From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:55:12 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Scott Wood writes:
>`>Because they do it under the guise of animal welfare.

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>`If preventing the needless slaughter of animals isn't animal welfare,
>`what is?

Scott Wood writes:
>But how?  The only efforts (short of sit-ins and demonstrations which
>never work anyway - haven't since the sixties) I have seen are just as
>if not more harmful than the things they were trying to stop.
>(ie liberating animals to starvation and little or no care)

Explain to me how someone liberates a wild animal to starve to death?
Granted, a hunter would do this, but the animal ends up dead anyway!

>`>When in fact some types of hunting are necessary to control populations of
>`>animals.  
>
>`Why is hunting the only option?
>
>What other options are there?  If a population gets out of control, or
>gets too large, it must be reduced.  

There is relocation, increasing habitat, birth control.  How do game
management practices, that do just that "manage game", solve the
problem of overpopulation?

>You could hire professionals to slaughter them as the settlers did with
>the Buffalo but I think we all know how that turned out.

Yep, there are no more of those herds "overpopulating" the plains.  And it
wasn't really the settlers that did the hiring.....

>So instead they leave it up to hunters.  People who for the most part,
>spend lots of time, energy and money to see to it that the animals are
>around for a long time to come.  

Yep, so that they can "control" the population next year, the year after,
the year after that, etc.

>People who's license dollars and club dues and hands-on efforts attribute
>to more feeding, 

which increases the population they are trying to control.....

>land and habitat management, 

which is admirable.....

> and actual good for wild animals (not just game animals) 

except for the game animals since they end up dead

>than any other group - AR or otherwise - anywhere.

What of the groups that own non-hunting habitat sanctuaries?

>`If management policies were aimed at expanding available habitat, promoting
>`decreased breeding of the species instead of providing resources for hunters,
>`some of the problems could be SOLVED rather than put off for a few years....
>
>Who do you think pays for state land?  

Well, in Michigan I use to.  In Indiana I do now as I do in Iowa and I do not
hunt.....

>I know for a fact that without
>the revenues from hunting in my state, there would be probably one
>tenth of the state recreation areas in this state.

What of the boat licensing fees, park use fees, tax dollars?  I would gladly
pay more to make up for the lost revenues, as would others.  They may grumble
a bit about it, but in the long run they would agree it was necessary.

>And how in the hell do you intend to decrease breeding of wild animals?
>That is preposterous.  I suppose you are going to spay and nueter them too?

How about injecting them with anti-bodies that weaken the cell walls of the
unfertilized egg, thus sterilizing them?  How about having hunters ONLY
target females until the population is below the capacity of the land?

>I heard a quote the other day from a book that claims the quote was
>outlandish and untrue.  I was from Ronald Reagan back around 1984 in which
>he claimed there is more forest in this country today than when Columbus
>landed on American soil.  I have not found proof to substatiate this
>yet, but I believe it to be true.  Most people wouldn't as they are
>thinking in regards to "mature forest" in contrast to forests in general.

Being that you are from Rochester, take a look around.  Some of the farms in
the State of Michigan use to be forests, as was Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, etc.  You can always play around with stats and that may
be what the Reagan speechwriters have done.  (I am a Reagan man)  He might
have been referring to new growth forests, and there were no new growth
forests (except where fires wiped out old growth) unlike today.
The US has about 10 percent of old growth left. 
 
>I bring this up because I want to make the point that the deer population
>in the country is phenominally higher than it was when the Indians were
>the only people here.  This is for a variety of reasons, the two most
>profound of which being the conversion of Mature forests to new growth
>forests (which provide more abundant food in the form of buds on young,
>fast growing trees such as popple and sage) and the increase in predatory
>control - a.k.a. human hunting.  This has been proven.

So, the reason that there are too many deer is because human intervention has
has altered nature's balance?  Seems we can't do a good job of management.

>If it weren't for hunters, there would be no reintroduction of Elk to
>my state.  There would be no reintroduction of Grey wolf to my state.
>There would be no reintroduction of Grayling to my state.  There would
>be no reintroduction of Moose to my state.  And there would be no
>introduction o Ring-neck or Sechuan Pheasant to my state.  

And what of the state's where natural predator reintroduction is being
blocked, even though naturalists say it should be done? 

>`>I think of an example of a club which I belong to that openly welcomes
>`>Elk hunters
>
>`Question:  Does the club encourage/discourage killing of the females?
>
>What difference does it make?  

If only females are taken, there are fewer offspring the next season making
for more available habitat for the remaining animals.  This is population
management and not hunting resource management.

>I have witnessed elk and elk damage first hand.  Until you have spent as
>much time in the woods with them as I have, I would not question their
>interaction with their environments ecology.
>swood

Why do you assume that I have not spent most of my early years in the great
outdoors of the UP?  Why do you assume that I do not spend my weekends
exploring many of the State and National Parks and Forests in the area 
observing the wildlife, their habitat, and mans rape of the wilderness?

Rob U, there is nothing like the mournful howl of a free Timber Wolf
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -