so what is more detrimental, the hunter--who funds 90% of conservation efforts in this country?
or ban the hunter, and lose that funding? who will replace it? what would happen then? who would be the stewards then? the taxpayer?
what state would wildlife be if it hadn't been for those efforts? how many deer would there be? or turkey? would we have all the habitats, all the wetlands if hunters hadn't done so much over the last century? you did see the vast improvements made to the herds, right? elk were re-introduced to arkansas a few years ago, who paid for that? you didn't. i did.
and keep in mind, hunters have a book full of rules to follow, set forth by each states game and fish commission, and they change every year. herd #'s, overall health are constantly monitored. tags are limited each year. duck hunters are allowed so many shells on their person at a time(i believe its 15-doesn't last very long), and have to follow strict guidelines of how many of each species and sex allowed. they have to have a plug in their gun to limit how many shells it will hold.
|