Canada Kicks Ass
Protection of Animals

REPLY



Dr Caleb @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:13 pm

And if people don't hunt responsibly, the deer, squirrels, rabbits and chipmunks will starve.<br /> <br /> Wildlife management is a very complex science.

   



gaulois @ Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:49 am

Managing the management of wildlife is even more complex, judgin from my experience with le Ministère responsable pour les espèces en voie de disparition <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

   



snipe67 @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:14 pm

for hunters out there, they have to know wildlife management and it is really an important role for protecting animals and not gone as well.

   



Brent Swain @ Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:07 pm

The best thing we can do to protect widlife is stop making so damned many people.
As one's personal environmental footprint is defined by how much money we spend ,living cheaply, and not spending so much money, goes a long way towards protecting animals.
I wouldn't shoot anything I didn't intend to eat , unless it was a threat to me or others, or it was a wildife threatening, invasive species. Some of those can be good to eat, too.
My ancestors hunted here in Canada for ten thousand years, with a tiny fraction the environmental damage that agriculture has done in the last 100 years . One of the most environmentally devastating things we do is agriculture, to feed the sanctimonius vegetarians, so they can live on, to lay sanctimonius guilt trips on us hunters.
75 million buffalo had to be wiped out, to make farmland, to feed the sanctimonius vegetarians. 80,000 hectares of waterfoul nesting grounds in the Fraser Vally had to be drained to make farmland to feed the sanctimonius vegetarians.
Modern industrial agriculture has one goal, to turn huge areas into monocultures, and wipe out all biodiversity, to leave only one species in place, an introduced species, and saturate the area with industrial agriculture chemicals. Does that hurt the animals? Damned right it does, far more than cooking up a few.

   



REPLY