From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: crackhouse and hunting
Date: 14 Sep 92 03:28:02 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>`Christopher Morton writes:
>`>Who defines "needless"?  Ingrid Newkirk would consider a cure for AIDS 
>`>developed using animals as needless.  An AIDS patient would probably 
>`>disagree.

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>`So are they hunting deer now to find a cure for AIDS.  The topic at hand was
>`FFA's stand on black bear hunting and hunting in general.To go after an animal
>`for "sport" is needless.  To "manage" populations so that a viable crop is 
>`around the next year for "management" is apparently needless.  

Scott Wood writes:
>You want to call my hunting useless?  If I deer hunted for sport, I would have
>gotten out of it a long time ago.  Because Undeniable Truth #1 is that I
>have never killed a deer.  But if given opportunity (as I have had and both
>passed up or had equipment difficulties that led me not to risk taking the
>shot and unsuccessfully killing the animal) I would.

I think your hunting, up to now, is great.  Enjoy nature for what its worth,
rather than blowing it away.

>`>Why is hunting NOT an option?
>
>`Why is it about the only option tried?  In a few instances you hear of re-
>`locating animals, but that appears to be one of the least used.  All too
>`often, the blown them away option is more "economic" or "feasible".
>
>We are talking about overpopulation.  How much money (taxpayers money no
>doubt, hell the deficit is growing anyway) do you plan on spending to do
>this?  And how many do you move?  And what happens next year?  The fact
>is, that when animals become overpopulated, you must get rid of them.

How about the human population?  How do you plan to get rid of them when
it becomes necessary?  To raise revenues for relocation, habitat rebuilding,
and birth control programs, you can levy user fees for state lands (BLM, etc)
and parks, national parks, increase water use fees, etc.  You can also
appropriate more revenue by turning lands into free enterprise economic zones
with the stipulation that the leassees do not alter or destroy that land.
There are many ways to raise revenues, but very few to reclaim something once
it is lost.

>You either slaughter them like the buffalo (not that they were
>over populated without having to share resources/land with man - but they
>were in fact slaughtered) or let hunters - humans - utilize the resources
>as they desire to do.  As is right to do.  As is their right to do.

Could you please give me a citation that says hunting is right? In the
US please......

>`>Expanding available habitat WHERE?  Are you willing to have your home or 
>`>apartment bulldozed to make room for deer habitat?
>
>`How about allocating land taken by the State in foreclosures, drug arrests,
>`etc. and convert them to wildlife habitats?  Why allow continued expansion
>`of cities into rural areas while many of the inner cities are falling into
>`ruin?
>
>O.K.  I will find a crack house somewhere in a run down section of town.
>I will tear it down and put up a game reserve with my own money.  

I was referring to the increased use of outlying areas for subdivisions and
officeparks, malls, etc.  If you invest in a rundown area, the value of that
area increases, making it, once again, a viable community.  Habitat for 
Humanity will often take vacant buildings such as crackhouses and rebuild
them into real homes.  For every subdivision not built in rural areas, more
habitat is free for animal and people use.

>Try to tell a would be criminal/neighbor or a crackhead who is looking for
>his old dealer that you bought the place to save a rabbits life and count
>how many seconds it takes for them to blow your head clean off.  The only
>way to do programs like that is to increase spending and level whole
>blocks.

Wrong.  See above or read some of the press that Jack Kemp has been getting
at HUD.

>Don't get me wrong.  I think it is a great idea.  I would support any plan
>that could make it work - hell, it would help to secure state lands for
>hunting.  But I wouldn't want to move to a "run down" neighborhood and I
>don't think many other people would either.

Only if you perceive it as rundown....

>`Why is man now elevated to the status of "THE ONLY PREDATOR"?
>
>The point was that there are no other predators in these areas powerful
>enough or even inclined to try to take down an elk.  Even a calf.  The area
>where we go - the area which I spoke of - has coyote as the largest predator.
>Very very seldom do they ever even take down a young deer for hungers sake.
>Sick or weak animals will always be pray to any type predator, but the
>healthy animals have no control.  If you can not understand that concept,
>then you have not studied enough about ecology and you should hit the
>books before opening your mouth again.

But they will take the young too.  If the animals become strained due to
lack of food, doesn't that make them now pray for the predators.  Only the
healthy animals will survive.  Isn't that the purpose of wildlife management?
Also it would appear that wildlife did the managing. 

>The Timber Wolf is gone in these areas now, due to their inability to
>adapt with man, and the Grey wolf has only been introduced to the
>Upper Peninsula.  I would not say the present population of the lower
>peninsula would see fit to bringing timberwolfs down there, and anyway,
>if you have ever read "Never Cry Wolf", you would know that even wolves
>survive on mainly small animals and rodents.

They are very opportunistic animals and would take a large animal if the
right one presented itself.  How many humans have been attacked by a healthy
wolf in North America?  Could it be....none?  Wolves, a major threat to us.

>The black bear in that area are and always have been low to moderate in
>number, and tend to eat fruits and berries and other vegetation or insects.

Which is why they are a threat to humans and should be removed in spring
hunts?

>(I feel redundant on this point - when will you people get it?)
>swood

(So do I - when will YOU?)
Rob U
--
-       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                             -