- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,639
Its a nice thought, but its either a correlation fallacy, or sample selection bias. Not to harsh your vibe, but its important to give credit where due, and the end results of who does or does not hunt is a different topic.The idea is to encourage the next generation to hunt and fish.
Kids that hunt and fish don't usually grow up to rob rob little old ladies or liquor stores.
Where I live there is almost no hunting. None if you don't count culls. Fishing is pretty common, but I'm right in the heart of it, so a small car with a fishing rod rack is not uncommon, but drive an hour inland, and that disappears really fast. However even those who don't fish often surf, or hike, even if its just the little suburb parks. Very much eco-green territory, but its a slow process. The river is in pretty bad shape, and everything there is a shark attack there is calls for another cull, but it is getting better, and there is getting to be a deeper discussion of how to protect the wildlife. Hunting disappeared from the Australian landscape two generations ago, there is so little sport/subsistence hunting its a statistical anomoly. Invasive animal culls and commercial roo hunting is almost all anyone knows. All that said, our suburb is no safer than any other in the country as far as I'm aware. Lots of kids on bikes with fishing rods. Dunno. Worth a thought, but probably needs some real research instead of gut guesses.