License to Kill

How I feel depends a lot on whether your talkin' about livin' off yer own property or huntin' State Gamelands.

I have a little over 8 acres with a stream and 70% woods, on my property, I have duck, deer, fish, racoons, opposums, bear, and any other number of edible wildlife, carefully cultivated and hunted I could keep my family of 3 happy for quite some time, now that's my property and I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me what I can hunt or growon it.

On the otherhand if the property belongs to someone else, (people often appear on my property during huntin' season with the belief that any wooded area is a forrest and therefore part of nature, further reasoning states anything that's part of nature belongs to everyone, "Like,you can't own the water in the stream dude", "Maybe not DUDE but I do have the mineral rights, which means I own the dirt under the water so unless your Jesus and can walk on water get the heck ff my property!")

For the weed walkers I tell 'em that, "this is not a forest it's my backyard but this is my shotgun but if you'd like to own somethin' I'll gladly let ya have some of the 00 Buck shot residein in the barrels.":D
 
Yes, I believe, that as long as developers have their eye on wilderness settings to further their fortunes and as long as this society raises their children without a good and healthy dose of respect for nature and the other critters that live within our wilderness areas, that the state and feds have an obligation to safeguard our wilderness and keep us from extincting those species.
 
How long do you think the fish and game would last if the population would have to hunt and fish for their meals? We have a deer herd that numbers about 120 in our immediate area. Sustenance hunters would take that out in no time. The 56 to 60 geese and 20-30 mallards on the river here would disappear. The fishing season starts here in late march and continues till ice out. The human population is too big now to be sustained by natural means. One farmer can feed X amount of people. The hunting regulations are to preserve game and maintain a healthy breeding population.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!!!

Wildlife managers aim to use the best available science to balance the needs of wildlife with their perception of the needs of people. Wildlife management takes into consideration ecological principles such as carrying capacity of the habitat. Most wildlife management is concerned with the preservation and control of habitat, but other techniques such as reforestation, predator control techniques such as trapping, re-introduction of species or hunting may also be used to help manage "desirable" or "undesirable" species.
Click to expand...

Manipulative management acts on a population, either changing its numbers by direct means or influencing numbers by the indirect means of altering food supply, habitat, density of predators, or prevalence of disease. This is appropriate when a population is to be harvested, or when it slides to an unacceptably low density or increases to an unacceptably high level. Such densities are inevitably the subjective view of the land owner, and may be disputed by animal welfare interests.
Click to expand...

If the population of deer in one area is LOW====>
RAISE the price of the hunting "tag"
Issue LESS hunting tags

If the population of deer in one area is HIGH====>
LOWER the price of the hunting "tag"
Issue MORE hunting tags

I think most people who are against hunting are uninformed about wildlife management
They think it's just a bunch of Jed Clampetts blasting away at Bambi for fun :eek:
If they realized that it is needed to maintain the "carrying capacity" then maybe they wouldn't be so pissed off at the hunters (and anglers, of course)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
 
The fish and game laws were invented to preserve fish and game so that they would be available to hunt. In Colorado the funding for fish and game preservation (and a lot of that is habitat preservation) comes from hunting and fishing licenses. There was a news article recently about how our wilderness areas and game are becoming more threatened because of a decline of hunting and fishing. The vast majority of wilderness users are "sportsmen" of this variety. It is their interest and money that supports the preservation of game and game habitat. Game laws and the whole wildlife preservation infrastructure depends on our licensed use of the "resource".

Many creeks were devoid of fish from mining operations before the DoW was established to protect and restock the streams. Many areas were completely hunted out of big game a hundred years ago before the DoW started providing protection and reintroduction of game. The DoW is your friend and protector of your practical right to hunt. Without the DoW you might have a right to hunt, but have no game available. The only wildlife left would be nuisance animals on farmer's private land. You would have to pay big bucks for a chance to "harvest" that game (not really hunting at all).
 
Hey guys, a newbie here but I just wanted to make a couple of points. First is that the poaching that was pointed out earlier (medieval England) is very different from poaching in present day. Hunting then was not regulated by law, but by the land owner and there was no public land as what was not owned by individuals was owned by the king. You didn't go out and buy a license to hunt, you had to have permission from the land owner. As the majority of people were serfs or peasants and did not own land, they could not legally hunt to feed themselves. Hunting licenses and seasons are a 20th century inventions used to make sure that the natural resources are around for future generations to enjoy also.
As for market or commercial hunting, that is exactly what is responsible for the present game laws. Over hunting and fishing by commercial interests caused several species to be wiped out completely and put others in danger of the same fate. Sound game management backed by laws and payed for by hunters and fishermen through license fees is what saved this countries game animals from extinction. The attitude that "I have a right to hunt!" is what helped to cause the problem in the first place. Hunters and fishermen not having any self restraint and over harvesting our natural resources whether for profit or pleasure was wrong and brought our game populations to the brink of destruction. Now thanks to a little foresight on the part of our forefathers in the early 1900's, the populations of most if not all species of animals in this country are at or above where they were at the turn of the century. Our wild game populations are one of the greatest success stories of what we can do when we decide to put our minds, hearts and money into a worthy cause. I personally sleep better knowing that I do my part to make sure my kids get to enjoy hunting and fishing as much as I do.

Just my 2 cents worth, Warren
 
For the most part, I'm fine with government management of wildlife resources. This doesn't mean I necessarily like all the decisions made by the government. I simply have no problem with the idea with the government being in charge of such things.

There may be a case to be made over private management of wildlife resources. But the anarchist idea that we have an absolute right to hunt (presumably on public land, though it's unclear is such a thing could exist under this system), as we see fit is fraught with difficulties that should be obvious.

Realistically, we'd all end up starving if everyone had to rely on trapping/hunting for food. There's a reason Americans live the way they do. Large scale farming and trade is far and away a much more efficient way to provide food for the masses. Specialization is the savior of humanity. It allows everyone to thrive as well as we have.
 
Makes you wonder, though: if we all had to hunt or trap for food, would the upside be a permanently sustainable civilization?


Of course there would be some pretty lousy aspects to this way of life, I am not advocating it. I just had the thought that possibly all non-agrarian civilizations are necessarily sustainable indefinitely.
 
The attitude that "I have a right to hunt!" is what helped to cause the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...
The buffalo instantly comes to my mind

I read in several Mountain Man books about the slaughter of the buffalo
One rich Irish dude named Sir St. George Gore, would rent a TRAIN and have a buffalo huntin' party
He would just ride along on the train and blast away
They think he killed like 2,500 AND 40 grizzly bears
Here is his story====>
http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/021697.html


The construction of the railroads across the plains further hastened the depletion of buffalo populations. Hunting from train windows was advertised widely and passengers shot them as the buffalo raced beside the trains. By 1883 both the northern and the southern herds had been destroyed. Less than 300 wild animals remained in the U.S. and Canada by the turn of the century out of the millions that once lived there.
Click to expand...

Also
The Mountain Men would often only eat the TONGUE and HUMP of the buffalo
The "delicacies" ;)
They would leave the rest of the animal where it was shot after they cut off the tongue and hump
Reading that stuff mad me very sad
What a waste :(

The New Mexican "cibioleros" would have huge buffalo hunting parties and would have a "production" line going on
The dude would lance the buffalo
Then along comes his underlings in an ox cart with butcher knives to cut them up
I think the women were the last of the caravan
But I can't remember what exactly they did
 
Trent Rock said:
The buffalo instantly comes to my mind

I read in several Mountain Man books about the slaughter of the buffalo
One rich Irish dude named Sir St. George Gore, would rent a TRAIN and have a buffalo huntin' party
He would just ride along on the train and blast away
They think he killed like 2,500 AND 40 grizzly bears
Here is his story====>
http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/021697.html




Also
The Mountain Men would often only eat the TONGUE and HUMP of the buffalo
The "delicacies" ;)
They would leave the rest of the animal where it was shot after they cut off the tongue and hump
Reading that stuff mad me very sad
What a waste :(

The New Mexican "cibioleros" would have huge buffalo hunting parties and would have a "production" line going on
The dude would lance the buffalo
Then along comes his underlings in an ox cart with butcher knives to cut them up
I think the women were the last of the caravan
But I can't remember what exactly they did
Click to expand...
The reason for the buffalo massacre was to subdue the American Indians by taking away their major food supply. It also hastened the rise to power of the American cattle producers. Can't really contain or domesticate millions of buffalo so let's kill 'em all and raise something we can control. The buffalo we do have was due to a small herd that were in the Black Hills-away from bullets. If it weren't for that, most likely the entire species would have been extinct because of greed. And now, botanists are saying the praries are not in pristine condition like they once were because the millions of buffalo are not there to graze, fertilize and airate them.
 
GIBBY said:
The reason for the buffalo massacre was to subdue the American Indians by taking away their major food supply.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. The reason they were killed is because they appeared to be a limitless supply, and there was money to be made.

I think you should add a few layers to your tin foil hat. . . . it's leaking.
 
GIBBY said:
I may be off-base but I've read that DNR was put in place by the request of sportsmen. Deer were almost wiped out completely by market hunting and the sportsmen didn't want that. Could you imagine everyone going out and shooting deer or anything else for that matter, wherever and whenever they want without regulations ? Wildlife preservation is probably the only place that mankind has conducted himself correctly. Actually, we've almost done it too well. In my state, the deer are becoming a nuisance in some areas. My hunting buddy has permission to hunt a coworkers property. She told him to wipe 'em out. They are tearing up her flowers and bushes. When I met my wife 14 years ago, there were no turkeys around for miles. Now they are everywhere-COOL. Saw a flock down the road Sat. About 10 hens and 10 toms. Yes, PETA and their ilk must be missing some common sense compound in their diet. They never spend money for wildlife restocking or relocation programs.They do manage somehow to hypnotise hollywood actors into becoming spokespeople against fur and meat. Could you imagine the devistation to the economy alone if eating meat was banned? No restuarants, bar-b-que's, hunting ,fishing, meat markets, farmers, cooking T.V. shows, Etc... They don't want animal testing:confused:. Sorry, If my kid gets sick and they need an animal to test some new drug or vaccine, my dog will be the first to go. One of the twisted quotes from some goofball was " a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy". Sorry again, WHACKJOB!! My son is and never will be equal with an animal. Animals have instinct ONLY!
Click to expand...



My friend has worked in pet stores all his life. Since PETA and all similar companies spending is PUBLIC RECORD, he got bored one day and looked through it. He found out that PETA spent over $200,000 on a walk in freezer. Anyone who has ever worked in a restaurant knows what freezers that big are used for.

PETA has another interesting policy. They do "rescue" a lot of animals....but what do they do with the animals that aren't fit to be released back into the wild? they believe that keeping animals as pets, or in zoos is cruel :jerkit: So what do they do? They kill them...or as they say "administer euthanasia". Perfectly healthy dogs and cats that could live long healthy lives as beloved family pets are killed because they believe that any human influence on animals is immoral. :jerkit:

I wonder what that freezer is for.....
 
mr.trooper said:
PETA has another interesting policy. They do "rescue" a lot of animals....but what do they do with the animals that aren't fit to be released back into the wild? they believe that keeping animals as pets, or in zoos is cruel :jerkit: So what do they do? They kill them...or as they say "administer euthanasia". Perfectly healthy dogs and cats that could live long healthy lives as beloved family pets are killed because they believe that any human influence on animals is immoral. :jerkit:

I wonder what that freezer is for.....
Click to expand...

Oh, don't make me do it...

PETA spent about $10,000 on a freezer.

Furthermore, I never understood what the big deal is about it. Euthanized animals need to be stored before disposal. The only people who would really object to such things would be other PETA types.

Look, there's plenty to criticize PETA for (opposition to medical research, property destruction, etc), without making stuff up.
 
We've already seen the effects of unlicensed hunting. See turn of the 20th century america for reference. The current licensing system is a direct result the effects of sportsmen to prevent the complete distruction of the wildlife that we love to hunt. Species like elk, whitetailed deer, and turkey have rebounded tremendously since the 1900s as a direct result of strict game laws that were asked for by sportsmen.

The slaughter of the american bison was fueled in large part by lax (nonexistant) game laws, belief in an endless supply, and a very large european market for bison hides and furs. Subduing the native americans was an externality that benefitted the US government's policy on native american affairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top