Originally posted by Shadowhnter:
Originally posted by Doug_K:
Originally posted by danbow:
I think we as humans go to far in thinking the wildlife need us to survive. Nature has a way of taking care of her own, they have done it for centuries. I don't think wolves, coyotes or any other predator stops to think whether or not they are leaving an orphan.
Nature would not need humans to survive, if the human population was anywhere reasonable. We have modified nature to suit our numbers, and so are required to manage it. We no longer live in a "wild" world. [/b]
.....have you really thought about how much open space there is available out there? Check out ground in Texas, Western Kansas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho....just to name a few. I dont think "over population" of humans is the reason for regulations within conservation. Market hunting brought that on many years ago when population of humans were a heck of a lot lower. One guy killing 1000 deer in a year is going to make a dent, its way more then he could ever use, so he would only do it to sell it. Thats why its also illegal to sell game in most States. Ive no doubt some Eastern States are well populated, but compared to the rest of the Country, there is a WHOLE lot of territory out there that aint seen a man in a long time. Think about it.... if its that over populated where you are, MOVE...theres lots of available space out there.. [/b]
Not interested in keeping another pointless argument going, but I feel the need to chime in one last time on this.
If every human hunter at this point in time were to get protein for their family solely on game -management laws be damned- do you have any doubt that a major decimation of game would result, if not outright extinction in the long term? This is where conservation management and common sense come in. It wasn't all that long ago conservationists were ridiculed and silenced for looking ahead. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
I have never "hugged a bunny" and as far as I know have never been called "tender hearted", however I think we have a good thing going in the USA, and I for one would like to see it continue. Choosing whether a single doe or fawn dies will not make a difference, and indeed it is often needed, but I do think the future of the herd should enter every ethical hunters mind before acting. Thinking nature will a assert itself despite our massive influence is naive at best.
There are definitely areas less populated in this country than others. But there are no "wild" areas in my state of Wisconsin, nor Michigan, nor any western state I've been to. Frankly, if I can see or hear a motorized vehicle within a week, I would have a hard time calling that anything remotely "wild". Alaska, some of the more isolated areas of Canada perhaps, I don't know, some day I hope to take a look for myself.
Regardless, I apologize to Graps for helping his story turn into a discussion on conservation (everybody hates those).
Mods feel free to delete if you feel it necessary, just needed to get it out.