3legged_lab wrote:Woody wrote:assateague wrote:NuffDaddy wrote:Guess it's a grey line. I like to believe that the public land and animals belong to the people. But it needs to be regulated by the state because jack asses like the ones in the OP don't care.
Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.
Ain't nothing gray about it.
Who do I have to pay to hunt them?
Who sets the regulations about hunting them?
Who writes me a ticket?
Who gets the money?
Who tells me when I can hunt them?
Who tells me where I can hunt them?
Who tells me what I can hunt them with?
Not a damn thing gray about it. They want to exercise the control and the privilege without assuming a damn bit of the responsibility. And that's bullshit. They want to be in charge of them? Fine. Then I send them a bill when one jumps out in front of my Jeep, or eats my garden one night. To claim control without assuming responsibility is weak sauce.
How about this:
I'm allowed to kill unlimited does and 10 bucks a year. Instead of killing them, I catch one of each, and then raise babies on my farm. Then those deer are no longer "managed" by the state, and I can do what I please, right? Nope, because I'm not allowed to catch them or raise them. Why can't I catch a couple buffleheads, clip their wings, and raise all the wild ducks I want? By their very definition, they aren't "wild" anymore, and what do they care if I catch 2 or kill 6? It's all a money-making proposition, nothing more. And if you believe that states are in it for the "good of the wildlife" rather than the money, then you're a fool. You need to look no further than the antler restrictions Hammer noted. Is that for "the good of the animals", or is it to have a deer herd which will draw hunters and generate revenue? If they want to "manage" all the public land they control, more power to them. But to tell a landowner that he may not shoot a deer which is on his property is just silly, from a logical perspective, if you're trying to argue that "we" own the wildlife.
While I agree with you, your argument may be wrong, regarding antler restrictions...
Correctly or not there is thought to be a correlation between "good" genes and large antlers. If they want a healthy herd that can servive disease, famin, harsh winter, etc... They want the best genes.
Then its a fucking miracle how these poor stupid wild animals survived thousands of years on their own before us humans stepped in to save them in the last hundred years.
In an ecosystem without trophy hunters (humans) the weakest are culled from the herd. Leaving only the strongest to reproduce and pass on good genes. Really it is more exceptional that they have managed to survive despite us. We removed their natural predators that prevented over grazing and disease spread.