Committee to End Sports Hunting

While the topic is fresh, take a look at the Committe to Abolish Sports Hunting.

We no longer need to eat animals for our sustenance. And we surely don't need to get our "kicks" from pleasure-killing. Put an end to Sports Hunting.

About C.A.S.H.
The mission of C.A.S.H. -- the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting -- is to accomplish what its name says in the shortest possible time. Understanding that abolishing hunting entails a process, a series of steps taken and not a single action that would effect our goal overnight, a time frame cannot be established. We hope for building a succession of wins, and if not wins immediately then at least a succession of stirrings of consciousness.

We hope to encourage those who are still silent to speak out, awakening community after community about the heavy hand of state and federal wildlife management agencies. We hope to alter whatever belief still exists that sport hunters are conservationists and champions of the environment to a realization that they are destroyers of wildlife and ecosystems in the narrow and broad sense.

Where the natural feeling for wildlife doesn't exist, we strive to engender among citizens outrage that their own rights are violated by legal hunting and that their quality-of-life diminished.

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/home.html

[Vickers]

1. I'm pretty sure Dick didn't eat that lawyer.

You know how fucking STRINGY a 78-year-old man would be?

[billybob537]

2. Do you know

which cute fuzzy animal is responsible for the most human deaths every year in America?

[Mikimouse]

3. The White-Tailed deer?

I think I remember that from an old hunting magazine. People think tha they are so cute, but forget that they are still wild animals and can trample very effectively (not to mention the antlers, when they are present)

[Robb]

28. Not so much the ferocity as the mass

Per Dept. of Transportation, fully 80% of vehicle accidents in my state (Colorado) involve deer or elk.

[northofdenali]

31. Moose do a great job up here, too -

One slogan our Dept. of Transportation uses is "Give Moose a Brake".

[MisterP]

43. does "other humans" count as fuzzy?

[China_cat]

4. Have you traveled any of the main roads in PA

lately? The average is about 1 dead deer for every mile and a half of road. Unless you can give them back their habitat (or just paint the roads red with intestine accents), we need hunters. And I'm quite willing to take the meat off your hands if all you want to do is shoot it.

Sadly, too many animals. If we want to have any of them left at all we have to keep their numbers to the amount the habitat will support. Hell, we're starting to see alligator road kill here in the south, something you'd never see even 5 years ago.

7. Well I think managing animals and allowing sports

hunting are separate issues. Managing animals should have to do with valuing them for their beauty and enrichment. Sports hunting is to allow humans to go out and shoot rifles or arrows to kill.

I know there is a problem with overpopulation of deer. However with our immense capacity for solving problems, we can do better than armies of men in orange jump-suits en mass going through the woods every winter.

And there are plenty of animals that are hunted, that are not over-populated.

[Avalux]

9. I grew up in PA.

My father has been hunting since he was a kid and has great respect for the environment and the animals in the area. The situation with the white-tailed deer is unfortunate. There are no natural predators, so the deer would starve to death and overrun everything unless they're hunted. Every single deer my father's ever killed was eaten by my family throughout the winter. And it's not unlimited - one deer/one doe per season.

I hope people understand the difference between this kind of hunter and those like Cheney who just want to kill.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

102. too many animals, or too many people?

things that make you go - hmmmmmm

[China_cat]

104. Too many animals for the habitat that's left them.

And people don't seem to see the lesson there.

[doc03]

5. Yea, why not put that in our 2008 platform and lose another

election.

[EstimatedProphet]

6. I'd love to hear your ideas for how to manage animal populations

if you get rid of hunting. How are you going to do it?

12. As far as I have read - department of natural resources

for the different states are really still in an era, where land resources and animals are just seen as commodities to make money. The DNR is not an organization that is well informed or progressive on ecology. The pressure that is coming to help re-shape DNR is from tourism and using public lands to attract tourists and their wallets.

For the most part, department of natural resources and hunting interests are intertwined, with the DNR acting like a servant of the hunting community.

I would like to get a PhD in deer management, because I am sure there are many ways to help control their reproduction. Hunters are not public servants.

[burrowowl]

44. Reintroduce their natural

predators: wolves, pumas, etc.
Here in NM when there are too many deer they eat the trees and do damage to the forest and then they starve. We might be getting mad deer/elk disease here too. But reintroduction of predators and keeping humans in the city instead of sprawl would help, humans who want to go and enjoy nature can and be aware of any dangers. Cnstruction of animal paths going under highways and roads too, but that costs money. Assholes move out into fancy hugh-costing several acre developments and then bitch about the bear, pumas, etc.

[EstimatedProphet]

48. It is a start

It's just not a solution.

The system is broken. We broke it. We have a responsibility to pick up the slack we made.

[DemBones DemBones]

50. I'm a biologist and have studied this issue for years.

Contraceptives for deer have not worked out well. Hunting works, so hunters are, in a sense, public servants. You may not realize that many hunters also supply soup kitchens with excess meat not needed for their families.

Where I live we need more hunting. For much of the year, if I were a hunter and didn't care about the hunting laws --that is, if I were a poacher -- I could stand on my front porch and bring down a couple of deer every day.

Twenty-five years ago, we rarely saw deer within five miles of our property. About seventeen years ago, they started eating my gardens. Today, the deer graze in a field, so close I could throw a rock and hit one, if my aim was good. During the night they come right up to the house. They are not frightened away by the scents of dogs and humans. They are no longer the wild animals they are supposed to be. Their overpopulation has led to this.

[Ravenseye]

112. Yeah same here

The deer everywhere aspect...I live IN the city of Pittsburgh, not in a rural area, but I do back onto a thin strip of woods on a hill. Right now I can see 6 deer grazing out my back window on the hill. I've seen up to 10 at a time, bucks and does, as well as a flock of a dozen nice large turkeys...

This is right in the city.

[Catchawave]

15. Start with banning canned hunts and game farms

Most animal protection groups don't have a problem with ethical hunting, here's a sample of one such concern:


http://www.paws.org/about/emailnetwork/archive/actionline/actionline_2004_12_21.html

Pheasants
On December 17, 2004 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) announced it has to euthanize 2,200 adult pheasants at its Centralia Game Farm. Apparently, the birds have become infected with Mycoplasma gallisepticum, an untreatable bacterial disease that affects the respiratory system and reproductive capabilities, as well as impacting weight gain. The disease can be passed to young in the egg stage.

This unfortunate outbreak highlights four main concerns that animal lovers, environmentalists, taxpayers and yes, even hunters, need to be aware of:

Concerns of cruelty to animals
Waste of taxpayer dollars
Introduction of non-native species

Moral and legal issues surrounding 'unsportsmanlike' hunting
A Case for Cruelty: According to the WDFW web site, 30,000 to 40,000 cage-raised pheasants are released in Washington State every year. The reason for rearing and releasing these animals is so that waiting hunters can shoot them; these animals are truly 'sitting ducks'. The fact that these animals are not wild, are not native to Washington and have been cage-raised brings many humane issues to the forefront. What can be considered humane about releasing tame animals into an environment they are not biologically suited for? If these animals are not immediately shot by hunters most freeze or starve to death, are consumed by predators or hit by cars. The over-winter survival rate for pheasants seldom exceeds five percent.

Who's Paying the Price? As stated in the WDFW web site, one of the main goals of the Western Washington Pheasant Release Program is to become financially self-sustaining. There are currently around 6,500 participants who pay around $220,000 to participate in the hunt. Operation costs for the game farm are quoted as $290,000. These simple numbers identify a $70,000 deficit for the operation of the game farm itself. Who ends up paying for the deficit- the taxpayers of Washington? If the deficit quoted only covers the operation of the game farm itself, what are the other costs related to management, transportation, etc.? Why does an inhumane program that does not help our native species and habitats cater to less than .001 percent of the population- 6,500 out of an estimated 4,775,000?

Introduction of Non-Native Species: The wet, chilly climate of Western Washington limits naturally sustained pheasant populations. The birds being introduced into our wild spaces are non-native imports originating in Asia. Their introduction into our ecosystem brings serious potential consequences to native species already on the decline due to habitat loss, disease and lack of food. Scientists are becoming more concerned with the dwindling natural resources available to current native species, including those that are endangered, and the introduction of a cage-raised, possibly diseased, non-native species can only cause more damage. In Illinois, the Department of Conservation has reported the parasitism of prairie chicken nests and the displacement of male prairie chickens by male pheasants. This is a concern because the prairie chicken is a state-listed endangered species in Illinois. Does the state of Washington face a similar environmental impact?

Creating an "Unsportsmanlike" Atmosphere: Because of the way the Washington pheasant program is carried out, it in many ways reeks of canned hunting. Although the animals are not confined they are released at the same sites from one year to the next. This allows hunters to gather at the release sites to shoot down birds as they are released in large batches. Hunters, state wildlife managers and animal advocates alike have referred to the pheasant program as creating unethical and unsafe hunting. Jim Tabor, a WDFW biologist was quoted in the Tri-City Herald (http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/SPORTS/outdoors/hoop/hoop78.html) saying "what we would like to see are hunts that are more realistic. We don't want people standing in the parking lots shooting birds the second we release them from the crates. We'd like to stop these unethical hunting situations." Reportedly, several state officials have been pelted with shot by overzealous gunmen trying to shoot the birds moments after their release. The WDFW web site provides an outline of 'courtesy rules' for these hunts that includes tips on such as "Racing out ahead of other hunters to beat them to the birds is unethical and dangerous." If you have to point out how not to get shot during a pheasant release, then it is obviously not a situation that can be considered safe, ethical or humane in any manner.

Please contact your elected representatives (links at left) and let them know that the entirety of this program is unethical, inhumane and dangerous. It is a waste of money, it promotes the systematic abuse of animals, it puts native species at risk and endangers those who take part in it. Our state's money needs to be invested in progressive social campaigns that serve all of us, not .001 percent of us! Let's start the New Year out by demanding immediate change and the end of the Washington Pheasant Release Program.

WDFW Western Washington Pheasant Release Program Information: www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/water/wwapheas.htm

22. Yes - they have that program in Wisconsin too

At McKenzie nature center, they raise pheasants for sports hunting. They bring them out to a field and on the count of 3 release them, and the all the hunters start blazing away. Pheasants are no longer viable population in Wisconsin, because there is not enough natural cover for them to maintain a population.

And our DNR just turned over McKenzie Center to Wildlife Federation of Wisconsin. With that name, you would think they were protectors of animals, but they are a hunting society.

[EstimatedProphet]

23. That's reasonable

Canned hunts are ridiculous. The only good they do is that they keep those idiots that think that hunting is only about bagging an animal out of the way of people that are there to enjoy the outside.

The problem comes in when you try to manage a system where the natural predators are removed. It doesn't work without removal of animals, period. Trapping them and carting them off somewhere just moves the problem to another place.

People have suggested putting out birth control hormones in the animal populations. How? You'd have to have the animals on the hormones for the better part of a year. There is no agency anywhere in the world that could afford to do something like that. Add to that the funding loss for the agencies from not selling licenses, and you'd bankrupt an agency in a matter of days.

Someone here suggested hiring sharpshooters to remove deer. I almost choked laughing. WHY? Isn't that what we have right now, only the deer don't get used? Why on Earth would that be a solution? Where are you going to get the money to pay sharpshooters, when hunters are now no longer buying licenses? And what would be the point anyway? All that would do is change the names of the people from hunter to sharpshooter, and again bankrupt the agency.

The best idea I know of as an alternative for game management is reintroduction of the predators. However, we're simply not ready to do that on a large scale. What's more, farmers are usually very much against it because it often ends up threatening their stock-and that's their livlihood. I can't say as I blame them. There are methods of keeping predators away from farms, but in a large scale reintroduction they would be of limited use.

The fact is, for large game animals like deer (which includes habitat across most of the US) there really isn't a feasible way to eliminate hunting and still manage the population, and an unmanaged population will tend towards blowing up, a lot faster than most people realize.

[Skittles]

81. there are many areas overpopulated by people on this earth

should we shoot some of them?

[EstimatedProphet]

106. You know, if you want to talk about responsible population growth

I'm all for it. We will destroy ourselves without it. That is a different issue.

The point is, the system we have in the environment is broken. Pretending it isn't won't help it work.

[MoonRiver]

8. Sounds like a wonderful group.

I completely agree with your philosophy. Sorry you're being given a hard time on your thread though. :(

18. Thanks - good practice for becoming an activist n/t

[MoonRiver]

20. Yes, indeed.

And don't I know. I'm a member of PETA and Farm Sanctuary.

[Jacobin]

10. Goody. Another great Dem suicide plank in the platform

[MoonRiver]

13. Everything in life does not revolve around a political platform!

Some of us feel a commitment to other causes we consider equally, or, yes, gasp, more, important.

[Jacobin]

42. Keep it up.

We'll all be labled whackos and idiots so the kleptocrats can continue stealing us blind and killing and maiming brown people around the globe.

Hope you guys join a different party

[EstimatedProphet]

47. Do you not get it?

This is why we lose the rural vote! THIS ISSUE ALONE!

The rural population really doesn't like the idea that someone comes along and tells them how wrong they are for doing something that is an institution to them, chastizes them, and then doesn't offer any kind of realistic ideas on how to do things any other way, or how to clean up the certain mess that would follow from changing things just because someone tells them to! Why should they like people doing that? Would you? Have you, when the neocons have done the exact same thing for the last 5 years?

[ragin_acadian]

98. yes, absolutely!

one of my concerns (as a rural hunter), when first joining this site, was: "what about the anti-gun, and anti-hunting nuts?" - i was surprised to find so few of either here, especially after the media portrayal.

i guess the few anti-hunting loons out there would prefer to smash overpopulated/sickly/diseased animals with their recently washed SUV's/VW bugs, than propose a solution to lack of natural predation/human encroachment.

[MisterP]

97. what other ones are there in the platform?

[Ksec]

11. Actually, there are lots who need the meat

You go to the Appalachia area and lots of those people really need the food.

Banning hunting will never happen.

16. I think it will happen - animals have rights too

and someday there will be enough humans who care enough to be able to protect animal's rights. We have to be their voice.

Poverty is a separate issue from hunting. If you need to kill to survive, I think that is good reason to hunt.

[BushOut06]

64. yes, but humans are animals too

and part of what animals do is eat other animals.

Killing animals to eat them is far different than killing animals just for the hell of it, putting their heads on a mantel and throwing the rest of it away.

[TX-RAT]

114. putting their heads on a mantel and throwing the rest of it away.

Throwing away the meat of a game animal is illegal in all states.

[sandnsea]

14. Gee, let's not

Let's not turn what should be a solid slapping down of Cheney into an opportunity for Democrats to be mocked.

[SmokingJacket]

17. Hunting is not as bad for animals as factory farming.

I'd rather end factory farming first.

19. I am against factory farming too but sports hunting is my "pet" issue n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

113. This is the fundamental problem here

This is your 'pet' issue. You've already made up your mind that hunting is bad, before you've seen anything about what it means or how it works, or even how to go about replacing it.

You have an agenda, not an idea.

[manic expression]

21. Interesting

I do agree, mostly. Hunting should NEVER be done solely for thrill, for instance, killing a mountain ram for fun.

I've heard that a few species of animals have been helped because of efforts of hunters. I'm wondering how much truth there is to that, or what the situation really is. Could you tell me anything about that?

24. I have never read anything about hunters helping

a population. Conceivably if the hunters were helping to maintain a balance in the predator/prey ratio, they would be helping. However I don't know of any instances of that.

Habitat loss is the major threat to wildlife populations. However I don't think hunters try to preserve wild lands for the animals. That would be something the State agencies would do.

[EstimatedProphet]

26. State agencies get the funding for habitat from hunters

All of them do.

29. They get money from permits - but

DNR are sorely in need of money. Here in Wisconsin, they are continually having problems with funds. They don't make that much money from permits. However DNR is a state agency, paid for by tax dollars, yours and mine. So we have a say in how the DNR does business and their priorities. At the present though, the general public doesn't go to DNR meetings, but the hunters sure do. The hunters have their own committee that helps DNR write the rules.

[EstimatedProphet]

37. That's true, they do

They also in effect get two votes-taxes and stamp fees.

Organizations that want an agency to make rules in their favor do things like that, and make committees to promote their interests.

On edit: However, don't kid yourself. Overpopulation in animal populations is a serious threat, and won't simply go away just because you want hunting to end.

[enigami]

107. I agree on the habitat loss

So could you city dwelling, non-hunting, tofu eating yuppies please stay in the city, and quit coming out here to build your stupid housing developments, so I will still have somewhere to hunt!

[DemBones DemBones]

25. I'm a vegetarian but I don't object to hunting because

many areas in the US are overrun with whitetail deer, which cause many auto accidents, often killing people, and also do great damage to people's gardens and farmers' crops.

Many of us in rural areas have not only had deer marauding in our gardens but have known people killed by deer running in front of their vehicles. We also know people who are responsible hunters who eat what they kill.

Hunting seasons help to deal with the overpopulation of deer -- which, if not controlled by hunting, results in starvation of deer and/or deer deaths due to disease (diseases spreading more easily in crowded areas.)

If hunting were to be outlawed, the problems would intensify. My rights would be infringed upon by unchecked populations of deer.

Humans don't have to eat meat but the idea that we can just stop killing game animals without serious ecological consequences is simply unrealistic. If you truly love animals, you need to think about the consequences of unchecked population growth.

[EstimatedProphet]

27. Exactly

30. Setting aside the problem of deer overpopulation

what about other animals that are hunted, like bear, bobcat, coyote, raccoon.

In Wisconsin, they allow hound dog hunting too. They use hound dogs to chase and corner bears, and then they shoot them down. They also allow capture of wild animals such as raccoon and bobcat to use in training the hound dogs.

[EstimatedProphet]

39. Hunting is based on the idea of 'shootable surplus'

Meaning that a certain proportion of the population is going to die overwintering. Some winters are warmer, but some are colder. It evens out in the long run. The basis for bag limits from hunting come from theis surplus idea-a certain number of animals are not expected to make it, so that's used to calculate the numbers for bag limits.

The animals that you are trying to save aren't going to live anyway. Most likely they will starve.

45. I am not trying to save animals

I am trying to stop sports hunting. Specifically hunters that go out for the thrill of killing. They don't keep animal numbers in check. There are mechanisms in nature for keeping populations down. For instance if a bear does not have enough to eat, she will not develop a fetus, even if an egg has implanted. And what happens for instance with bears, is a bear age 3 or 4 years is killed, and then another younger bear will replace it. So that many bears never reach their full maturity in the wild because they are hunted. Hunters may create vacuums that are filled, but they are not keeping animals from overpopulating.

You act as if hunters are doing something for society and the animals themselves. Preserving wilderness is important to animals, however I am directing my energies to sports hunting.

[EstimatedProphet]

52. Hey, if you want to stop people from going out for the 'thrill' of killing

I'm with you. That's what Cheney and his kind do.

But that's not hunting, it's only an aspect of it. Hunting is a lot more than that.

Hunting does do more to keep animal populations in check than anything else we have. Period. It's not perfect, but it does work. If you want to manage a population by starving them so that they don't reproduce, then you have a population that isn't healthy. Besides, there are animals that reproduce more because of starvation. Deer tend towards birthing twins when they are undernourished-the sole result is that you end up with a lot more starving deer in the process, and stripped trees and degraded habitat. It happens. I've seen it.

Bears have a biological strategy called delayed implantation, which means that the egg, though fertilized, does not implant in the womb. This is all well and good, except for the fact that the egg remains viable. This isn't a case where the embryo never develops-it simply develops later. That is not a viable way to manage populations.

Hunters do act for society. It was hunters that provided the funding for the animal restoration efforts that are responsible for almost every wild animal population in existence right now east of the Rockies. It is hunters that still provide the funding that enables wildlife management to go on. It is hunters that provide the political drive to protect habitat in the legislative circles. You're really on the same side. You should be working with them, not against them.

If you want to make things better, I'm all for it. But simply saying that hunting can be banned, and not providing any kind of real-world solution to the problems that would occur isn't going to get you there.

[BushOut06]

91. "We no longer need to eat animals for our sustenance."

This is what you stated in your OP. Your post also states that eliminating sports hunting is but a step, with the overall goal being to get rid of hunting altogether.

Just trying to point out why so many people seem to be going apeshit on you.

[DemBones DemBones]

40. You can't "set aside" the problem of deer overpopulation, and

you don't want bears, bobcats, coyotes, or raccoons turning up in your backyard, either. If you stop those animals from being hunted, you can expect just that, because they, too, will build up excessive population numbers. Raccoons are mostly a nuisance, overturning garbage cans and such, although they can also spread rabies. More raccoons = more nuisance and possibly more rabies. (Deer, by the way, have deer ticks which transmit Lyme disease to humans. Lyme disease, a serious autoimmune disease, was once unheard of; now it's epidemic in some areas because where there are too many deer, there are also too many deer ticks, and because overpopulation has made wild animals tame, made them walk right up to people's doorsteps, delivering deer ticks to the door.)

Bears, bobcats, and coyotes won't eat your garden like deer and woodchucks will but they will kill pets if they're hungry enough and their usual prey isn't around. Obviously, they might also kill small children, or even not-so-small children, depending on the size of the individual animal and the individual child in question.

I love wolves and bears, would hate to see a world without them, but I'd also hate to see a world in which pets and children couldn't be allowed outside their home without an armed guardian to protect them.

Wolves, bears, bobcats, coyotes, are all predators and civilization has squeezed them, as well as herbivores like deer, into ever smaller areas of wild land. We need to protect what wilderness still exists and we need to manage wildlife populations. Hunting is a tool of wildlife management, used to prevent animals' death by starvation. and to protect human populations.

How do you propose to deal with overpopulation of game animals if hunting were outlawed? How do you propose to protect people, pets, and crops from the predations of game animals?

41. Most animals stay extremely far away from

humans. There is not an avalanche of raccoons running around. Hunting is not used to keep animal populations in check, it is used for hunters to get their jollies. Most animals won't come anywhere near a city. And many hunters travels 100s of miles to get to their quarry.

Only children that live out in wilderness type areas would be around wild animals. And parents don't let their young children wander about without supervision.

[EstimatedProphet]

54. Deer don't live far away from humans

There's a hell of a lot of them that live in many big cities, and surburbia everywhere is full of them.

[pitohui]

58. there is not an avalanche of raccoons running around? oh yeah?

sez you

i say either you are remarkably fortunate or remarkably unobservant or you live in a very urban area

raccoons are truly a nuisance and at times they have brought distemper into my area

they will come right up on people's porches, crap, i've got photographs of this

you have no experience of raccoons or deer from the sound of it

easy to romanticize animals you have only seen on a teevee screen

[BushOut06]

110. I used to think racoons were cute & cuddly creatures

Until I had to deal with them on a regular basis. These things do come right up to your house. We have pets, and the racoons would routinely eat all the pet food. They love nothing more than go get into your garbage and make a complete mess. In addition, many of these little buggers carry rabies, and they can be quite aggressive at times. Now I look at them basically as pests.

[DemBones DemBones]

65. You are sadly misinformed.

I don't know of any part of the country that doesn't have problems with deer overpopulation. Coyotes, bears, bobcats, raccoons, beavers are also expanding their range and numbers, becoming problems in many areas.

Hunting is regulated in order to manage wildlife populations, and wildlife management programs are funded by the fees paid for hunting and fishing licenses. Most hunters here hunt within their own county or a neighboring one. Yes, some who can afford it travel to hunt special game; my doctor drives to South Dakota every year to hunt pheasant. But I also know people who don't have much money and who hunt deer, rabbits, doves, locally, not to "get their jollies" but to feed their families.

You wrote:

"Only children that live out in wilderness type areas would be around wild animals. And parents don't let their young children wander about without supervision."

Unfortunately neither of those sentences is true. If I had young children today, I would be very concerned about the potential danger of a) Lyme disease (contracted from deer by way of deer ticks) and b) predation by coyotes and bears, and would supervise my children closely.

But not all parents are aware of these dangers and not all parents supervise their children as they should. Too many Americans today think wild animals are Disney attractions to be fed and petted.

[Lorien]

32. Thanks for the link!

:hi:

[Road Scholar]

33. Is it CASH or CESH??? Just asking. ni

35. It is CASH

I got it wrong in my title, It is Committee to Abolish Sports Hunting.

However the word abolish is kind of awkward.

Here is another good link too. Defenders of Wildlife

http://www.defenders.org/

[KyuzoGator]

34. It's not a "sport" until the deer have rifles.

And with sharpshooters like Cheney out there, I'd put my money on the deer.

36. Right - why don't these thrill seekers go wrestle a shark n/t

[pitohui]

59. some do

one of my friends in younger days used to go spear fishing

i suppose fishing is to be banned too?

[Catchawave]

38. Jesse Ventura said

"I don't shoot at anything that can't shoot back"

:rofl:

[Ksec]

46. So would you be against it if it were man to deer bareknuckles?

No weapons other than what you were born with.

[KyuzoGator]

49. I'd love to see some shitkicker go after a 12-point buck barehanded.

Hell, I'd love to see Cheney try it at least.

[Ksec]

57. I can see cheney throwin down with a big buck

Hed last 2 seconds and then die of a heart attack before the gore injuries could kill him.

Damned roving gangs of deer. Always startin shit.

[RebelOne]

105. It's not a sport if the other side doesn't know there is a game going on.

[beam me up scottie]

51. I agree, thanks for the link.

And don't listen to those who say compassion for animals will make us lose the next election.

They say the same thing about gay rights.

There are humane ways to manage the deer population.

Funny how people forget that the game wardens let the animals overpopulate so that the hunters have something to kill.

Wolves are out of the question because can't buy hunting licenses or contribute to the tourist industry.

[EstimatedProphet]

55. Oy

There are humane ways to manage the deer population.

Name them. Define humane while you're at it.

Funny how people forget that the game wardens let the animals overpopulate so that the hunters have something to kill.

Name one. I've never met anyone that does this. And something tells me I've met a few more 'game wardens' than you have.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Oh, you're new to wildlife management?

Google it.

[EstimatedProphet]

60. Hardly new to it

No...

As I requested, provide me some specifics of Evil Game Wardens that try to generate overpopulated animal populations so that hunters can shoot at things. If there is anyone that manages FOR overpopulation, they have no business in the business.

There's plenty of agencies that end up with overpopulation, but that's because populations are out of control as it is.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Really?

Who decides how many licenses to issue and how do they come up with that figure?

And tell me why do you think it's called wildlife management?

[EstimatedProphet]

63. Again

Please provide me with a case where game management agencies deliberately try to manage populations to be overpopulated, just so that they can have more animals to shoot.

[Dave Reynolds]

66. One thing I am curious about,

how would they get the animals to reproduce more to begin with?

The critters can't fuck on command, for cryin out loud....

[beam me up scottie]

68. Killing predators is one way, genius.

If you really were curious, you would already know about alternative wildlife management.

[Dave Reynolds]

73. Well, I was really not that curious.

And no, I am not really at genius level, just pretty fuckin smart.

You have a lot of answers to management issues, you just seem to not want to post any specifics about them.

Natural predators were trimmed to ineffective levels long before I was born, so I am filling the niche.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Right, you hunt because you LOVE the animals.

:rofl:

[Dave Reynolds]

82. No,

I hate them with the white-hot intensity of 1000 suns. But, it is legal to hunt them, unlike activists, whom I must contain myself with.

:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

83. Me so scared!

Sorry but ex-Marines aren't intimidated by Cheneys with guns.

[beam me up scottie]

67. They manage them so that there is enough to HARVEST.

How do you think they make their money?

As long as they stand to make a profit by HARVESTING animals, state wildlife managers will never agree to try more humane alternatives.

For example, wolves in Alaska are keeping herd populations down, the herds are healthy, so what's the problem? Isn't that what everyone wants?
Why are they allowing the hunting of wolves to increase the herd population?

Wildlife management involves a wide variety of biological and administrative activities. Management biologists, primarily working out of area offices, collect information on wildlife population sizes, trends, productivity, and levels of mortality from hunting and natural causes. They also serve as a point of contact with the public on wildlife management issues, assess public interests and needs, sell hunting and trapping licenses, issue harvest tags and permits, make public presentations, deal with nuisance and injured wildlife, provide information and recommendations to supervisors, and perform other essential duties. Management biologists compile and analyze harvest and biological information and present it to the Board of Game so it can establish population-based and ecologically sound hunting and trapping regulations. Management and harvest reports on big game species and furbearers include harvest summaries, and species management reports which are produced every two or three years. Federal Aid Survey and Inventory Performance Reports describe annual management activities that were funded by the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program.

Big Game
The division expends most of its human and financial resources on big game management and research. Because most of the division's revenue has been derived from the sale of Alaska hunting licenses and tags to big game hunters, this has been an appropriate emphasis. Moose, caribou, deer, and brown bears are the big game species that receive the most public use, and they have received the most management and research attention.

We conduct wildlife surveys annually. For the large moose and caribou populations, specific population estimates are conducted roughly every three years using the latest scientific techniques. Dall sheep, mountain goats, elk, bison, and muskoxen are periodically surveyed to measure population status, trends, and productivity. Black and brown bear populations are difficult to estimate because they often live in heavily vegetated areas in the summer and den during winter. For bears, we obtain population information from intensive research projects in selected areas, and we are developing methods to extrapolate this information to larger areas. For many species, capturing animals to affix radio or GPS collars or to assess physical condition is a common technique. All animal captures and handling follow procedures established in the division's "Animal Welfare Policy". On rare occasions the division has resorted to game transplants or reintroductions as a management tool but only after extensive study and consultation (see Wood bison).

Furbearers
Nineteen species of furbearers are trapped in Alaska - beaver, coyote, arctic fox, red fox, lynx, Alaska or hoary marmot, marten, mink, muskrat, river otter, red, flying, and ground squirrel, least and short-tailed weasel, wolf, wolverine, woodchuck. Trapping effort is partly a function of pelt value in the fur trade. We use aerial sampling techniques to estimate population levels of wolverines, wolves, foxes, and lynx in selected areas, which we extrapolate to other areas with similar habitats. Harvest information is collected from fur export and acquisition records, and fur sealing reports for those species for which the law requires "sealing" by department staff or other designated persons. An annual survey is distributed to about 1,500 trappers to provide additional insight about the relative abundance and trends of Alaska's furbearers.

Predator Management
Predator management has been one of the most controversial wildlife issues in Alaska for decades. Highly divergent public opinions are rooted in deeply held values, especially regarding population control of wolves.

Humans have the ability to influence natural systems by reducing predator populations and allowing ungulate (hoofed animal) populations to increase from depressed levels. Whether, when, or how it is appropriate for humans to decrease the number of predators - especially wolves - as a way to increase ungulate numbers for human harvest and use is controversial. This controversy is likely to persist, regardless of how much biological information is available. The division is professionally committed to continuing to move this controversy toward resolution for the benefit of all Alaskans.

http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=management.overview

Gee. The wildlife managers in Alaska seem to think it's a controversial subject. I don't agree, they are worried about the millions of dollars they will lose without big game hunters.

[EstimatedProphet]

87. This is not what you were talking about.

You were talking about managing populations for an OVERABUNDANCE of game animals.

Funny how people forget that the game wardens let the animals overpopulate so that the hunters have something to kill. This is what you said.

There is no one arguing that money doesn't play into it. I never said that it didn't. In fact, I said that money comes from hunters, which then gets used to manage game populations. However, what you're talking about is managing populations to produce as many huntable animals as is possible, so that more deer tags can be sold and the agency gets rich. that's not even close to what happens. Due to a principle of population biology, animal populations are typically managed to be kept at half their carrying capacity, and this is for a reason-their reproductive potential is highest there. This does NOT mean that their reproduction is highest there, just their potential. They are kept there because a population is most easily able to bounce back from any problem at those levels. The animals are typically healthiest at those levels too, and animals in populations near their carrying capacity are often weak and undernourished. Animals in populations kept overpopulated are often spindly, starved, loaded with disease and parasites. Why would any agency want to keep populations in that state?

Alaska is fortunate in that it still has a substantial amount of wild land and wild populations. This is unique in the US. It doesn't apply to the conversation, because it doesn't occur anywhere else here. We simply cannot banm hunting in favor of management of animals the way the do in Alaska. Those days are gone. Now, if you want to talk about managing Alaskan populations, I will have to let them explain it to you. I've been there but I never worked there.

If you want to talk about reestablishing predators into the system here. I'm all for it too. I have stated so in this thread. But it isn't a magic bullet, and it will be some time before it is truly an effective management tool for populations.

[beam me up scottie]

92. They manage the wildlife so that there is ENOUGH for hunters to harvest.

How the hell is that different than what I said?

Wolves are being killed because they are keeping the herd population in check.

In other words, there are not enough left over for the thousands of hunters to kill.

So, yes, Alaska IS managing the wildlife population to provide an excess.

[EstimatedProphet]

95. Please read my post again.

As I stated, you said they manage populations for an OVERABUNDANCE, and you implied that all agencies do this.

I specifically defined the difference between management for hunting, and management for an overpopulation to provide excess animals for hunting. If populations are managed to be kept at levels where the individual animals are healthy and sound, they are being managed in a way that there is enough for hunters.

Additionally, I pointed out that the scenario you used occurs almost solely in Alaska, as far as the Us goes. It therefore simply doesn't apply to the majority of the US, and tryuing to claim that populations can be managed by not reducing predator populations, when there aren't any predator populations left of any consequence, is not going to work.

Another thing that Alaska has that the rest of the US does not is a large native American population that is still intact, and is trying to keep their culture intact with them. Part of the management strategy for Alaska game animals is designed to let them subsistence hunt, and this means that predator populations are kept lowered for them. The big game professional hunts are a very small part of the Alaskan game take. The majority goes to subsistence.

[beam me up scottie]

99. I trained to be a game warden.

I also worked closely with a wildlife biologist that worked for the state.
They do plan for an overabundance of deer in the next season-enough for recreational purposes.
After the winter kills are counted, they decide how many hunting permits to issue for which animals in which areas.
This is management for the purpose of profit.
Wolves and other predators will never be reintroduced in most states for many reasons, but the predominant one, IMO, is that they will keep the herd population in check eliminating the need for recreational hunting.
One of the reasons why so many wildlife defenders want them to be reintroduced is because human hunters do not keep a herd healthy, they usually kill the biggest and the best, not the weak and injured animals.

And do you really think that "big game professional hunts are a very small part of Alaskan game take"?

[EstimatedProphet]

101. Then you understand where I'm coming from

I've got degrees in population management, and studied the science all the way through my Ph. D.

The point that I was trying to make, is that planning for an overabundance of animals in relation to providing hunting opportunities, is much different that trying to manage a population for overpopulation.

There are plenty of problems with hunting as a method for managing game populations. For example, the one you cited-too many people go just to get the biggest buck, rather than a deer in general. That has impacts on the genetics. Also, since hunters are often reluctant to taking does, they often don't control the reproductive capabilities of the population, in which case the populations can expand right back to where they were. I however have an issue with the argument that predators only kill the injured or weak-they are in it to survive, and will take what they can get. Sometimes it's the injured and weak, but sometimes it isn't either, so holding up the wolves as 'nobel' as if they are doing a great service to the population is silly. It's the same thing as hunting, if they take a healthy animal.

Also, the figures I have seen did indicate that the majority of hunting in Alaska is subsistence. If you know of any that say otherwise, I'd be happy to look at them.

[beam me up scottie]

100. I did read your post.

Sorry, I forgot to add that.

You know what you're talking about and I respect your opinion.

I also appreciate the respect you've shown me.


Unfortunately, I also read too many posts by the knee jerkers here who freak out whenever anyone mentions animal rights.

It would be wonderful if we could discuss this somewhere away from the pseudo-Ted Nugents, but that's not going to happen tonight.

I have to go and feed the strays and the birds (typical, I know)

Peace and goodnight.

[EstimatedProphet]

103. I appreciate that

I understand what you are saying too. This is an emotional issue on all sides. The issue I have is that often I have run into people that talk of banning hunting because they think it's hurtful to the pretty animals, and really don't have any idea of the repercussions that will happen if it is banned without a feasible alternative. Add to that that too many times I have simply been tuned out by people that don't want to look at the practical solutions, and don't respect the amount of study and work that can go into the management field.

I am open to discussions. I own guns but I'm not a gun nut. I hunt, but I'm not Ted Nugent. If feasible, observably testable ways are developed to manage populations, I say so much the better. Unfortunately I don't believe we're there yet.

[pitohui]

53. oh for the love of cryin out loud

way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

can't we relish the other side looking stupid for just one perfect day without someone supposedly on our side running and trying to grab the stupid flag away from them?

if you don't like sport hunting, no one is pushing a rifle and a license in your hand and forcing you to hunt!

[Dave Reynolds]

62. And what, pray tell,

will those of us who eat meat do for sustenance without eating animals?

This attempted forced veganism is another reason why moderate folks like myself think poorly of groups like this.

As I have posted here before, and would say to the face of any of you who think like this, keep your fundamentalism to yourself. I truly do not like or accept anyone who would attempt to force their version of morality on me.

[beam me up scottie]

69. The banning of sport hunting will interfere with your Big Macs how?

Nice straw man there Dave.

[Dave Reynolds]

71. From the original post:

"We no longer need to eat animals for our sustenance. And we surely don't need to get our "kicks" from pleasure-killing. Put an end to Sports Hunting."


Are not Big Macs made from animals? Or am I just too much of a knuckle-dragger to make sense of their little screed?

[beam me up scottie]

72. Do you sport hunt cows?

You do realize hamburger comes from cows, right?

[Dave Reynolds]

74. Um,

are you missing the fact that cows are animals?

Just because you may find them romantically appealing does not make them not animals.

[beam me up scottie]

76. The op posted about sport hunting. Since when are cows hunted for sport?

Why are you attacking me?

Is your argument that lame?

I guess it is.

[Dave Reynolds]

85. I only attack those who refuse

to see that a post states that we need not depend on animals for sustenance, that it may be construed as meaning a wider scope than sport hunting.

And, I also go after people who come across as self-righteous pricks who know everything. Not naming names, mind you.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Little harsh there dude. Is it 'cuz I called you a Cheney?

:rofl:

[BushOut06]

88. Read the entire post

Banning "sport hunting" is merely the first step in abolishing all hunting period. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the killing of all animals.

Now if we could only do something to get those pesky wild animals to stop killing and eating each other ;)

[beam me up scottie]

90. Oh, the "ultimate goal" eh?

Time to make a new secret code.:eyes:

[BushOut06]

93. What, they can't have a goal?

You're not going to actually deny that many animal rights groups want to do away with hunting completely, are you? Here's a direct quote from the OP:

"Understanding that abolishing hunting entails a process, a series of steps taken and not a single action that would effect our goal overnight, a time frame cannot be established. We hope for building a succession of wins, and if not wins immediately then at least a succession of stirrings of consciousness."

[beam me up scottie]

94. shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ~!

It's supposed to be a secret!

Our ultimate goal is to starve all meat eaters until they are too weak to put up a fight when we yank out their teeth.

We can force feed them tofurkey through a straw until their spirit is broken!

They'll never go back to their evil ways then!

Muahahahahahahahahahahaha !

You're on to us!:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

70. You can see why animal rights advocates don't bother to post here.

It's an open invitation to personal attacks by the mouth breathers.

They will misrepresent your posts, malign your intent and harass you for having the nerve to voice your opinion.

Kudos for having the guts to do it anyway.:patriot:

[Dave Reynolds]

75. Awww.

The fringe freaks take their balls and go home..

Waahhh.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Not likely, Cartman.

Although the intelligence level on this thread did drop drastically when you whined about the op wanting to take the food out of your mouth.:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

79. And there's the perfect example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=408198&mesg_id=410253

The op is forcing him to become a vegan by protesting sport hunting.

How dare we starve that poor man? :spank:

[BushOut06]

84. It sounded like the OP wanted to do away with all hunting

It was rather confusing. In one sentence, the OP talks about getting rid of hunting period. In another, the OP mentions "sport hunting" - but doesn't define it. The OP's views on animal rights are quite clear. Most "animal rights" people that I've seen are vegetarians, and completely against hunting - or any killing of animals.

This is where many people have problems, when other people want to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. We don't like it when Christians want to impose their morality on society, this is no different.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Yes, and asking the op for clarification would be taboo, wouldn't it?

Apparently it's much easier to build straw men so that you can dismiss the issue and teach the op a lesson.

Mission accomplished.

[T Town Jake]

80. It ain't gonna happen in these 50 united states, for a variety...

...of excellent reasons, as others in this thread have tried to explain to you.

And as far as winning issues for '08 goes, it's a loser for Democrats no matter which way you try to spin it. No thanks.

[Redneck Socialist]

96. Thanks for posting this

Now I know about another group not to donate to.

[Odin2005]

108. What a bunch of morons, they're all whiny city-slickers I bet.

Hunting is the only way in many places to prevent an overpoulation of herbivorous wildlife since we drove out or killed the native predators, getting shot is a much less agonizing death then starvation. This quote, "We hope to alter whatever belief still exists that sport hunters are conservationists and champions of the environment to a realization that they are destroyers of wildlife and ecosystems in the narrow and broad sense," shows that these morons don't know what the fuck they are talking about. You stupid city slickers want to alienate rural voters? fine, go right ahead.

:argh:

[SaveElmer]

109. I agree with the sentiment...but

I wouldn't introduce this into the political process just yet. This would be a BIG loser for Democrats in rural, southern, and western states.

It's like being an abolitionist in the early 1700's. A bit ahead of where society is ready to go.

[Ganja Ninja]

111. Just what we need, drive more people away from the Democrats.

No thanks.