Submitted by Brennan Browne, Oct 28, 2007 17:13

The biological reality is that if left alone, animal species regulate themselves. These 'controlling' elements are based primarily on food supplies and weather--conditions which trigger hormonal responses in the females of non-human species--these responses determine whether the offspring will be male or female; how many babies a given animal will have; or if indeed they will have a successful pregnancy at all. Factor in disease and natural die-offs, and if hunting were never undertaken again, the environment would, for the first time in hundreds of years, function as the perfectly synchronized interdependent system Mother Nature intended. "Dis"harmony--overpopulation--is CAUSED BY HUNTING. Species will adapt to FILL a void. These 'voids' are caused by Fish and Wildlife policies which encourage hunters to decimate natural predators, i.e., cougars, coyotes, wolves, etc.--a standard practice of wildlife "managers" throughout the world. Obviously once predators are removed, if food supplies are plentiful and weather conditions favorable, an overpopulation problem is created. However, if conditions are NOT favorable, a massive environmental disaster, resulting in the starvation of animals targeted by such "management" methods becomes the reality. As for hunters claiming to be "caring" environmentalists because they help support green spaces, that's sheer blasphemy. It's like saying you're pro-animal because you support slaughterhouses. Perpetuating the existence of animals for your own benefit at the expense of their pain, suffering and death does not make you an environmentalist--only a malevolent opportunist. EVERY taxpaying citizen gives their fair share toward maintaining our National Parks system. Hunters contribute with revenues generated by hunting licenses and other hunting related usage fees [fees most hunters would NOT contribute voluntarily, if not lawfully forced to do so. Poaching is a major problem.] 50% of federally funded wildlife "refuges" regularly allow trapping/hunting within them. The average taxpayer supports these refuges, which in turn SUBSIDIZES hunters--not the other way around. If most hunters had to purchase the acreage and maintain such wildlife, few would have the where-with-all to do so. Without taxpayer funding, these wildlife refuges would not exist and there would be less available public land for the ignoble hunter.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.