0
6

[–] mcwilshire 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't know about Africa, but here in PA, hunting license fees absolutely go toward conservation.

Deer hunters will tell you otherwise, but ecologists say we have way too many deer, and the game commission, having been "infiltrated by environmentalist types" (according to many deer hunters), is committed to strategies that reduce deer numbers. Many hunters are furious. They even filed a lawsuit. Few groups are as vocal and powerful as hunters when it comes to maintaining and increasing game numbers and habitat.

0
2

[–] KidQuantum 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Came here to say this about PA but it's the insurance companies interested in keeping the deer population lower. Less payouts.

0
0

[–] mcwilshire 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You have the auto insurance companies, body shops, environmentalists, PETA, hunters, hunting industry manufacturers and retailers, farmers, each with their own angle. A lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous.

0
3

[–] AgriGrunt 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The amount of hunting tags are not just picked out of a hat, population numbers are studied over a long period of time allowing for stable populations with hunters. The hunters replace predators that were lost when humans settled the area. The amount of space and resources that carnivores need is much larger than herbivores. In most settled spaces there is no more big game carnivores to eat larger herbivores like deer, moose, or elk.

Deer, moose, and elk are actually a HUGE problem. Not only do they cause loss of human life via car accidents, but they cause massive damage to ecosystems. Deer eat new growth which causes forests to not regenerate from damage and actually erode. They tend to push out medium sized herbivores and kill medium sized predators. Here is a fun link about reintroducing wolves back into Yellowstone park. Think of the wolves as similar to hunters. The impact of hunters is smaller but still important.

The fees that hunters pay is used to help programs to support wildlife. Very few people are deeply concerned about fringe birds or plants, but many lesser known species serve an important role in ecosystems. The fee that hunters pay towards the 'known' animals is used to support programs to help the 'unknown' animals. Further, hunters need to have high quality wildlife in order to have something to hunt. This means they happily provide a constant source of political pressure and money to keep wildlife away from industrial development and from natural decay. It also allows for more money to go into regional markets. A hunter does not only pay the fee involved in the hunt, they also pay for the gun, gear, lodging, meals, etc. All of these go into regional groups that support wildlife in some form. Economies built off of preserving nature fight very strongly to keep the land wild.

0
2

[–] Belisaerio 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Actually, it can be true. When done right, killing some is better for species. They pick males that are too old to mate, but still so aggressive they prevent younger ones from mating. Bigger article here

3
-1

[–] ZombieBomb 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

Is this the same logic as planting more trees because we cut them down?

2
-2

[–] newoldwave 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

~~~The fees they pay go into some dictator's pocket.

~~~

5
-4

9
-6