Appropriate punishment for animal cruelty

[Danzig]

and does this help at all??? please read it.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba377/

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

and does this help at all??? please read it.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba377/

In Mussolini's Italy, the trains ran on time! Again, hunters aren't the problem...hunting for sport is!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

In Mussolini's Italy, the trains ran on time! Again, hunters aren't the problem...hunting for sport is!

are we even talking about the same thing?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

are we even talking about the same thing?

Sure we are....lots of folks who hunt are wonderful people, they do (and have done) many worthwhile things...no argument. My issue is with hunting and the mindset that somehow killing innocent animals with high powered weapons is sport. When you post a link that lists all the great things hunters have done, that's the same thing as saying "the trains run on time" giving the ruthless fascist dictatorship of Mussolini credit for doing something positive while ignoring the evil perpetrated.

[Danzig]

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.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

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.

So...if serial killers contributed millions to charity, we should allow them to go on killing?

[Danzig]

not quite sure where you're going with the above.


which is more detrimental to our ecological system, to our conservation attempts?
-hunters and fisherman, who fund most of the above, or

- ban hunting and fishing-and lose 9/10ths of the funding, and lose most of those who take the lead on protecting our habitats, fisheries, and wetlands?

unless you have a better plan--other than to compare hunters to charitable serial killers--btw, serial killing IS illegal. hunting isn't.