Came across this article, thought it would be of interest to some on here....
We, the people of America, are facing a moral dilemma - right now, this very minute, this day, and every other day. We are faced with the dilemma of whether the people of this free country will be able to continue hunting. As with anything debatable, their are two sides. In this case, we have the Hunters, and the Antis. Over the past decade or so, they have been at war with one another with people forming organizations and plotting to destroy the others point of view. Even the Government has gotten into the act by passing laws. Perhaps under the pressure of hunting or anti-hunting organizations, or possibly their own point-of-views, but nonetheless, they have passed laws. One of the first arguments that the antis use is that hunting is a ruthless sport, in which the animal has no defense or offense. If you have hunted, or even simply watched wild game, you would notice the keen senses that all game animals have. All the hunter has to his advantage is the gun, which is useless if you don't know how to properly shoot it. The animals know the outdoors better, move faster, and they have extraordinary senses. The outdoors is the animals home, not a comfortable 2-story house with a fire going in the middle of winter. There home is the outdoors, the wind, the rain, the heat. They adapt to the outdoors and they know when something is awry.
Another argument the Antis use, is that by shooting the animals, their numbers will decrease until extinction. This is false for several reasons as well. When a hunter harvests an animal, he is not looking for just a trophy, he is looking for a mature animal that may well be past the point of breeding. By harvesting that animal, younger animals will have a chance to thrive, be healthy, and provide to the population by breeding. Another reason hunting has made the animal population thrive even more is the fact that hunters harvest cull animals. A cull animal is one that is inferior to others, usually a genetic defect. When a cull animal is harvested, the general population of the animal will benefit because the animal cannot pass its' genetic defects along through the offspring. Anti-hunters also claim that many animals are wounded and run off to die, for no reason whatsoever. These same anti-hunters claim wounding loss rates as high as 1 to 1, which means for every one animal harvested, there is 1 that is wounded and escapes, possibly to die. Recently, a study was done by a graduate student by the name of Wendy Krueger. Her study took place at Camp Ripley, Minnesota, which is a military reservation located near Brainerd. A permit-only whitetail bow hunt is held annually on the base. Almost 7,300 bowhunters took part in the 1992-93 hunts, which were the focus of the study. After the season was over, an aerial survey using infrared video technology was conducted to help determine the number of deer wounded by hunters, and eventually deer that died. The numbers of deer retrieved compared to not retrieved determined the efficiency of the Camp Riley bowhunters. Out of the 6,000 deer harvested, 87% of the animals were recovered, with 13% wounded and not retrieved. This means that 4,980 out of a possible 6,000 animals were recovered. Game managers say that wounding loss rates for firearms users, also runs between the 10 and 15 percentile range, according to Dr. David Samuel, professor of wildlife biology at the University of West Virginia, who helped along with the Minnesota Department of Natural resources, in Krueger's study. In another study, a graduate student, Richard Morton of South Carolina's Medway Plantation, tracked 25 experienced archers hunting whitetail deer from what are called tree stands. The hunters shot 61 deer, within 4 hours, 60 of these deer were recovered. His conclusion for the study is "Careful shot selection and shooting skill -- not draw weight, shaft size, or broadhead type -- are the keys to such a high rate of harvest."
Not only are the Antis trying to stop hunting of game animals, they are trying to stop the hunting of life-threatening predators. An example of this is in California, where the mountain lion situation has become horrendous. Long ago, starting in 1907 and proceeding to 1963, the State of California paid a bounty for every mountain lion killed. In 1971 the program was stopped. In 1990, the mountain lions had another change coming to them, it was now illegal to kill one without a permit directly from the state. Even though the population of these wild cats has increased greatly, and even became a danger to the general public of California, they still remain protected. One woman, a California jogger, found the reason why these animals should be allowed to be hunted when she ran across one, was attacked and fatally injured. She was mauled to death by a mountain lion, one which may have showed aggressive behavior before, and could have been eliminated.
On March 13, 1990: Hal Slemmer, one of three hunters, had a bison in the scope of his .308 Savage. As he starts to squeeze the trigger, a man named John Lilburn jumps in front of the shooter and waves his arms frantically and yells "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" A state wildlife officer that accompanied Slemmer on the excursion shoves Lilburn into a tree. Slemmer proceeds to harvest the 1,400-pound animal. Another protester, unnamed, dips her fingers into the animals still warm blood and stripes Slemmers' face with it. "The spirit of this buffalo will always be with you," she states. Incidents such as this one, and many others have persuaded the states to pass a law stating that it is illegal to "disturb a hunter with intent to dissuade him or her from the lawful harvesting of an animal."
All 50 states have game laws, in which they describe the seasons. They control the kind and number of animals that may be killed, and hunting methods to be used. In the United States, the state agencies that enforce these laws are funded almost completely upon funds provided by hunters. When hunters purchase a hunting license, it goes to the state agencies. When hunters buy hunting equipment, a federal tax is divided upon the state agencies. The fact is, that the hunting industry is a $12.3 billion industry, and because of that fact most people believe that hunting is staying around for a while. America cannot afford to throw away 12.3 billion dollars, in the economic state it is in.
The next time that you hear one of the anti-hunters, bad-mouthing the great sport of hunting, stop and think about what they are saying logically. Most likely you will be able to disprove them, and show that they are just babbling.
We, the people of America, are facing a moral dilemma - right now, this very minute, this day, and every other day. We are faced with the dilemma of whether the people of this free country will be able to continue hunting. As with anything debatable, their are two sides. In this case, we have the Hunters, and the Antis. Over the past decade or so, they have been at war with one another with people forming organizations and plotting to destroy the others point of view. Even the Government has gotten into the act by passing laws. Perhaps under the pressure of hunting or anti-hunting organizations, or possibly their own point-of-views, but nonetheless, they have passed laws. One of the first arguments that the antis use is that hunting is a ruthless sport, in which the animal has no defense or offense. If you have hunted, or even simply watched wild game, you would notice the keen senses that all game animals have. All the hunter has to his advantage is the gun, which is useless if you don't know how to properly shoot it. The animals know the outdoors better, move faster, and they have extraordinary senses. The outdoors is the animals home, not a comfortable 2-story house with a fire going in the middle of winter. There home is the outdoors, the wind, the rain, the heat. They adapt to the outdoors and they know when something is awry.
Another argument the Antis use, is that by shooting the animals, their numbers will decrease until extinction. This is false for several reasons as well. When a hunter harvests an animal, he is not looking for just a trophy, he is looking for a mature animal that may well be past the point of breeding. By harvesting that animal, younger animals will have a chance to thrive, be healthy, and provide to the population by breeding. Another reason hunting has made the animal population thrive even more is the fact that hunters harvest cull animals. A cull animal is one that is inferior to others, usually a genetic defect. When a cull animal is harvested, the general population of the animal will benefit because the animal cannot pass its' genetic defects along through the offspring. Anti-hunters also claim that many animals are wounded and run off to die, for no reason whatsoever. These same anti-hunters claim wounding loss rates as high as 1 to 1, which means for every one animal harvested, there is 1 that is wounded and escapes, possibly to die. Recently, a study was done by a graduate student by the name of Wendy Krueger. Her study took place at Camp Ripley, Minnesota, which is a military reservation located near Brainerd. A permit-only whitetail bow hunt is held annually on the base. Almost 7,300 bowhunters took part in the 1992-93 hunts, which were the focus of the study. After the season was over, an aerial survey using infrared video technology was conducted to help determine the number of deer wounded by hunters, and eventually deer that died. The numbers of deer retrieved compared to not retrieved determined the efficiency of the Camp Riley bowhunters. Out of the 6,000 deer harvested, 87% of the animals were recovered, with 13% wounded and not retrieved. This means that 4,980 out of a possible 6,000 animals were recovered. Game managers say that wounding loss rates for firearms users, also runs between the 10 and 15 percentile range, according to Dr. David Samuel, professor of wildlife biology at the University of West Virginia, who helped along with the Minnesota Department of Natural resources, in Krueger's study. In another study, a graduate student, Richard Morton of South Carolina's Medway Plantation, tracked 25 experienced archers hunting whitetail deer from what are called tree stands. The hunters shot 61 deer, within 4 hours, 60 of these deer were recovered. His conclusion for the study is "Careful shot selection and shooting skill -- not draw weight, shaft size, or broadhead type -- are the keys to such a high rate of harvest."
Not only are the Antis trying to stop hunting of game animals, they are trying to stop the hunting of life-threatening predators. An example of this is in California, where the mountain lion situation has become horrendous. Long ago, starting in 1907 and proceeding to 1963, the State of California paid a bounty for every mountain lion killed. In 1971 the program was stopped. In 1990, the mountain lions had another change coming to them, it was now illegal to kill one without a permit directly from the state. Even though the population of these wild cats has increased greatly, and even became a danger to the general public of California, they still remain protected. One woman, a California jogger, found the reason why these animals should be allowed to be hunted when she ran across one, was attacked and fatally injured. She was mauled to death by a mountain lion, one which may have showed aggressive behavior before, and could have been eliminated.
On March 13, 1990: Hal Slemmer, one of three hunters, had a bison in the scope of his .308 Savage. As he starts to squeeze the trigger, a man named John Lilburn jumps in front of the shooter and waves his arms frantically and yells "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" A state wildlife officer that accompanied Slemmer on the excursion shoves Lilburn into a tree. Slemmer proceeds to harvest the 1,400-pound animal. Another protester, unnamed, dips her fingers into the animals still warm blood and stripes Slemmers' face with it. "The spirit of this buffalo will always be with you," she states. Incidents such as this one, and many others have persuaded the states to pass a law stating that it is illegal to "disturb a hunter with intent to dissuade him or her from the lawful harvesting of an animal."
All 50 states have game laws, in which they describe the seasons. They control the kind and number of animals that may be killed, and hunting methods to be used. In the United States, the state agencies that enforce these laws are funded almost completely upon funds provided by hunters. When hunters purchase a hunting license, it goes to the state agencies. When hunters buy hunting equipment, a federal tax is divided upon the state agencies. The fact is, that the hunting industry is a $12.3 billion industry, and because of that fact most people believe that hunting is staying around for a while. America cannot afford to throw away 12.3 billion dollars, in the economic state it is in.
The next time that you hear one of the anti-hunters, bad-mouthing the great sport of hunting, stop and think about what they are saying logically. Most likely you will be able to disprove them, and show that they are just babbling.
