Sustainable use VS animals rights.

[H&Hhunter]

Many people innocently believe that animal rights groups help wildlife. It's past time that people learn the difference between sustainable use and animal rights. The doctrine of animal rights guarantees the destruction of wildlife on a massive scale if allowed to be implemented.

There are only two major land masses that have radically increased their wildlife populations in the 21st century. Those are North America and Southern Africa. These are the only two places who practice regulated, conservation modeled, hunting and other scientifically proven sustainable use practices.

Watch this video it lays it out in very simple terms.

https://vimeo.com/160339309

 

[Art Eatman]

I've long said that animals have no rights. People have responsibilities.

 

[buck460XVR]

I've long said that animals have no rights. People have responsibilities.

The rights animals have, is for people to be responsible.

I have been hunting for over half a century. Next week I will be out in the woods gain in quest of Turkey. Only reason we have Wild Turkey in Wisconsin in numbers to hunt again is because of hunters. That said, I will do my best, if the good Lord gives me the opportunity again, to kill quickly and humanely. That is what I owe my quarry. That and respect for it's habitat and the rest of the flock. I also believe tho, that it's domestic brethren deserves the same kind of respect. While we all know the only reason most domestic turkeys are alive is for our Thanksgiving table, that does not men they need to live their short life in misery, even tho they know nothing different. Just as I believe that wild turkeys should only be hunted with the amount of pressure that will mean the flock will be there again next year. Same goes for all animals, whether they are hunted or only enjoyed by viewing. I live and hunt in the area where one of the last Passenger pigeons was documented to have been shot in the wild. Knowing that there were once black clouds of these animals in the surrounding Oak savannas and they numbered in the multiple Billions to the point of being 40% of the total bird population in the U.S. and now they are gone, brings a stark reality to irresponsible hunting.

 

[H&Hhunter]

brings a stark reality to irresponsible hunting.

More important in my mind is vast success that sustainable sport hunting has brought North America and Africa. If more countries would practice intelligent sustainable use. We'd have a lot more wild animals and wild places on this earth.

 

[matrem]

Time and time again, we've witnessed that words are just words, whether coming from a politicians lips, or the local anti-hunting "animal lover".

Words absolutely have far more merit coming from those having a vested interest, such as the folks that actually hunt and want sustainable populations of what they're hunting.

And real actions come from words spoken in earnest.

 

[FL-NC]

If people would just act like adults, and limit their animal killing to food or those animals that are legitimate pests or threats, and keep it within the law, that would be great. And not liking a particular animal "just because" doesn't make it a legitimate pest.

 

[Art Eatman]

Passenger pigeons and bison are bad examples to use in the context of today's sort of hunting. The passenger pigeon's demise resulted from market-hunting for restaurants and from the clearing of forest land for farming. The bison were killed of as official US government policy to "...end the commissary of the Plains Indians."

 

[Captcurt]

Passenger pigeons and bison are bad examples to use in the context of today's sort of hunting. The passenger pigeon's demise resulted from market-hunting for restaurants and from the clearing of forest land for farming. The bison were killed of as official US government policy to "...end the commissary of the Plains Indians."

A better example and result of the bambi hugger syndrome would be the Kaibab Plateau in Arizona. In 1905 there was an estimated herd of 4000 deer in an area that should support 30,000. President Teddy Roosevelt made the area a National Park and had the predators exterminated and all hunting curtailed. The deer became over populated, destroyed the food supply and during two winters in the mid 20's an estimated 60,00 deer starved.

Maybe they should have given them birth control.

 

[TimSr]

Sustainable use VS animals rights

All you have to do is look at where their funds are used. One uses funds for lobbying, and the other uses its funds for animals and/or habitat

A $20 hunting license will save more animals than a $20 donation to PETA, which will only save the lobbyist.

 

[H&Hhunter]

All you have to do is look at where their funds are used. One uses funds for lobbying, and the other uses its funds for animals and/or habitat

A $20 hunting license will save more animals than a $20 donation to PETA, which will only save the lobbyist.

Excellent point!

 

[Art Eatman]

Sad that the Kaibab Plateau debacle is long forgotten.

My hunting and fishing is pretty much done. The old "worn-out body" thing. But I buy the licenses to help the wildlife agency's budget. Increases the pro-rata share of the Pitman/Robinson money from USF&WS.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I feel a rant coming on so I'll keep the verbiage in check...

point a.) The orgs that preach the "animal rights" doctrine are usually those that expect shelter areas paid for by property taxes. Increasing those taxes tend to make the owners cut down the woods and thickets because they can no longer allow having the land out of production and in the process destroying habitat in a far greater area than the shelters.

Point b.) It's the rare PETA person that doesn't have an animal rights sticker on the left side of the bumper and a pro-choice sticker on the right yet none see the inherent hypocrisy involved greatly detracting from both messages.

 

[buck460XVR]

Passenger pigeons are bad examples to use in the context of today's sort of hunting. "

I did not use them in context of today's hunting, but as an example of irresponsible hunting in the past. The eradication of Wild Turkeys from Wisconsin years ago was also a example of irresponsible hunting. Responsible hunters brought them back and responsible landowners are now the reason we have more Wild Turkeys now than before man was here......and Wild Turkeys have a right to be here. Kinda the point. Responsible hunters for the most part, have evolved to be conversationalists, and in a way, defenders of Animal Rights.

You boast that animals have no rights. I don't agree. The good Lord put them here for a purpose and that purpose gives them rights. He did not put them here for us to exterminate/make extinct outta greed, but for us to be their stewards, to nurture them and to use them responsibly and with respect. They have a right to live, breed, and raise their young just as we do. While we may control the length of their life and how they meet their demise, they still have those rights. Without them, they too will be gone. We still cannot make an egg without a chicken.

There are irresponsible and uninformed Animal Rights folks, who don't have a clue, just as there are irresponsible and uniformed hunters. If there were no or very few irresponsible hunters, why would we have seasons and regulations. Why do we see even well known celebrities like "Uncle Ted" and "Big Jim West" getting ticketed for violations...and pleading guilty? Ain't cause they've been responsible. It's very evident throughout the world, that the reason most game animals are around in hunt-able populations, in areas where access is available, is because of responsible hunting and responsible hunters. Our world's Oceans are now going thru what once was happening on land. Populations that seemed so great they would go on forever....... dwindling. A few greedy fishermen/whalers attempting to take the majority of what's left, with no vision for what they themselves will do once those populations are gone. Every one of us that pleads the case for their survival, any one of us that belongs to NWTF, DU, Pheasants Forever....etc, is in a way, an Animal Right's activist.

It does not have to be Sustainable use vs Animal's Rights, but Sustainable use and Animal's Rights. Whenever I hear a hunter claim that animals have no rights or don't feel pain the way we do, I see the potential for a hunter that takes poor percentage shots and has no problem wounding animals without being able to retrieve them. I'm not saying you are that hunter Art, just that for some, the is potential there.

 

[X-Rap]

The loss of a species from the earth is a shame but when one thinks about the repercussions of having flocks like where seen with passenger pigeons or herds of buffalo on the plains it's obvious that they would have never been compatible with the development and destiny of this country.

 

[rodwha]

It reminds me of a conversation with my mother long ago.

She didn't like that I hunted and told me that until they were equally armed she didn't think it was fair or right. So I asked what chance her steak or chicken leg had.

That was the end of that...

 

[buck460XVR]

The loss of a species from the earth is a shame but when one thinks about the repercussions of having flocks like where seen with passenger pigeons or herds of buffalo on the plains it's obvious that they would have never been compatible with the development and destiny of this country.

Oh, I agree, but we still have herds of Bison(not buffalo) just not in the numbers we once had. Like any game animal, the numbers need to reflect their habitat. Hunting does this and can be controlled to be as selective as needed. Some folks would rather call it "culling" as if there really is any difference. Shoot them humanely without them knowing what's happening or round them up and drive them to a pen to be euthanized. Which is more responsible and done with more respect? As for the large flocks of Passenger Pigeons, no, there could never be 5 billion of them again, but in the area by me, where the plaque in my last post is dedicated to, has over 100,000 acres of habitat, on public land alone, very similar to what was there 150 years ago when the birds flourished. It is said that it would take a flock of over 5000 to sustain itself. Could it be possible? I dunno. Folks claim we have enough good DNA to clone birds at some point.

In the same woods where the Passenger Pigeons once thrived, the State and the local native Americans are reintroducing Elk........again with much help and support from hunters. Odds are there will never be a legitimate hunting season here, but it is still neat to hear them bugle in the fall while grouse hunting/bow hunting for deer. Last Pheasant hunt we were on, we saw 9 of them in the corn field.....pretty neat for a Wisconsin boy.

 

[H&Hhunter]

The funds from hunting here in North America and in Southern Africa is what pays to keep large tracts of wildlife habitat open. A lot of folks don't get that. No habitat, no wildlife.

 

[Pushrod]

Oh, I agree, but we still have herds of Bison(not buffalo) just not in the numbers we once had. Like any game animal, the numbers need to reflect their habitat. Hunting does this and can be controlled to be as selective as needed. Some folks would rather call it "culling" as if there really is any difference. Shoot them humanely without them knowing what's happening or round them up and drive them to a pen to be euthanized. Which is more responsible and done with more respect? As for the large flocks of Passenger Pigeons, no, there could never be 5 billion of them again, but in the area by me, where the plaque in my last post is dedicated to, has over 100,000 acres of habitat, on public land alone, very similar to what was there 150 years ago when the birds flourished. It is said that it would take a flock of over 5000 to sustain itself. Could it be possible? I dunno. Folks claim we have enough good DNA to clone birds at some point.

In the same woods where the Passenger Pigeons once thrived, the State and the local native Americans are reintroducing Elk........again with much help and support from hunters. Odds are there will never be a legitimate hunting season here, but it is still neat to hear them bugle in the fall while grouse hunting/bow hunting for deer. Last Pheasant hunt we were on, we saw 9 of them in the corn field.....pretty neat for a Wisconsin boy.

West Virginia used to have Elk, Panther, Wolves and Bison running through it's forests. I would love to see at least the Elk and Bison reintroduced. I know it would be long past my lifetime that they would increase in numbers enough for my son to hunt them in his lifetime. I think the last Elk was shot in West Virginia around Davis in the mid-1860's. The bison, wolves and panthers all disappeared in that time frame also.

 

[TimSr]

Wildlife continuously adapts, and since the beginning of time, as one species dies out, others adapt or evolve to continue the balance. The end of one species causes it's competitors for food and habitat to thrive. It's never as simple as having or not having a certain species. This is not to say that man should exterminate a species, but ecosystems change, and those that cannot adapt will die out, with or without the help of man. Reintroductions sounds all warm and fuzzy, but the consequences are a lot more complicated than simply bringing back the good old days. Every population of every species has some effect on other populations of other species. I'll use Pushrod's example. Today's West Virginia is a lot different than the one that was home to elk and bison. If re-introduced, could they survive, and what effect would they have on the species that filled the void when the elk were gone? We know that the deer population is over 10 times what it was 100 years ago. We know that in many places, a lot of deer starve in some winters due to too many eaters, and not enough food sources. What happens if we bring back other grazers to compete like elk and bison? Something has to decline. We've all heard the discussions of wild hogs competing with other wildlife. I think EVERY species as an invasive at one time. Wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone, and some species benefitted, but others declined.

We need to be responsible stewards of our wildlife, and it's habitat, but sometimes we get too caught up in trying to keep exactly as it is, when it's really not in our realm of control, and projecting all the "cause and effects" is a lot more complicated than we would like to think.

 

[buck460XVR]

We need to be responsible stewards of our wildlife, and it's habitat, but sometimes we get too caught up in trying to keep exactly as it is, when it's really not in our realm of control, and projecting all the "cause and effects" is a lot more complicated than we would like to think.

Ecosystems are very complex, one reason most casual observers do not understand how much impact adding or removing one element can make. Man has forever been attempting to manipulate those ecosystems to his advantage, while many time destroying it in the process. The removal of predators, the draining of wetlands, the clear-cutting of forests, replacing native grasses with ag crops......making room for a booming population. None of this means we cannot make a serious attempt to protect what is left. Some want to argue that the Passenger pigeons were exterminated by market hunting and not sport hunting. The fact is they were eliminated by both, done irresponsibly. In my area the habitat was not significantly changed, the roosting and nesting habitat affected, until after the last birds were shot. One only needs to look at the examples of Whooping cranes. it too was almost extinct due, for the most part, to unregulated, irresponsible hunting. Today while still considered endangered, it's numbers grow every year and millions of folks who once never saw a Whooper, now have the opportunity to see flocks of them, and to hear the call that gave them their name.

We both mentioned the word "stewards", and that is what I feel we are. Not only to the animals here on earth, but to the earth itself. Since the dawn of man, he has been a hunter. He has not always been responsible to his quarry, especially when greed was involved. We have learned many lessons. From those lessons we have learned how important sport hunting is to the game we seek, not just in controlling their numbers, but by the creation and continuation of their habitat. The desire to hunt them in the future means we will never shoot them all, and will do everything in our power to assure they continue to exist in hunt-able numbers. This is what the Bleeding Hearts do not understand. Even after the bleeding hearts move on to another cause, responsible hunters will still be sustaining animal populations, not just game animals, but all the animals within that ecosystem.

 

[H&Hhunter]

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20151208/wvdnr-prepares-for-return-of-elk-after-140-year-absence

Pushrod,

Looks like West Virginia is about to have an official elk population once again.

 

[CraigC]

It's easy to be judgemental of folks who lived 100yrs ago when whitetail were scarce in some areas and call them "irresponsible". You can't be responsible if you don't know. A man's family needed meat, he shot a deer. Just like he and all his ancestors had done. The concepts of hunting seasons and bag limits was totally foreign. Back then, folks were just learning all this. They were just beginning to learn that seemingly endless populations of animals could indeed be extinguished.

Personally, I think that habitat destruction and anti-hunting groups are a far greater threat than the few folks who get ticketed for minor violations. The greatest threat is the ignorance of the unwashed masses who believe the crap they hear from anti-hunting groups with obvious agendas.

 

[H&Hhunter]

It's easy to be judgemental of folks who lived 100yrs ago when whitetail were scarce in some areas and call them "irresponsible". You can't be responsible if you don't know. A man's family needed meat, he shot a deer. Just like he and all his ancestors had done. The concepts of hunting seasons and bag limits was totally foreign. Back then, folks were just learning all this. They were just beginning to learn that seemingly endless populations of animals could indeed be extinguished.

Personally, I think that habitat destruction and anti-hunting groups are a far greater threat than the few folks who get ticketed for minor violations. The greatest threat is the ignorance of the unwashed masses who believe the crap they hear from anti-hunting groups with obvious agendas.

Yes sir!! That is exactly the crux of the matter.

 

[silicosys4]

I was a harvest manager for a large salmon fishery for a time.
The political quagmire of harvest management is incredibly complex and sadly, much of the "conservation" decisions are made in reaction to lawsuits driven by advocacy groups who are completely ignorant of sustainable fishing methods.

People that hated seeing gill nets in rivers, yet didn't understand that gillnetting rivers containing a sustainable population of salmon is the most precise, directed fishery available, and relieves pressures on threatened stocks mingling with the general population in the ocean.

 

[Sniper66]

There is a similar problem in Rocky Mountain National Park. According to a ranger I talked to a couple years ago, there were 5,000 elk in an area that can sustain about 2,000. In the past they reduced the population with controlled hunts. They charged fees, hunters got to shoot really nice elk. Win win, right? Not so said the Animal Rights people. Now the population is managed with a very expensive system of trapping and relocating (Many die in this process) and birth control, which means many elk live until they become old and sick. The ranger went on and on about the many problems this policy has created. Beware of the do-gooders.