Isn't Trump going to allow hunting on gov't land? That it will be legal does not make it right. Putting our national treasures at risk turns my stomach and should turn yours.
Hunting is allowed on public land in every country where there is any public land. I'm glad there's still public land left here in Norway, so not only the rich have the possibility to hunt. I don't think you understand how hunting is regulated. Regulated hunting means there's no risk to the species, as there's quotas and so on. That is, the legal form of hunting. Hunting does not equal; "shoot anything that moves". To clear up any misconception; Let's say it's legal to hunt deer on some public property as long as you have a license, but not bears. It's then not poaching to hunt deer, as long as you've got the proper permits, but it does turn into poaching if you start to hunt bears on that property.
True. However, there is already hunting allowed on some public land, and to free it all up for hunting would take away the only safe haven left for our wild animals. Some hunters would poach anyway for the thrill, whereas if they are not allowed on that land.......
Again, noone is going to "free it all up", so hunters can just shoot anything that moves. When land is opened up for hunting, there's regulations and quotas on what species, the age of the animal, the gender of the animal, and what season it's legal to hunt them, and with what kind of weapons for what kind of periods. Also, not allowing people on public land at all would pretty much waste the purpose of most public land. Not only hunters would suffer from this, but hikers, campers, and other people who love nature. It would turn more people away from nature, which would make people more distanced from nature, and therefore not as willing to protect it. National parks are great, but it's not so great to make them not accessible for the public. And very few of them are actually large enough to fully function without human intervention anyway.
National parks should remain open to the public who love nature in it's natural form, but not be opened to hunters who are there to ruin it for those who want to enjoy our open spaces, and the animals that inhabit the land. Hunters already have land to hunt on.
If you open up national parks for the public, it's no longer in its natural form. Regulated hunting has no negative consequences for wildlife, especially compared to other human influence. Hunting does not ruin the experience for other people, as there's usually a pretty limited season where they're able to hunt. Also, hunting generates revenue to actually keep those national parks sustainable.
The national parks are already open to the public and always have been. Unnecessary killing and noise making is a lousy way to generate revenue, and just an excuse. Hunting ruins the experience for animals, which definitely ruins the experience for people.
One of the national parks in my country is having a crisis now, due to disease in the wild caribou population. The only way to actually stop the spread of disease to other national parks, is to cull the wild caribou in the affected areas, to save the species in other areas. Hunting definitely has a place in national parks. What you don't seem to understand is how regulated hunting is. Hunting does not ruin the experience of animals, they're not people. And hunting is restricted to certain times during the year, which means if people find gun shots or the sight of hunting so abhorrent, they can for just not go hiking while the hunting season is on, which is most of the year.
Culling the herd is a good way for hunters to get their rocks off, and they should be allowed to do that. An over abundance of deer in the town where I lived was causing all kinds of problems for the residents. They were and still are all over the residential areas, which are surrounded by forest. The township was toying with the idea of allowing hunters or the police to cull the herd. Hunters in residential communities is an accident waiting to happen, and even the police walking around with rifles ready isn't conducive to residential relaxed living. Last time I was there, nothing had changed.
Since you are hunting purely for sport, with no plans to use the meat or the pelts, you are a poacher in my opinion. People who hunt purely for pleasure, and do nothing with the animals are scum.
There are plenty of hunters who don't care about the law, and do whatever they want. If we opened up all public land for hunting, they would still do this. They're view is typically, unless they get caught, they are doing nothing wrong. They even do this on private land. I owe about 100 acres of woods behind my house. There are deer, rabbit, and other animals there and I've caught several people hunting. I caught one guy there and I held a rifle to his head and told him next time I laid eyes on him on my land I would kill him. He also had two rabbits he had shot in a bag he was carrying. I then took his shotgun and the rabbits, and he left. He called the police and told them I had made threats and stole his gun. I told them I was protecting my land because I found him armed and trespassing on my property. The cops held that I had every right to defend my land by force, and I legally could have just shot him dead, instead of warning him, and that I had the right to take his gun to make sure he didn't shoot me. I then told the cops I found him poaching and that I had found two rabbits on him, and told them I was pressing charges. They arrested him for felony trespassing, poaching (a felony in Indiana), and for theft (wild rabbits are considered property when they are on private property, in Indiana. So, he stole the rabbits from me when he killed them).
It doesn't matter if someone is a poacher "in your opinion", because your opinion is not the law, and the law is what differentiates poachers from law abiding hunters. Your opinion is worthless, the law is not. That guy hunting on your land without your consent, sure that guy's a poacher. But poachers are a minority. Most hunters do it legally, and are actually a benefit for the fauna. I honestly don't get the anti hunter sentiment from some people, it seems like they object mainly to the perceived motivations of the hunters, rather than what the hunters actually do. As long as you're abiding by the law, the motivations behind the hunt shouldn't really matter to anyone but the hunter him/herself. Hunters aren't psychopaths, or someone who wants to destroy nature, they're people like any other people. Some bad, most good.
No real people just shoot trophies and leave the meat to rot. It's an anti-hunting myth. I live in the South and know a lot of hunters. Most have freezers full of venison. In Africa, the big game hunters who kill elephants, donate the meat to the local tribe.
And it often does that by diseases and starvation and stunted populations in the absence of predators (which we've already killed off, and aren't going to come back to most areas).
I'd rather see hunters kill animals than to have the animals die of diseases and starvation. Being killed by predators is part of life.
Define government owned land. There are a bunch of categories of government owned land, some like Wildlife Management areas and some National Forest land, are open to hunting. Others, like national parks and monuments aren't.
Hunting on some government land has been allowed since the beginning of government owned land. It's interesting to me that the anti-hunting folks are really pretty ignorant about how hunting works in the real world.
Please show evidence that Trump (or his administration) wants to open hunting on all public land. I think you're making things up.
Nobody is suggesting that hunting be allowed in most national parks (there may be a few exceptions in some of the wilder Alaskan parks), except in your fervid imagination. They aren't going to allow hunting in Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon.
There's a good solution to that--allowing bow hunting. Bow hunting doesn't cause a lot of noise. It's a very controlled sport in that you have to be within 100 feet or so of a deer to shoot it with a bow, and there are almost no bow hunting accidents from the actual arrows--most are from people falling out of tree stands.
Me too, if that is the case, but if they kill healthy animals just to get their rocks off, then fk 'em.
Maybe you are right, but he is opening up land that has had no hunting allowed, and I object to that.