Sun, Aug 27, 2006, 9:05pm (EDT-3) did writeth:
Not that you said they actually did hurt anybody but to be clear, AFAIK,
no one has ever been hurt by cutting into a deliberately spiked tree.
snip
As for revenue used to fund game conservation, I think you'll find that
most 'tree huggers' are opposed to game conservation considering it to
be tampering with nature by creating an imbalance in the animal
populaitons.

Perhaps no person has been hurt, but that's certainly not from lack
of fntent.

The tree huggers got their way a number of years ago, somewhere on
the east coast. I have forgotten the exact reference, will look it up
if I can - I idid seephotos. Seems they got an area closed off to all
hunting. Within five years the deer population was suffering from
malnutrition, stunted growth, and disease. Looked like the deer
population would be totally decimated within a few more years. But
someone with sense allowed hunting again, and the deer population
regained health, normal groth, and no disease. It did take a number of
years for this to happen tho. The tree huggers forget, man has
encroached on these animals habitat, pretty well done away with natural
preditors, etc. No hunting and they quickly consume their usual forage
when the herd increases. If they'e not culled by hunting they move out
of their range to find new food sources, too often farmers' fields. In
the mortal world the tree huggers' and daisy eaters's dreams don't come
true.

Myself, I'm conservative. Don't hunt anymore myself, but am a
firm believer in hunting as a viable game management and conservtion
resource. If it wasn't for legal hunting and hunters there wouldn't be
near the amount of game there is, or the amount of species there is.
It's got to be controlled tho, limits, perhaps closed seasons at times,
use some sense in other words.



JOAT
Justice was invented by the innocent.
Mercy and lawyers were invented by the guilty.