Environmentalists and deer hunting

[lilabner]

I suppose environmentalists don't have much impact on deer hunting in most places, but they do here in Oregon.  For a number of years, they have fought hard against timber cutting on federal land and that has reduced our deer herds because there is less food for them. The deer love replanted clear cuts because there is much more browse for them with the young trees and brush that grows up. Then, a few years ago, they managed to outlaw cougar hunting with dogs, which is the only effective way to hunt them. The cougar population is exploding and an adult cougar, according to game department studies, kills a deer a week. In my state, cougars now kill almost three times as many deer as hunters. Sometimes, I think it is all a plot they hatched to shut down deer hunting.

Does anyone else have this problem?

[hntngirl]

Hey, lilabner! I totally agree! Where I hunt clearcuts aren't such a problem, (Weyerhauser just bought the land and they tend to cut everything), but I have noticed a big increase in cougar. An adult cougar will kill one deer or elk about every seven days. That's alot of deer! It's been about what--4 years since they passed that law? Don't see anywhere near the amount of deer I used to see. Year before last, Fish and Game called after the season to see how I had done and I mentioned this to them. They said that was pretty much what they had heard from everyone. They had just finished talking to a guy who said he and his buddy had both got their deer, were camped, hung the deer in camp, and cougar had come in the middle of the night and took both of them. I don't know what part of Oregon you're from (I'm in the Willamette Valley), but this law never would have passed if it wasn't for Portland and Eugene. My apologies if one of those is your home town! :wink: Remember, they showed all those ads on TV of those little tiny baby cougar kittens and then showed a snarling, growling dog! Bleeding heart tree-huggers without a clue! Hunting cougar is impossible without dogs! Hopefully, someday the laws will change back to the way they belong, but I'm not holding my breath! :evil:

[huntsman]

The first rule of the environmental activist is that every issue is about EMOTION. Most of their goals stem from an idealistic view of natural resource preservation (nobody gets to USE the resources, only SENSE them).

The first rule of the true conservationist (Aldo Leopold and his ilk) is that every issue is about SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES. Their goals are based on a realistic view of natural resource conservation (WISE USE of resources, i.e., everyone gets as big a piece of the pie as the resource can reasonably stand from an ecological standpoint).

You will seldom hear environmentalists citing recognized objective scientific resources in their arguments. They do have some pet "scientific studies" that they will cite as "evidence" for their cause. These are usually either specific works pulled completely out of their scientific context or pseudo-science sponsored by radical environmentalist groups.

This is because the vast majority of scientific work in ecology and related fields in the last thirty years has reinforced the effectiveness, necessity, and wisdom of CONSERVATION over PRESERVATION. Conservation considers all factors in an ecosystem to be relevant, while preservation requires the existence of a vacuum where most of the social, political, and geographic factors of humans are either ignored altogether or relegated to the status of outside observer. Which of these worlds do you live in, and which do you want to live in?

The irony of the preservationists is that they benefit from and enjoy a lifestyle directly descended from the advance of human civilization to the point we have presently reached, but they want to argue specific ecological issues with no consideration for the impact of their views on the human civilization they enjoy. They drive automobiles, make cell phone calls, use electricity and water, generate waste, etc., just like the rest of us. Somehow for them that is an exception to the rule, and those things should be denied of OTHERS to preserve their hallowed ground or species.

Behind all the slick image campaigns, the bleeding-heart reprisals, the tree-hugging activism, and the foot-stomping 2-year-old screaming walleyed fit-throwing is a fundamentally flawed premise. The real shame is that so many of the ecologically ignorant are enamored by their theatrics without knowing the truth. :cry: