Population control ...
As long as man exists, there are going to be issues of population control. And even beyond that, species do go extinct without the help of man because of lack of population control -- many times both the supply animal as well as the predator.
Like it or not, even "game" hunting provides a real, useful approach to population control. A great majority of hunters are well versed in the local food chain as a result of the local conservation and seasons. Without "game" hunters, many state and national wildlife rangers are not populous and their departments not well funded enough to engage in control measures on their own.
I.e., with a lack of even "game" hunters, their is the double-whammy of costs. The smaller one is the actual fees collected. The bigger one is the cost it takes to actually control the population without them, much less that is typically infeasible, so the cost results in the lack of control.
I know this is not a "popular" viewpoint among this Democrat-leaning board. But for me, a "double liberal" as a Libertarian, this is the reality of many local areas. I know people want to make it about right/wrong, but even "game" hunting is often a very necessary detail for conservation, even taking the whole "philosophy" bullshit out of it.
Most people have demonized it (about both fees and guns), but West Virginia has been under some stress for the lack of people taking up conservation in general. In the past, they've relied on the common citizen of its state, among others that visit it -- from hunting to enjoying the wilderness. As of late, there just aren't many conservationalists and hunters alike (the two are often decrease/increase linearly) that they have pushed for renewed efforts in their schools, and the districts in the same, wilderness areas of other states.
Again, the media has demonized it about "fees" and "oh no, they're teaching kids about guns," but in reality, it's a simple fact of being a citizen of a state like West Virginia. It's just one example that is becoming an increasing problem in both "cost" of administration as well as "cost" with lack of population control.
I will say this though, I think it's a pretty pathetic thing, when some weekend warrior pays really big bucks, to shoot a wild, or exotic animal, that's been released on a fenced in private hunting preserve. Yes mate that is the most pathetic thing ever , youve never been so right in your life , Iv seen programmes about this and its just sick :helpme:
There are reasons why they exist, as many conservationalists try to help control populations and other things, and that includes sanctioned areas of private ownership with wildlife population. There's also the notion that people should
learn in a
controlled environment how to hunt, including how the animal will react, what to do and not to do, etc...
As much as the "game" aspect might sicken people, there aren't people out there stupidly trying to eradicate a species in the name of "game" hunting. The "game" aspect actually serves a purpose, and it is sanctioned for a reason. Ironically, but not surprisingly, most hunters know more about the foodchain and ecosystem than those who are sickened by the thought, because the former requires one to take an interest (and most do very much), while the latter does not (and most don't, especially when they don't realize animals do die, and for what reasons, etc...).
If you think there are just a huge population of gun owners and hunters out there that "just want to kill something," then I pity you. And remember, I say this as someone who has
never even handled a firearm! I just know a lot of hunters and have learned a lot from their familiarity with their local ecosystems and conservational knowledge in general. And that includes one private preserve owner.
