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.
Apparently they repealed it without support from the scientific community and without any studies or evidence from the DNR or the US Fish and Wildlife service. Generally population control is decided by whatever official studies are done on the population of the animals.
This is clearly all about money Alaska business owners want more game hunters coming in as tourists.
Apparently they repealed it without support from the scientific community and without any studies or evidence from the DNR or the US Fish and Wildlife service. Generally population control is decided by whatever official studies are done on the population of the animals.
In some states if it is believed there are too many deer then the state will lengthen hunting season by a few weeks and possibly allow more doe's to be killed.
This is clearly all about money Alaska business owners want more game hunters coming in as tourists.
As I said in the thread title, "your Congress at work." I guess this is how the GOP Congress drains the swamp -- by catering to special interests against the general interest.
Why don't you stop berating people and start presenting facts from the other side. It took me under a minute to find that letter, which was drafted prior to Trump taking office, so there was no political motivation behind it.
Go ahead... we're waiting.
Waiting for what? I am not for or against this. If you say it's bad, at least you should need to present both sides of stories, shouldn't you?
I just question how you guys reached this opinion about a subject that you guys have zero knowledge of.
Berate? You bet. Anybody going through this ridiculous jump to conclusion, non-thought process deserves to be berated! It's just stupid.
Thank you for posting this! There's an impressive list of extremely well-qualified supporters here, and the data from many studies footnoted in the letter - great source of bipartisan info for those interested in more than just emotional rhetoric.
Thank you for the idea. You were right to suggest hearing from people who have dedicated their lives to wildlife management. They have a knowledge base that not even the best environmental journalist can touch.
And given what they've outlined, there doesn't seem to be an rational explanation for such an inhumane cull. And mind you, while I am environmentalist (or at least I try my best), I understand culling does have its place and we have to balance the needs of both animal and human populations, but in this case, the evidence is lacking.
This is what happens when Republicans are in charge. They generally are anti-environment.
This really wasn't discussed during the election cycle other than climate change and the Flint water crisis. There are many environment issues that are beyond those 2 issues.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the GOP try to sell off public lands - either sell them outright or sell 50 or 100 year leases to private enterprises. Russia did this. They sold public land for a fraction of its actual market value and somehow (wink, wink) the billionaire Putin associates purchased the land. For example of how it works, land worth $100 million but sold for $18 million...things like that. I expect to see well connected billionaires associated with the GOP buy this land in the US for well below market price if the GOP decides to dump it, which they likely will do.
Last edited by sware2cod; 04-04-2017 at 12:14 PM..
Waiting for what? I am not for or against this. If you say it's bad, at least you should need to present both sides of stories, shouldn't you?
I just question how you guys reached this opinion about a subject that you guys have zero knowledge of.
Berate? You bet. Anybody going through this ridiculous jump to conclusion, non-thought process deserves to be berated! It's just stupid.
The opposing viewpoint is outlined in H.J Res. 69. The document I linked refutes arguments made in the resolution drafted by politicians who know as much about wildlife management as you do.
I've been present for a few wildlife biology studies in West Texas. The expertise of these guys and their application of that expertise into collecting data is stunning. Our laymen's knowledge isn't squat compared to their years of knowledge and experience. Any resulting cull after such a study is supposed to be for the benefit of the wildlife ... not us. I've been reading up on HJ Res 69 and still haven't found any compelling evidence in favor of it.
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.
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.
