Taco, will you please put this discussion in "Off Topic." It's seriously polluting the "Flora and Fauna" section. _________________ Ignorance is bliss. That must explain why I'm so happy!
KF, first off, the original post was not anti-hunting, it was anti-idiot.
As for wolves, they were practically exterminated by 1974. Currently, according to the FWS, there are about 5700 Gray Wolves in the lower 48. http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/popandrange.htm That is a hugely reduced population.The methods used to practically exterminate them were "current, legal methods" at the time. De-listing such a reduced population in order to subject them to "current, legal methods," is inadvisable.
Since you want to compare stats, I posted a question and you didn't give me an example of any animals that were made extinct by current, legal hunting methods. Most animals that are hunted actually increase in numbers.
KF, first off, the original post was not anti-hunting, it was anti-idiot.
As for wolves, they were practically exterminated by 1974. Currently, according to the FWS, there are about 5700 Gray Wolves in the lower 48. http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/popandrange.htm That is a hugely reduced population.The methods used to practically exterminate them were "current, legal methods" at the time. De-listing such a reduced population in order to subject them to "current, legal methods," is inadvisable.
Since you want to compare stats, I posted a question and you didn't give me an example of any animals that were made extinct by current, legal hunting methods. Most animals that are hunted actually increase in numbers.
I'm not trying to reignite a firestorm, but policies of the 70s are not current policies. Didn't they still allow mass poisoning of all predators back then? I do not agree with the mass extermination of any mammal, but I do support regulated hunting. _________________ "The Mountains are the means, the man is the end; the idea is to improve the man, not to reach the top of the mountain."
...what passes for fun in rural America seems like senseless killing to most urban dwellers.
I have to wonder if they [hunters] are brain dead or just incredibly naïve and ignorant about the rest of mainstream society’s values?
Most people don’t hunt, so the perception of hunting and hunters is key to how society will tolerate and support hunting as a legitimate activity.
I don't know if wolves should or should not be hunted. I don't live in a rural western state. The thing that gets me is why does one set of people (urban dwellers) feel like they can dictate to another set of people (rural dwellers). If rural dwellers offered hints on reducing traffic congestion, they'd be laughed at, but somehow urban dwellers think their comments on hunting are reasonable. Generally, I think such things should be regulated by those who live in the area. It isn't right for outsiders to impose their values on some distant, rural area, an area that they know nothing about and have no clue what life is like there.
Note that I said "generally" and I say that mostly in the sense of values and general mores. In setting aside national parks and preserves and enforcing the Endangered Species Act with respect to a particular species is not only appropriate but necessary.
I wouldn't want a rural dweller to dictate land use in Los Angeles any more than a rural dweller would want me to set hunting regulations in his area.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
