Hunter Education

[hate]

btw...

"National Policy to Protect Hunting Introduced - Mon Aug 15 2005 10:46 PM Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply



National Policy to Protect Hunting Introduced

Landmark congressional legislation has been introduced to protect hunting on federal lands.



Senate Bill 1522, the Hunting Heritage Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-GA; Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK; Sen. Richard Burr, R-NC; and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-AK will establish federal recognition of the intrinsic value of hunting as recreation and as a wildlife management tool.



The bill is similar to one developed and promoted by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) in 2000. That legislation was supported by a coalition of nearly 70 state and national conservation organizations.



“Specifically, the Act establishes in law Congress’ recognition of the significant role that hunters play in conservation,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSA president. “This law will direct federal agencies to support, promote and enhance recreational hunting opportunities.”



Pidgeon said that a key element of the Hunting Heritage Protection Act is a stipulation for “no net loss of hunting” opportunities. Under this provision, the government is directed to maintain, at the minimum, current levels of federal hunting lands to be open for sportsmen’s use. If federal lands were to be closed to hunting, the no net loss directive requires the opening of compensatory huntable lands.



At the state level, Illinois, Georgia and Maryland have passed Hunting Heritage Protection Acts based on the USSA model. Pennsylvania and Oregon have seen the introduction of bills that also prevent the net loss of available state hunting lands.



A hearing on SB 1522 is expected in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources when Congress returns from summer recess in September."

[hate]

As for the conservation issue - until humans fucked up the natural balance of things, the need to hunt to preserve some ecological balance really wasn't very pressing.

if by "fucking up the natural balance" you meant 'habitat encroachment'.... then yes, we are continuing to fuck up at an alarming rate.

[shadd_]

As for the conservation issue - until humans fucked up the natural balance of things, the need to hunt to preserve some ecological balance really wasn't very pressing.

if by "fucking up the natural balance" you meant 'habitat encroachment'.... then yes, we are continuing to fuck up at an alarming rate.

bingo.

[tnf]

it boils down to the management of wild animals (conservation) with our ever-sprawling cities

therefore, we need hunting regardless of the intent.

Yes...because of OUR ever-sprawling cities...which goes back to my original point that until humans fucked over the natural balance (yes habitat encroachment, as well as elimination of top predators, directly or indirectly) of things, hunting for that reason was not a necessity. But I also realize fully that I enjoy the fruits of urbanization as much as anyone else, so I'm not going to say that it's everyone else's fault. I think, though, we ought to maybe look at what we can do to address another issue - the ever sprawling cities. Sure, hunting will help to prune animal populations that would otherwise burgeon, overgraze, and then eventually die off from starvation, disease, whatever...but eventually, with continued sprawl, there isn't going to be much in the way of animal populations to hunt anyhow.

I guess an old quote I heard sums it up...

Humans need to start controlling their own population and expansion in a humane fashion, lest mother nature finally do it in a very inhumane fashion.

Maybe a slight shift away from our anthropocentric ideals....

[shadd_]

cities.

[[xeno]Julios]

Here's an idea:

Huge wildlife corridors are developed so that the earth is divided up between humans and other animals. The only barrier is a stream or river and brush.

Humans are allowed to enter the wildlife reserve to sightsee or hunt, but are only allowed a knife as weapon (either for hunting or for protection). If they die, then that's just too bad.

Could make for some interesting death sentences - ala running man.

[shadd_]

Here's an idea:

Huge wildlife corridors are developed so that the earth is divided up between humans and other animals. The only barrier is a stream or river and brush.

Humans are allowed to enter the wildlife reserve to sightsee or hunt, but are only allowed a knife as weapon (either for hunting or for protection). If they die, then that's just too bad.

Could make for some interesting death sentences - ala running man.

humans did that for thousands of years already. do you eat meat jules? do you have the guts and respect to kill that animal yourself or do you need someone else to kill it for you?

[hate]

an eloquent summation for those not abreast. :icon25:

Controlled Hunting is Environmentally Friendly
by: John Mills

Humans have always hunted. Food, clothing, tools, and shelter were mainly provided by harvesting wild plants and animals. Humans are animals, and like all species, are totally dependent on natural resources for survival. Humans are, have always been, and always will be a part of, and not apart from, nature. Whether, they choose to eat domesticated fruits and vegetables, processed foods, wild animals and plants, or farmed livestock, the environment (nature) is the source of all these foods.

Humans evolved as omnivores - creatures that eat both plant and animal materials. Like bears, raccoons, and painted turtles, humans are also predators. All predators have developed specialized physical features for hunting through time, such as talons, claws, or venom. Lacking such well-developed, natural adaptations, humans use their intelligence as an advantage when hunting. From hunting in groups using clubs and stones to the current use of modern firearms, humans have been successful at obtaining animal and plant foods from the wild.

But do humans really need to hunt? In today's technological society, there is fresh produce from California, frozen fish sticks, locally-grown greenhouse tomatoes, and many fast-food outlets. Aside from a few aboriginal cultures that still depend on hunting and gathering, who needs to hunt to survive?

In North America, many aboriginal people still hunt as part of their cultural and social traditions. Many non-natives also hunt as part of a chosen lifestyle that often includes activities, such as gardening, fishing, trapping, and cutting firewood. All these people hunt because they need and want to; it provides nutritious food for the table, allows one to provide for oneself, and fosters a closeness with the environment. But how does modern hunting impact on today's wildlife? Can humans kill wildlife and still expect healthy populations of animals to exist into the future?

All plant and animal species have evolved so that each has a strategy that helps to ensure their future survival. Many species produce more young than available habitat can support. There is only so much food and shelter available, particularly during the winter. These "surplus" animals die from a variety of causes - starvation, disease, predation, or accidents. Old age is seldom an option in the wild. Only those that elude predators, find enough food to sustain themselves, escape disease, and avoid accidents, will survive. Natural mortality factors help ensure that there is room for next year's crop of young. By being fruitful and multiplying, nature increases the chances that enough animals, young and adult, will survive to reproduce and perpetuate themselves next year.

Human predation on wildlife, through hunting, is strictly controlled by licence numbers, seasons, and bag limits. Part of the science of wildlife management is predicting safe harvest levels. Controlled hunting is not detrimental to animal populations. Modern wildlife management ensures that enough animals are left each year to replace those harvested by humans. When controlled hunting takes individual animals out of the population, they are replaced by others of their kind. Regulated hunting is an example of sustainable use of a renewable natural resource.

Hunting does have a dark past. Following the colonization of North America by Europeans, unregulated market hunting for hides, meat, feathers, and eggs was disastrous for wildlife species such as the passenger pigeon and the Labrador duck. By the mid-1800s, hunters and naturalists saw how destructive market hunting was. By the late 1800s and early 1900s, North America witnessed the first regulation of hunting. Hunters lobbied hard for these changes. Laws were established as to which species and sex could be taken. Length of hunting seasons and daily or seasonal quotas or bag limits were set. These early attempts at protection have been increased to the point today where there is a very complex arrangement of regulations designed to conserve wildlife resource. For today's wildlife agencies, conserving wildlife populations is the number one priority. Where numbers are sufficient, controlled hunting is allowed.

The single greatest threat to wildlife is habitat loss. Without habitat, there is no wildlife. Human encroachment, pollution, draining of wetlands, and development are taking land out of production for wildlife. When animals cease to exist because of habitat loss, they are gone - forever! Habitat destruction guarantees species disappearances and wildlife extinctions.

Through licence fees and donations, hunters have traditionally been the major contributors to programs aimed at saving and restoring wildlife habitat. Other groups have also been involved in protecting habitat. Hunters and non-hunters need to work together. Both groups want to achieve similar goals - abundant, diverse populations of wildlife existing in a healthy, pollution-free environment. Collectively, hunting and non-hunting groups have restored and protected over 10,000 hectares of prime wetland habitat in Nova Scotia. Non-hunted and endangered species, as well as the traditional game animals, all benefit from habitat protection and restoration programs. Hunters and non-hunters should join forces to oppose land-use practises that are not environmentally or wildlife friendly, and to work together on solutions to these problems.

Hunting is not for everyone. However, in our modern, computer-age society, there are those who still choose to provide nutritious meat for their families, enjoy the natural experience of the chase, and desire to remain a part of the natural cycle of life and death. Hunting is a chosen lifestyle and one that is in harmony with the human role in nature. Hunting is not destructive to the natural world. Today in North America, not one threatened or endangered species is hunted, fished, or trapped and no species have become endangered because of modern, regulated hunting. Controlled hunting and gathering of wild foods are environmentally friendly. Too bad more human activities cannot legitimately make the same claim.

Author's Note: Throughout this article, the term hunting could apply equally to fishing, trapping and other forms of gathering wild foods.

[[xeno]Julios]

humans did that for thousands of years already. do you eat meat jules? do you have the guts and respect to kill that animal yourself or do you need someone else to kill it for you?

yes i do - but i can't defend my actions ethically, which is why I'll probably become a vegetarian in the next few years once i muster up the courage.

And yes, I do hunt my own food when i can - I spearfish in oman - no scuba gear and no speargun - just use a cheap long pole with triple points (sometimes has an elastic loop on the shaft). I like the idea of using your own muscular energy to kill prey - you feel the feedback of the skin being penetrated, and the movement of the prey - it gives you a sense of the profoundness of what you're doing.

But even that I can't justify ethically.

[hate]

by what code of ethics are you referring to?

[shadd_]

But even that I can't justify ethically.

why not? youre only human after all. it's good though that you feel a sense of remorse when you kill. it shows at least some respect for the life you just took.

[[xeno]Julios]

by what code of ethics are you referring to?

my own personal moral reflections. I feel that a fundamental moral principle is to avoid the unnecessary causing of harm, suffering, or to go against the will of a being.

I feel that as a human being who is capable of appreciating this ethic, I have a responsibility to act upon it.

And I live in a world where I am within the means of acting upon it - there are alternative sources of nutrition that will not involve slaughter.

[shadd_]

by what code of ethics are you referring to?

my own personal moral reflections. I feel that a fundamental moral principle is to avoid the unnecessary causing of harm, suffering, or to go against the will of a being.

I feel that as a human being who is capable of appreciating this ethic, I have a responsibility to act upon it.

And I live in a world where I am within the means of acting upon it - there are alternative sources of nutrition that will not involve slaughter.

by moving away from the city and lobbying against everything they stand for would be far more ethical and helpful to animals than changing your diet.

[[xeno]Julios]

by moving away from the city and lobbying against everything they stand for would be far more ethical and helpful to animals than changing your diet.

you may be right.

Except I'm not sure that everything cities stand for are harmful in the long run. My intuition tells me that there are ways of human development that are not damaging.

But to discuss this, we'd need to give a treatment of what constitutes a city, as distinct from say a rural environment. I look forward to a healthy blend.

[shadd_]

you raise some good points jules. nice debating with you.

[hate]

by what code of ethics are you referring to?

my own personal moral reflections. I feel that a fundamental moral principle is to avoid the unnecessary causing of harm, suffering, or to go against the will of a being.

I feel that as a human being who is capable of appreciating this ethic, I have a responsibility to act upon it.

And I live in a world where I am within the means of acting upon it - there are alternative sources of nutrition that will not involve slaughter.

start cleansing and

lobby for habitat

it will do more in the long run


some hick wrote this

pertinent nonetheless...

by-products from pork include insulin for the regulation of diabetes, valves for human heart surgery, suede for shoes and clothing, and gelatin for many food and non-food uses. If you're eatin' Jello, Gummy Bears, or using suppositories, you're actively using a swine by-product.

Swine by-products are also used in water filters, insulation, rubber, anti-freeze, plastics, waxes, crayons, chalk, adhesives and fertilizer. I'd like to see an animal rights activist get by in Nome, Alaska without anti-freeze. And these items are just from pork. From cows we get casein used in paints, paper coatings, plastics and synthetic fibers.

From calves and steers we get hair which is used to bind plaster. The hides make leather. Their bones, pulverized, and their manure, are invaluable fertilizers spread upon our fields to produce better crops. (The very thing the vegetarian needs to survive.) Soap, sandpaper, insulin and other drugs obtained from their glands, are among the many by-products from cattle. The by-products nowadays, have become almost more important than the beef.

I've seen the picketers outside the beef and swine production plants--with signs bigger than they are.

"STOP THE SLAUGHTER! SAVE THE ANIMALS!"

Save them for what? Think about that. Cattle, deer, swine, elk, moose, goats, sheep, etc, left to live in the wild and reproduce freely, would rapidly outnumber people, leaving the vegetarian with very little to graze on. Last but not least, how do we protect our crops from these free-grazing herd animals? Build ten foot high fences around every crop field, and then watch them stand outside and starve? They say there's a decline in natural predators due to the over-hunting of wolves, bears, and the big cats, and that's what's thrown off the balance. Well, guess what ... WE are predators and there are still plenty of us out there, and that would be why there are so many swine and cattle production plants in operation.

Those big PROTECT THE ANIMALS signs these people carry, with the big block letters, are painted with a product that came from cattle. Now, how backwards is that?

I'm all for the vegetarian lifestyle, as long as nobody tries to force me to adhere to it. In fact, they can have my cauliflower, I can't stand the stuff. But, please get that sign out of my face, because I'm going to eat meat, and continue to benefit from the by-products of meat processing, and for those out there that refuse to participate, that's fine, but until you cleanse your life of all the by-products you use, don't condemn me for my participation. You can start by getting rid of your kid's crayons, and pray that you don't ever develop diabetes or have need of heart surgery, and the artist's brush you used to paint that fancy sign you carry? You can get rid of that too. I would be willing to bet you a pay check that it's made from animal hair.****


The thing is, these people function on emotion and they don't get anywhere near being able to come up with a reasonable solution to controlling the hooved and herd animal population assuming that tomorrow everyone woke up wanting to be a vegetarian. I'd like to find one of those PETA people at home and donate a male and female rabbit to them to "rescue" and sit back and wait a few months and see where they dump them when they have about three hundred of them. (wink)

[[xeno]Julios]

you raise some good points jules. nice debating with you.

igualmente :icon1:

[[xeno]Julios]

start cleansing and

lobby for habitat

it will do more in the long run

would love to continue discussion, but i got two final exams on wed and thur and a shitload of reading.

for now, i'll just say that i don't think things will change through radical traumatic shifts - i think it needs to be done slowly and effectively through education. Lobbying for habitat may or may not be effective - i don't know what habitat means actually. Anyway, bbl.

[hate]

no worries

most don't

gl

[Jackal]

buddy has to memorize 10 rules and he thinks it's hard? Jesus, you're gonna love your post-secondary education.