must be used to benefit huntable species or land open for
> hunting. When Senator Boxer (D. CA) introduced the "Desert Protection
> Act", which would have closed hunting on 2 million acres of California
> desert, the USFWS protested that doing so would make the land
> ineligible to receive Pitman-Robertson funds. Again the hunters assure
> the use of the money for their direct benefit.
>
> So, what kind of projects do we get for the generous contributions of
> hunters? Stocking turkeys where they have never existed before,
> trading turkeys from Texas to Florida for alligators, to restore the
> hunter decimated populations of the animals, attempts to introduce elk
> to the lower penninsula of Michigan for hunting. Attempts to introduce
> elk to Kentucky. Why? Simple. Hunting has become a tourist industry,
> and the game departments are the innkeepers of that industry. Kentucky
> does not want Kentuckians that wish to hunt elk going to Montana or
> Colorado, not when the federal government will pay to stock the elk in
> Kentucky. Florida needed turkeys to restore it's decimated population
> of the native osceola species. Unfortunately Osceola turkeys lived
> only in Florida. No problem. Trade some alligators to Texas gator
> hunters for the Rio Grande species of turkey native to Texas. Thus
> allowing Texans to hunt gators at home and sealing the fate of the few
> remaining Osceola turkeys. But hey, a turkey is a turkey, and now
> Florida hunters can kill a turkey right at home.
>
> At the same time states play games to increase their "piece of the
> pie". Many states used to allow persons under 16 yrs. old, over 65
> yrs. old, and landowners to hunt without licenses. Not any more. Now
> they must have a license, or permit, but they may be charged only a
> nominal fee for this. Some as low a 50 cents. BUT... it is a license
> sale, and therefore increases that state's funds... at the expense of
> another state.
>
> What these funds have done is to make the government game departments,
> charged with the resources that belong to everyone, the handmaidens of
> the hunters. We can be assured to have an overabundance of targets for
> hunters, but no real balance of nature. No balance was ever intended.
>
> 4. Alternatives to hunting
>
> "There are no practical alternatives to hunting", we are told.
> "Hunting reduces animal populations and generates revenue. It does not
> 'cost' anything." Well, let's look at this myth.
>
> Currently the only wild animals in a condition of "overpopulation"
> (too many animals for the habitat) are whitetailed deer, and then only
> in isolated areas. Whitetails are NOT overpopulated in the vast
> majority of their range. Whitetailed deer represent less than 2% of
> the animals killed by hunters each year, yet are always used as the
> excuse for all hunting. Even bird hunters use whitetails as their
> excuse while they hunt pen raised, stocked birds. Many common game
> birds are not even native to North America, but were imported for
> hunting. Ringnecked pheasant (China), Hungarian, or gray partridge
> (central Europe) and chuckar (central Europe to Asia) are good
> examples.
>
> There are natural, inexpensive alternatives to hunting. Stopping the
> war on natural predators is one way. Coyotes, wolves, mountain lions,
> foxes, eagles, hawks, owls and raccoons have been persecuted for
> centuries. STOP!!!!!!!! These animals are valuable predators and
> scavengers. They are natural, and part of nature's plan for balance.
> The habitat is not complete without them. In addition to providing
> year 'round population control of prey species, they benefit the herd
> by naturally selecting weak and inferior animals as food. They are
> simply easier to prey upon. After all, it is not necessary for a deer
> to be stronger or smarter than a wolf or coyote.... he need only be
> stronger, or smarter, than another deer.
>
> In urban and suburban areas where confined population cells of
> whitetails are a problem, contraception is a viable alternative. Dr.
> Gary Killian of Penn State University has developed an oral
> contraceptive for deer and other animals. The drug is "selective" and
> only affects female deer. Any other animals eating the drug laced food
> are not affected. It is impossible for the animals to "overdose" on
> the drug, and as little as one bale of treated hay can effectively
> protect the female deer in an area as large as one square mile. The
> drug has an effective action of one year. So populations can be
> monitored and controlled. Treatments can be delivered by helicopter or
> by vehicle. At Angel Island in California the deer herd was reduced
> from 150 animals to 60 animals. At Point Reyes National Seashore the
> Tule elk herd was reduced from 212 to 70 animals. Natural predators
> and natural death reduced the herd, and birth control prevented the
> "rebound" effect so often seen with hunting.
>
> Why aren't more agencies using it? Because hunters, who claim to love
> wildlife and only hunt for the good of the wildlife, do not believe in
> population control unless it means they get to kill something. Why
> wouldn't they support a reduction in deer herds, since that is what
> they claim to be doing? The game departments, always the handmaidens
> of hunters, use "studies" paid for by hunters to conclude that
> contraception is not viable.
>
> Until we break the stranglehold the hunters have on game departments
> and "wildlife biologists", they will always conclude hunting is the
> best alternative. Educating the non-hunting public to these facts is
> the best way to do this.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So, you dont like reasoned,
> well thought out, civil debate?
>
> I understand.
>
>                           /��/)
>                          /�../
>                         /..../
>                   /��/'...'/���`��
>                /'/.../..../......./��\
>             ('(...�...�.... �~/'...')
>              \.................'...../
>               ''...\.......... _.��
>                 \..............(
>                  \.............\..