Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!lafite.dec.com!tbrownell
From: tbrownell@lafite.dec.com (And the Sky, is a Hazy Shade of Winter)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: hunting
Message-ID: <8811101311.AA25068@decwrl.dec.com>
Date: 10 Nov 88 13:11:00 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 40


 
>True. Fees from duck hunters are almost solely responsible for buying
>and preserving wetlands. In Illinois, part of every hunting and fishing
>license goes for nongame wildlife - to buy and maintain wild areas.
>Without hunters, little or no money would be spent for this. A ban on 
>hunting would be a total disaster for wildlife nationwide.
>That's why people like Cleveland Amory are basically misguided. His
>heart may be in the right place but he's deluded in his anti-hunting 
>stance.

   I don't think that someone with an anti-hunting stance is necessarily
  "deluded". It all depends on how broad their complaint is. Nor do I think
  that a hunting ban would be a "total disaster for wildlife". I think
  some species such a deer would be driven to large scale natural die-offs
  but I doubt that some of the more obscure species that a regularly
  hunted, and benefit little from wetlands acquisition (doves, grouse
  etc.) would be adversely effected. Granted,  hunting of some species has 
  become a requirement, due to our forefather's penchant for blasting 
  predators into extinction. I myself do not hunt, but neither
  do I begrudge those who feel that they must. Duck stamps and hunting 
  licenses do provide additonal income for wetlands acquisition.
  What aggravates me is the total disregard that many hunters have for
  the environment that provides them with their prey. Nothing ires me more
  than hiking through local wildlife management areas and seeing spent
  shotgun shells as far as the eye can see. As of late, I have been 
  finding them in my own yard, a few acres of eastern hardwood forest,
  as remnant of the upland game-bird season. This despite the fact
  that my land is posted and my property line is less than the state
  mandated minimum hunting-to-residence distance. Last year my neighbor's
  car was hit by a pellet as he was waxing it. Bottom line, we need 
  hunting to keep the prey species population in line. We do not need 
  additional pollution, nor do we need to consider hunting as 
  a contributor to the goodness of society. I still question whether
  rails, grouse and woodcocks need to be kept in check and I honestly
  feel that hunting is nothing more than a somewhat necessary evil.

  Terry Brownell
  DEC
  Hudson, Massachusetts