Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you read the details they just shifted control of wildlife refuges back to the states. Who know better how to control there wildlife - the wildlife department in Alaska or a bureaucrat in D.C.?
If you read the details they just shifted control of wildlife refuges back to the states. Who know better how to control there wildlife - the wildlife department in Alaska or a bureaucrat in D.C.?
Who's cheaper for the oil companies to buy off - the wildlife department in Alaska or a bureaucrat in D.C.?
I'll support State rights. However, refugees are suppose to be sanctuaries for animals to live untouched without human influence.
It's physically impossible to do this in the manner imagined by the most-sheltered among the environmental and animal-rights movements. The environment isn't "the enemy", but "human influence" is unavoidable in some forms. The goal is to identify and prevent the worst abuses, but we don't always agree on just which "threats" are the most serious.
The link in the original post seems to be from a site that sees most human activity, especially if done by a profit-seeking enterprise, as basically evil, and sport hunters as adrenaline-junkies only interested in killing; nothing in life is that simple. Remember that, for example, Native peoples also hunted animals for food, and most of the "animal rights" and environmental touchie-feelies would turn red, white and blue if they had to live under the conditions of an earlier day.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-25-2017 at 12:12 PM..
It's physically impossible to do this in the manner imagined by the most-sheltered among the environmental and animal-rights movements. The environment isn't "the enemy", but "human influence" is unavoidable in some forms. The goal is to identify and prevent the worst abuses, but we don't always agree on just which "threats" are the most serious.
The link in the original post seems to be from a site that sees most human activity, especially if done by a profit-seeking enterprise, as basically evil, and sport hunters as adrenaline-junkies only interested in killing; nothing in life is that simple. Remember that, for example, Native peoples also hunted animals for food, and most of the "animal rights" and environmental touchie-feelies would turn red, white and blue if they had to live under the conditions of an earlier day.
I am okay with hunting as a means to survive and the individual utilizes the entirety of the animal in a respectful manner. Now a days really do not need hunting to survive as most food is readily available.
I am okay with hunting as a means to survive and the individual utilizes the entirety of the animal in a respectful manner. Now a days really do not need hunting to survive as most food is readily available.
So go to the grocery store and buy your food. No one is forcing you to hunt. You have no right to any say in whether another person chooses to hunt for food or for sport.
It's really simple. If you don't like hunting, don't hunt. Just like if you don't like what's on TV, change the channel or turn the TV off.
I am okay with hunting as a means to survive and the individual utilizes the entirety of the animal in a respectful manner. Now a days really do not need hunting to survive as most food is readily available.
So, you want the government to pay people to go out and shoot deer instead of letting the people going out to shoot deer pay the government?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.