tbrownell@lafite.dec.com (And the Sky, is a Hazy Shade of Winter) (11/10/88)
>True. Fees from duck hunters are almost solely responsible for buying >and preserving wetlands. In Illinois, part of every hunting and fishing >license goes for nongame wildlife - to buy and maintain wild areas. >Without hunters, little or no money would be spent for this. A ban on >hunting would be a total disaster for wildlife nationwide. >That's why people like Cleveland Amory are basically misguided. His >heart may be in the right place but he's deluded in his anti-hunting >stance. I don't think that someone with an anti-hunting stance is necessarily "deluded". It all depends on how broad their complaint is. Nor do I think that a hunting ban would be a "total disaster for wildlife". I think some species such a deer would be driven to large scale natural die-offs but I doubt that some of the more obscure species that a regularly hunted, and benefit little from wetlands acquisition (doves, grouse etc.) would be adversely effected. Granted, hunting of some species has become a requirement, due to our forefather's penchant for blasting predators into extinction. I myself do not hunt, but neither do I begrudge those who feel that they must. Duck stamps and hunting licenses do provide additonal income for wetlands acquisition. What aggravates me is the total disregard that many hunters have for the environment that provides them with their prey. Nothing ires me more than hiking through local wildlife management areas and seeing spent shotgun shells as far as the eye can see. As of late, I have been finding them in my own yard, a few acres of eastern hardwood forest, as remnant of the upland game-bird season. This despite the fact that my land is posted and my property line is less than the state mandated minimum hunting-to-residence distance. Last year my neighbor's car was hit by a pellet as he was waxing it. Bottom line, we need hunting to keep the prey species population in line. We do not need additional pollution, nor do we need to consider hunting as a contributor to the goodness of society. I still question whether rails, grouse and woodcocks need to be kept in check and I honestly feel that hunting is nothing more than a somewhat necessary evil. Terry Brownell DEC Hudson, Massachusetts
jla@inuxd.UUCP (Joyce Andrews) (11/12/88)
> > > >True. Fees from duck hunters are almost solely responsible for buying > >and preserving wetlands. In Illinois, part of every hunting and fishing > >license goes for nongame wildlife - to buy and maintain wild areas. > >Without hunters, little or no money would be spent for this. A ban on I don't think we can say for sure that that's true. Yes, Ducks Unlimited does spend big bucks to buy and preserve wetlands. But others spend money, too. Monroe County, Florida, is a bird preserve in which the wetlands are purchased for the sake of wildlife. It's true not as much money would be spent, though. > I don't think that someone with an anti-hunting stance is necessarily > "deluded". It all depends on how broad their complaint is. Nor do I think > that a hunting ban would be a "total disaster for wildlife". I think If hunting was necessary for the control of wildlife, nature would have provided each of us with a gun. > finding them in my own yard, a few acres of eastern hardwood forest, > as remnant of the upland game-bird season. This despite the fact > that my land is posted and my property line is less than the state > mandated minimum hunting-to-residence distance. Last year my neighbor's > car was hit by a pellet as he was waxing it. Bottom line, we need > hunting to keep the prey species population in line. We do not need > additional pollution, nor do we need to consider hunting as > a contributor to the goodness of society. I still question whether > rails, grouse and woodcocks need to be kept in check and I honestly > feel that hunting is nothing more than a somewhat necessary evil. > OK, now here goes my soapbox. You can't flame me, though, because I am old and you'll feel guilty. I lived on farms from 1965-1985. I've crawled on my belly (and I was 8 months pregnant at the time!) to dodge shotgun pellets in my HOUSE, I've picked shot out of the backsides of my horses, I've lost cats, and I've been threatened. I am as anti-hunting as Cleveland Amory or any other no-hunting believer (all called "Disneyites" by hunters, no matter what our reasons). Now I volunteer at the Florida Keys Wild Bird Rehabilitation Service. I've seen pellets, BB's, and worse inside magnificant birds (a BALD EAGLE, for God's sake--want to see the X-Rays?). Yesterday I amputated the wing of a broad-winged hawk who had been shot. These are NOT isolated circumstances. I contend that the hunting laws cannot be enforced because we don't have enough game wardens. So, I suggest we do away with hunting, and save the money we spent trying to enforce hunting laws to buy wetlands and marshes and other habitat. You hunters figure out how to police yourselves, and we anti-hunters will leave you alone. And don't say that the ones that don't play by the rules are the exception. I know better. Sure, YOU never shoot a dove out of season, but everybody else does. ("Well, I was rabbit hunting, and I saw movement in the grass, and I thought it was a rabbit...how did I know it was a quail...or a pheasant...or a raptor?") One day I walked out the back door of my farm house in Ohio to see why my dog was barking. A rabbit was running TOWARD the house. It was maybe 100 feet from me. A hunter was standing in MY GARDEN and shot at the rabbit, and then cussed me out because I scared the f*****g rabbit. God, living in paradise makes you forget what it's like in the rest of the world. Now my blood pressure's gone up. Maybe I'd better lie down.... But first, let's talk about fishermen. I was called out on a bird rescue last week. A *&^%$#@ fisherman had left a baited hook unattended. Just baited the hook and went about his business, expecting to come back and find a fish on it, I guess. God forbid he should stand there and WORK at fishing. What he caught was a great white heron, who was then flying around dragging a fishing pole. You should see those X-Rays! a huge hook, two swivels, and a wire leader inside that poor bird. She had surgery (I get to release her Monday, thankfully--she'll be out in time to breed this year). Last night I got to go for a moonlight swim to rescue another great white heron who ws tangled in monofilament line, left behind by another careless angler. This one has a severed tendon. We'll operate as soon as he is stabilized. Maybe paradise isn't so great after all. I guess I need a glass of wine before I lie down. -- Joyce Andrews King att!inuxd!jla AT&T, Indianapolis (This message brought to you from the Florida Keys via the miracle of modern communications.)
rising@utzoo.uucp (Jim Rising) (11/13/88)
Most of what you describe, Joyce, is already illegal, so--unfortunate as it is--I'm not sure that making all hunting illegal would help much. I'm not anti-hunting (though I'm certainly anti the things Joyce mentions), but I do think that there's substantial room for improving hunting laws. (1) I'd outlaw lead shot/bullets. (2) I'd make it much more difficult to get a hunting license (tough identification exams for bird hunters--so they can tell geese from cormorants and pelicans--I guess that's not all that tough). And, from Joyce's posting, it sounds like (9) more enforcement is needed! Guess it's a good thing that I'm not running from president, isn't it! Speaking of monofilament line, how about (4) outlawing those plastic doovers they use to hold a 6-pack of pop/beer cans together? Those things trap many animals (esp. gulls). And, while we're at it, how about outlawing pop and beer cans altogether, and requiring reusable bottles (like in the good old days). --Jim Rising -- Name: Jim Rising Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!rising BITNET: rising@utzoo.utoronto.bitnet
john@nmtsun.nmt.edu (John Shipman) (11/13/88)
In article <1285@inuxd.UUCP>, jla@inuxd.UUCP (Joyce Andrews) writes: > ...a great white heron...flying around dragging a fishing pole... > Last night I got to go for a moonlight swim to rescue another great > white heron who was tangled in monofilament line... Folks without experience in wildlife rescue should be cautious about rescuing herons---it can be dangerous! Consider this passage from A. C. Bent's ``Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds,'' p. 227, Dover edition, quoted without permission: About 1879, there was a young Indian living near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. In the spring, he went out shooting among the famous wild-fowl marshes of that section. A [whooping] crane flew low within range and fell to a shot from his gun. As it lay on the ground, wounded in both wing and leg, crippled and helpless, he reached forward to seize it. But it drove its bill with all its force into his eye. The brain was pierced and the young hunter fell on the body of his victim. Here next day, at the end of a long and anxious search, the young wife found them dead together and read the story of the tragedy. Bent is talking about whooping cranes here, but the armament of the large herons is basically similar: a dagger at the end of a muscular whip. From the same volume, in the section on the great blue heron: There are very few birds or animals that dare to attack such a large and formidable antagonist as an adult great blue heron, for it is a courageous bird, armed with a powerful sharp bill that can inflict serious wounds. Wildlife rescue is laudable, but be careful: some of the rescuees are armed, and may not understand you're trying to help them. Raptors rarely defend with their beaks, but watch out for their feet! Even small raptors like kestrels and owls have claws like fish-hooks. So how do you deal with this problem, Joyce? A fencing mask and a flak jacket? Some biologists that work at peregrine falcon nests wear a wraparound motorcycle helmet and a leather jacket, as the falcons rip into anyone near the nest. Thanks for your excellent posting about thoughtless hunters and fishermen. I try to be even-handed about hunters, but in situations like duck season at the Palo Alto Baylands, where the duck-busters come right up to the bayshore, shoot ducks over the refuge, and send their retrievers into the refuge after the victims, it's hard to stay neutral. Many's the time we wished we could bracket them with a few mortar rounds to give them some idea what's it like to be a teal. -- John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, New Mexico USENET: ucbvax!unmvax!nmtsun!john CSNET: john@nmtsun.nmt.edu ``A lesson from past over-machined societies...the devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines.'' --Frank Herbert
tbrownell@lafite.dec.com (And the Sky, is a Hazy Shade of Winter) (11/14/88)
>If hunting was necessary for the control of wildlife, nature >would have provided each of us with a gun. > Joyce Andrews King Joyce, I am really surprised to see your interpretation of my posting as a paean to hunting. It was in response to a previous note stating the beneficial aspects of hunters and their dollars. I don't think my complaint regarding pellets and spent shells should be construed as a message in favor of the "sport". Rather, the gist is that some wildlife does need to be controlled, ie deer before the starve or infect everyone in the Northeast with Lyme disease. Ducks, grouse, rails and the other "sporting species" clearly are not in need of human intervention, and that is what I stated. Terry Brownell DEC Hudson,Massachusetts
jimf@ihlpf.ATT.COM (YES) (11/15/88)
Certainly there are a lot of irresponsible idiots with guns (some of them on the police force). In Illinois, hunters must attend hunter safety seminars to get permits to hunt on some state hunting areas - I assume these also talk about legal hunting, littering, etc. but I don't know since I've never attended one. It would be a good idea if all hunters had to attend one of these every few years and pass a test (like driver's license) but the expense would be great. But a ban on hunting would be a wildlife disaster in that much of the money for habitat - not just wetlands - comes from hunting licenses. If you think most state legislatures are going to shell out big bucks year after year for habitat for songbirds unless it's a state park or otherwise has some economic benefit, you're nuts. That money comes from hunter fees and conservation groups. I've noticed in Illinois a trend toward commercializing state parks to generate income. (Building swimming pools, resorts, etc) I believe the pressure on administrators to hold down conservation costs and generate income will only get more intense in the future. If hunting were banned (which it won't be), states would start selling off wildlife preserves, state forests etc in a hurry (much like Raygun has done with federal lands) because a major source of income for the conservation departments would be gone. In farm states like Illinois and Iowa, the real villain as far as wildlife is concerned is intensive agriculture. For some reason, a lot of farmers have an irresistible impulse to chop down every tree in sight, clean out every fencerow, clear cut every river bottom woods so they can plant a crop on it that gets flooded out every Spring, mow every roadside, etc, etc. I guess I don't understand the logic of removing a fencerow to get 3 more rows of corn when the price corn brings barely pays for the cost of planting it. Removing all the fencrerows increases soil erosion, destroys wildlife, etc. Many hunting groups are working to get farmers to leave more land untilled, to leave roadsides unmowed, etc. In Northern Illinois, a group called Pheasants Forever actually pays farmers to let some of their land grow wild. Hunters are, for whatever reasons, the Major conservation group in this country.
pag00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Pria Graves) (11/16/88)
In article <1988Nov12.174313.17315@utzoo.uucp> rising@utzoo.uucp (Jim Rising) writes: >Speaking of monofilament line, how about (4) outlawing those plastic >doovers they use to hold a 6-pack of pop/beer cans together? Those >things trap many animals (esp. gulls). And, while we're at it, how about >outlawing pop and beer cans altogether, and requiring reusable bottles >(like in the good old days). But the Coke distributer in the S.F. area JUST stopped supplying the reusable bottles.... my husband is trying to decide whether to give up Coke or drink it out of throw-away bottles bound with plastic and with a foam-type lable! -- Pria ...!{hplabs,amdcad,sun,nsc}!amdahl!pag00 (408) 746 7539 (Disclaimer: even I don't necessarily agree!)
zcnj01@gpb6.uucp (Cecil N. Jones) (11/16/88)
.... Please, this is not the forum for pro or anti-hunting .... drivel. Move it to another group. .... .... Thanks, .... Cecil N. Jones Amoco Production Co. Tulsa, OK @apctrc.uucp The opinions expressed are solely my own.
kaufman@maxzilla.Encore.COM (Lar Kaufman) (11/16/88)
In article <6641@ihlpf.ATT.COM> jimf@ihlpf.ATT.COM (YES) writes: >Certainly there are a lot of irresponsible idiots with guns ... >... But a ban >on hunting would be a wildlife disaster in that much of the money for >habitat - not just wetlands - comes from hunting licenses. If you think >most state legislatures are going to shell out big bucks year after year >for habitat for songbirds unless it's a state park or otherwise has some >economic benefit, you're nuts. That money comes from hunter fees and >conservation groups. Texas gave animal-lovers the chance to contribute to conservation directly by offering a non-game stamp. It was much like a hunting stamp except you were not entitled to hunt and 100% of the funds derived were earmarked for preservation of habitat and wildlife resources. It is unfortunately true that this program generated very little response. I am not sure but I believe it has been discontinued because the cost of administering it was greater than the funds generated. I know that many of us prefer to give to private organizations that we trust, but we have failed to enlist governmental agencies in a positive manner for conservation efforts. Remember that the EPA is oriented toward pollution control, and focused on the human environment, and that the Department of the Interior gives priority to exploiting resources and making lands available for recreation. It is up to us to make conservation a priority in government so that everyone is paying for the preservation of everyone's heritage. In the mean time, hunters are paying for much of it, and consequently they can do it "their way." The result is often folly, like the New Hampshire Moose Massacre this year, but loss of safe habitat is still a greater threat than the direct activities of "sportsmen." -lar (secular animist) Lar Kaufman <= my opinions Fidonet: 1:322/470@508-534-1842 kaufman@multimax.arpa {bu-cs,decvax,necntc,talcott}!encore!kaufman