hunting via internet?

[Gary D.]

Well, I thought to respond on this thread a while ago, but I figured Slannesh was handling it so well, I would just read. What I wiil interject here that while Slannesh's posts were not only informed opinion they contained lots of factual information. I would encourage anyone who skipped over them due to their length to go back and actually read them in their entirety. Even at that he really only touched on the imediately relevant points of the debate. My initial post secondary education was four years in college studying renewable resource management/environmental sciences. Believe me when I say that regardless of ones opinions on the ethics of hunting, the fact remains that the effects of the human condition on this planet make managed and responsible hunting a necessity throughout MOST of north america. That said there are certainly portions of North America where game hunting is not a necessity (in regards to wildlife populations), but with proper and controlled hunting practices, it is at worst harmless. I would also like to point out that illegal exploitation (poaching) of wildlife is a world wide problem. In North America hunting fees also contribute to enforcemant and prosecution of local and international wildlife protection laws. In Addition programs such as TIPs and Report-A-Poacher (in which responsible hunters and fishermen aid the authorities by doing just that) are vital and successful tools in protecting our wildlife from exploitation. Other factors not mentioned are that the hunting & fishing industry is worth millions annually, employing hundreds of thousands of individuals , which in turn supports other industries such as travel, tourism, etc. and makes the herp industry look like no more than a fly spec to a landfill. Perhaps some people's informed opinions and research are not as informed as one would think.

Gary D.

Edit: And on topic, I too agree online hunting is disgracefull. If you shoot an animal it is your responsibility to see that the animal is recovered and fully utilised. Now unless you can get on a private jet and be in Texas and claim and dress your kill in a matter of hours at best...

[Slannesh]

Wow... thanks Gary.

I know I didn't really go into a lot of detail, partially because while I know the basics I don't even pretend to understand the more indepth ideas and methods of ecology.. there's a reason people go to school for years to learn it. It's definately a VERY complicated issue that requires a ton of things to be balanced against each other to work.

You can thank my father for making sure that I was actually paying attention to the important stuff as opposed to the "OH COOL I GET TO SHOOT A GUN" that most 10-12 year olds would focus on

I'd also like to point out that while a lot of laypeople don't see the distinction, there is a HUGE difference between 'hunting' and 'poaching'. The latter makes the former look bad and trust me, hunters get way madder about poaching than normal people do.

[joey]

Poachers are evil.

[Gary D.]

Another fact: People often only hear what they want to hear.

[joey]

AP
Autumn Tradition Turns Deadly in Wisconsin

6 minutes ago

Add to My Yahoo! U.S. National - AP

By JOSHUA FREED and ROBERT IMRIE, Associated Press Writer

BIRCHWOOD, Wis. - As several deer hunters made their way through the woods of northern Wisconsin, they were startled to come upon a stranger in their tree stand. Asked to leave, the trespasser, wearing blaze-orange and carrying a semiautomatic assault rifle, opened fire on the hunters and didn't stop until his 20-round clip was empty, leaving five people dead and three wounded, authorities said. Another hunter died Monday.

Photo
AP Photo

AP Photo Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow Slideshow: Five Killed in Wis. Hunting Dispute

AP Video Hunters' Trespassing Dispute Leads to 5 Deaths
(AP Video)


The shooter was eventually captured.

The killings baffled authorities and stunned residents in a state where deer hunting is a rite of autumn — a sport practiced by thousands of people who scour the woods for nine days each November with hopes of bagging a trophy buck.

"This is an incredible tragedy, one in which a great family tradition like a deer hunt has turned into such a great loss," Gov. Jim Doyle said Monday.

Police identified the shooter as Chai Vang, 36, a hunter from St. Paul, Minn., who is a member of the Twin Cities' Hmong community. While authorities do not know why he allegedly opened fire, there have been previous clashes between Southeast Asian and white hunters in the region.

Locals have complained that the Hmong, refugees from Laos, do not understand the concept of private property and hunt wherever they see fit. In Minnesota, a fistfight once broke out after Hmong hunters crossed onto private land, said Ilean Her, director of the St. Paul-based Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans.

No one answered the door Monday at Vang's yellow, two-story house in a working-class neighborhood of St. Paul. A cardboard container for a hunting tree stand, an orange stocking cap and bottles of water could be seen through the windows of a front entryway. Several neighbors said they knew little about him, but some in the Hmong community have described him as an avid hunter.

Minneapolis police said they arrested Vang on Christmas Eve 2001 after he waved a gun and threatened to kill his wife. No charge was brought because she didn't cooperate with authorities, spokesman Ron Reier said. St. Paul police say they were called to Vang's house twice in the past year on domestic violence calls, but both were resolved without incident and no police reports were filed.

Other family members said they were shocked by the allegations in the hunting shooting.

"He is a reasonable person," his younger brother, Sang Vang, said. "I still don't believe it. He is one of the nicest persons. I don't believe he could do that. We are so devastated right now."

[Jeff Hathaway]

Well that's just nuts... Good argument for the benefit of not allowing 20 round magazines, or even semi-automatics for that matter. Not quite sure how it relates to the current debate about internet hunting (dumb, in my opinion), or the larger 'ethics of hunting' debate, anymore so than a report about a drive-by shooting in LA.

Hey, if someone shoots people from a moving car and it's called a 'drive-by', would this incident be referred to as a 'stand-by'???

Anyone truly concerned about conservation in southern Ontario would support measures to reduce our deer numbers, especially in certain areas at present. Yes, hunting is regulated (like most activities) so that the population is kept reasonably high, but in many parts of Ontario there are simply not enough deer harvested that their numbers are at best unreasonable, and in some cases, a tremendous problem.

You might be interested to know, noname, that in parts of Ontario, hunters were allowed to shoot up to 6 does and 1 buck. And, tags for each of these cost $34. In this same area, an acquaintance of mine has hit 2 deer on the road in the last 3 years. I counted almost 60 along a 20 minute stretch of highway in the spring.

Now it could be argued that reducing vehicle collisions is not a valid conservation concern, as we could certainly use fewer vehicles on the roads, and even a few less people might be considered beneficial. However, almost always the vehicles get replaced, and the environmental cost of manufacturing new cars is fairly high. Even the loss of farm production has an enviromental cost in the fertilizer inputs, tractor fuel, use of extra land, etc. to produce extra crops.

However, I was referring mostly to the grazing pressure on many rare plant species, especially in the carolinian zone of SW Ontario. In protected areas such as Point Pelee, Rondeau, etc. where these plants still manage to have a foothold amongst the surrounding sea of agricultural land, the very high deer numbers cause very significant problems. Of course, perhaps a person might only care for the conservation of animals, and not rare plants, but I think that's a pretty short-sighted view.

Why are the deer numbers so high? We converted much of the land from dense forest to agricultural use. Crop lands, and grazing lands, with small patches of forest or wetland in between. Just enough to shelter the large numbers of deer that the increased forage allows for. This land use pattern isn't likely to change any time soon. Also, we wiped out the large predators, as has been mentioned already. This is also not likely to change soon, though perhaps sooner than the land use, if people's attitudes towards large predators could only be changed!

So how to regulate the deer? Options like birth control were seriously considered for small problem spots (Toronto Airport, Point Pelee, etc.) but even for these tiny areas it was judged ineffective. All we are left with is either 'hunting' by members of the public, which generates revenue at the same time, or organized 'culling' which costs money. Both are useful in certain circumstances, but which one do you think is preferable in most cases?

Canada geese are another species where such a case could be made. Squirrels, too, though not in most areas. And, if you're especially concerned about reptiles, you might know that nest predation in southern Ontario (and likely in other areas of dense human habitation) is incredibly high due to the increased numbers of raccoons and skunks that come with a lack of large predators plus humans and their garbage. 'Subsidized predators', we call these, and in some places they wipe out virtually every turtle nest. So save a turtle- shoot a racoon! (Yes, this is obviously an oversimplification).

Certainly, nature is resilient. We could leave nature alone and it will find a new balance. But, with all of the changes that have accompanied our existance, that new balance might just not have any turtles in it, or orchids, or wild hyacinth, etc. Are you prepared to let things work on their own and allow such things to decline to extinction?

I'm not.

Jeff Hathaway
Sciensational Sssnakes!!

[noname]

Wow, for a little girl, I caused quite the stir. Lol.