From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: (none)
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 18:55:33 GMT

In article <9211121952.AA01833@service> gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:
>The recent thread on whether hunting has impacted wildlife populations has
>been interesting. From the discussion, I would conclude that it has 
>affected some, but not others.  I think a more interesting question is what
>has been the impact of "modern" game management practices?  
>


In SC, modern game management practices have led to a bountiful supply 
of game species. Cutting timber is a big industry here and this in itself
has led to an increase in the deer herd and other species. I don't think
anyone planned that to happen, but it certainly has been a positive factor
in managing game habitat. I guess the biggest influence has been the wise
use of seasons and limits on each game species. Hunting has seemingly had
little affect on game. One thing that is noteworthy was that there was a
very poor brood hatch of wild turkeys last year due to a very wet Spring.
As a result the Fall turkey hunt was cancelled to ease the pressure on the
birds. I have not heard if there will be a Fall hunt this year or not. THis
is one way that the wildlife people can respond to variations in wildlife
populations. But....THere are those who will argue that the numbers of most
game species are held at an "artificially" high level to draw in hunters
who spend money on gas, lodging, ammo, license fee's, etc....  But hey,
this is good for the economy, right??  I personally don't see anything
wrong with this as long as the species don't exceed the capacity of the
habitat to support them.
 



>But I think a stronger case against hunting can be made on the grounds of
>morals and ethics.  Hunting today amounts to "killing for fun."  Less than
>2% of hunting qualifies as subsistence hunting.  
>

But, 100 % of the hunters I know take their game home to supplement the 
food intake of their families and friends. True, they would survive some
how without the wild game but I don't think it would be from eating mostly
bean sprouts, legumes, and rice.



>Survey research consistently supports the finding that killing of the
>animal is only one part of the total hunting experience.  Being outdoors, being
>with friends, enjoying the scenery, etc. consistently rank above or on par with
>the killing experience.  In other words, there are alternative activities
>that can replace hunting.
>

And what of all the animals and birds if hunting is done away with??
I just can't see hundreds of thousands of species dying of old age or
whatever and then just rotting in the fields and waterways. To me, that
is a crime of waste.

>As such, hunting is a blood "sport" that will (hopefully) fade as we as a
>species expand our ethics to include others.
>

Hunting may fade to decreased level in time, but it will never go away.
I think I can make that statement with relative certaintity.

>Greg Brown   
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>gregb@serivce.csrv.uidaho.edu
>             (208) 885-6721
>
>"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way
>it treats its animals"
>                 Ghandi
>

 
Keith


-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |  Go Volunteers!   | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals