Skip to main content

View Diary: How Wildlife Is Thriving Because Of Guns and Hunting (245 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  hannah you might be well intentioned but (7+ / 0-)

    simply unaware of facts.

    Most large fauna (animals) were killed off before Europeans arrived in North America. It has nothing to do with the color of a people's skin, it's just humans. We are the most efficient predators, and mass extinctions follow us whenever we arrive on a new continent or island, such as Australia, the Americas, etc.

    Hunters don't give money for others to restore, hunters themselves restore. Almost all employees of state fish and wildlife divisions are hunters and anglers, hunters and anglers sit on the state wildlife commissions that determine who the directors of fish and wildlife agencies are going to be and what their policies will be.

    Hunters and anglers are not only self funding (we pay for all species) we are also self regulating.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Sat May 17, 2014 at 06:52:16 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The Europeans shat in their own nest (7+ / 0-)

      Which is why they had to colonize the Americas.

      The Europeans overhunted their forests (which is why hunting was restricted to the noble classes), overfished their rivers and coasts, polluted the land and the waters, cut down all the forests (which is why they were sending shipload after shipload of lumber from the Americas to Europe---they were out of wood!), made their soils sterile through poor agricultural practices, etc.

      Etc.

      Etc.

      And let's not even talk about the effects of the ice age on mega-fauna.

      Do not even try to use the Americas as support for gun fetishism.

    •  It comes down to how you view nature... (5+ / 0-)

      The standard "European" view, for lack of a better term, is that nature is something to be subdued, dominated, and exploited for gain.  Man is above nature.  Hey, it even says so in the bible!

      The other view, held by most aboriginal cultures, is that nature is something we should live within.  We should have a cooperative, symbiotic relationship with nature, since we're part of it.

      Both views allow for hunting, but the difference is in the intent and intensity.

      •  ever spent time in a hunter gatherer society? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        Ever hunted as a European.

        The feeling of being immersed  in nature is common amongst all hunters who are participants, not mere observers..

        Agriculturists view nature as something to be subdued, something alien.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:36:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dear doG, help us (5+ / 0-)

          Even hunter-gatherers engage in agricultural activities when they gather.

          Westernized hunting is all about predation, especially sports hunting, which is what most people who have access to Daily Kos essentially are. If you had to hunt to survive, you wouldn't have time or means to spend here.

          And not all agriculturalists engage in Westernized agriculture, which is indeed about forcing nature to submit to their whims.

          •  all hunting is predation, we are a predator (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, dewley notid

            "sport" is simply the name we gave to differentiate from market hunting which almost caused massive extinctions. "Sport" hunting as you call it was codified by Leopold and other conservationists and is widely credited with saving the large species of north America. It's called the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Sat May 17, 2014 at 09:55:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, if sitting in a deer stand 30 feet from your (6+ / 0-)

          pickup, guzzling beer and waiting for a deer to happen by is your idea of participating in nature, what can we say?

        •  I can't tell if you're agreeing or not... (4+ / 0-)

          Are you arguing over my terminology? Or disagreeing with my statement?  Because it seems we're saying largely the same thing.

          I've had deer sausage and venison steaks.  I've eaten trout 15 minutes after it was caught in a mountain lake.

          I've also read about the Dallas Safari group that raffled off the chance to go to Africa and shoot an endangered black rhino.

          I've seen and read about the poaching that goes on in western North America; driven by trophy hunting, not by survival needs.

          Maybe it's an honest disagreement.  I wouldn't define  shooting an animal from a couple of hundred yards away using a telescopic sight and high-velocity ammunition as "being immersed" in nature.  Obviously, many people would disagree with me.

          •  What would you call a subsistence hunter who (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, Kasoru

            through war and upheaval immigrates to the US and was discussing having shot an antelope with telescopic sites at 200 yards. I was talking to a grandfather like that just last night. All the standard hunting rifles are high velocity.

            I think you misunderstand hunting. It's something you need to experience and I'm certainly not suggesting you do, but it's hard to explain otherwise.

            Do you know that major conservation groups supported that raffle? Do you know why? I could never afford to hunt in Africa, so it's easy for me to say I don't want to, but I do understand why it's good for conservation.

            Not sure what you've read about poaching in the west but I know it's rare and universally frowned upon. Hunters turn in poachers.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:27:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, I'm okay with responsible hunting... (0+ / 0-)

              I was reacting to your comment about being "immersed" in nature.  I freely admit that the idea of marveling over the beauty and majesty of an animal moments before shooting it from 200 yards away is foreign to me.  I'm not sure I can explain it, except to say that using a precision rifle and high powered optics and special ammo to kill from a great distance would seem (to me) to remove you from nature.  What's next, personal drones?

              To answer your main question:  I wouldn't deny anyone the right to hunt if it was for subsistence.  If I didn't make it clear in my earlier posts, I think that's my major criteria for defining "responsible" - that the hunting is primarily for food.  I have no respect for trophy hunting.

          •  I've heard that 50% of the kill in Washington is (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Smoh, ridemybike

            taken by 2% of the 'hunters', they tend to be out of season and outside other regulations so are tagged 'poachers'

            I was once invited to be a game warden by some wardens, the faction of wardens that don't want to carry guns on the job, I turned them down, I don't think I have the temperament to deal with some of these people

    •  Actually, hunters pay for reserves for hunters. (5+ / 0-)

      Forests have become deer farms and monoculture timber farms.
         The Nature Conservancy and similar groups do more preserve actual wildlife habitat.

      •  not anywhere I've seen, US is a big country though (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, Kasoru, dewley notid

        not sure how they do things outside the intermountain west. Talking about your first 2 sentences.

        Nature Conservancy is better than most. The difference between the way they conserve and the way hunters do is when we conserve anyone can go on the land and use it for most things. The land is not locked away from the people.

        Also we pay for law enforcement. The only kind that actually arrests people for violating wildlife laws. We also physically reintroduce species. Not just edible ones but predators too. Birds and reptiles.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:17:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site