Well, we’ve (humans have) been around for quite some time, and it’s a fairly recent, relatively, development of species extinction due specifically to human hunting. No, I can’t site anything, so I’d be willing to back off of that position should someone be able to provide info otherwise.
Of course humans are a natural element of the Earth, I never said otherwise. Nature seems to have a few ways of dealing with our over-population, too (earthquakes, flooding, tornados, inbreeding).
Uh, no. I like Manhattan. I like urban sprawl. I’m not a hunter simply because I’ve not gotten to it yet, but I’m surely not an “animal lover” in the context you mean it. I love my cats, but I feel no qualms eating steak, veal, lamb, quail, venison, buffalo, ostrich, or chicken. Thanks for playing, though.
Hey, I’m just saying that given the option of allowing coyotes that, for the past 20 or so years (read: known history of property), have had exactly zero presence, to roam and poach in my (or my sisters back yard) or to shoot them on sight, well, I’ll opt for snuffing the furry little things.
Well Phobos, I guess we can now add to your list;
(3) Human safety, and (4) To protect kittens.
Does anyone else think that maybe this debate is getting just a littli silly?
Peace,
mangeorge
“Nature” did a pretty good job of species extinction long before homo sapiens came about. I agree that we have “artificially” accelerated the extinctions (or the threat thereof) of countless species, but thanks to awareness, animals like the Bald Eagle are starting to make a comeback.
I would argue that while hunting may have done in a few, other human factors such as pesticides, waste management, urban encroachment and leisure activities (boating is wiping out the manatees), are doing far more harm than hunting ever did - at least in America. The Great Apes of Zaire are dying off pretty fast due to loss of environment and poaching.
Today, hunting is a pretty well licensed, seasoned and controlled sport here, and threatened species are protected. Even fishing has limits.
Exactly my point. (I wasn’t recommending the extra $$$, I was saying that the State would rather take in license money and let hunters take care of the problem rather than dishing out $$$ for a new program.)
It has meandered a bit from the OP hasn’t it? I had better stop before I get a reputation as a deer-hugging liberal around here! Maybe I can find a GD about the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism.
Just so we’re clear, I’m agreeing with you, wrath.
I’m for controlled hunting. I’m for protection of the environment and endangered species, whether they be endangered due to pesticide use/abuse, errant highway construction, idiots on power boats or (over-)hunting.
The issue isn’t neccessarily black and white, I think we’ll all agree and it has been discussed earlier. There is hunting and there is slaughter (see Japanese whalers). I support hunting, but I also want to snap a few pictures of nature.
