There was a nice half page article about the decline of the hunter population and how that is forcing the state wildlife agencies to suffer underfunding due to decrease in hunter fees. Since the agencies are supposed to manage the wildlife, they no longer have the funds, since all the liberal wienies are against hunting. Also noted that so many urbanized families no longer have hunters who can bring up the next generation of hunters, so less cash for the agencies to spend on helping the animals the hunters went after. Vicious cycle because the hunters funded the same conservation efforts much more effectively than the anti hunters ever could but demanded they be funded.
Which leads to man no longer interacting with animals in a natural setting, the animals being acclimated to once more running rampant and populations of prey being unbalanced. Which is good for the sale of ungulate be-gone or deterrents. These keep the pests that were once food from getting into the greenies gardens and munching veggies. Since no hunters are allowed access, there are fewer hunters, and populations grow into former wildlife areas. Prey species explode, and predator species grow with them. Attacking small pets, children, bicyclist, and other recreational users. If we had more hunters there would be fewer problems. Or as my BiL found out yesterday, the hunter can become the hunted really quickly. He was out in a great little area we found over the weekend for bagging a deer. Archery season and we were bummed that the deer were just not to be found as easily as before. He was in wait for a deer, when he became the stalkee of a cougar. Lucky for him he was able to draw on it and there was a cougar wandering about with an arrow for a day. Mr. Puma was a bit too good at finding a place to pass on, and has not been found. On 2 Sep 2007, at 13:01, billr wrote: > We have been over this territory about a year ago, but I'll jump in > here this time. In general you make some good points. For > population discussions you need to remember that in areas with no > social safety net children are the only answer to watching yourself > starve to death when you can't grow your own food due to age, > illness or weather. In terms of the latter, you might also lose a > few of the children. Given such choices, and knowing all the girls > would be moving to another home and at least some of the boys would > die as infants or children would you chose to have only one or two > children? 10 kids = 5 of each, and the girls will leave = 5 boys, > with perhaps two dying prior to being able to farm. 3 is a 'safe' > number as long as there is no warfare and they are willing to stay > on the farm instead of moving to the city [doesn't happen much > anymore]. Prior to suggesting controls on those who have so many > children make sure you would be willing to starve and watch your > spouse starve in order to keep the population low. I'll forgo > comments on the state of medical care in the 2/3rds of the world > that is poor, or the economic history of such regions, but you are > certainly correct that it is the relative inequity of access to > resources and lifestyle that feed the problem. > BillR > Jacksonville FL > > -----Original Message----- >> From: archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Sep 2, 2007 9:55 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mercedes Discussion List >> <mercedes@okiebenz.com> >> Subject: Re: [MBZ] Don Wills has invited you to join Kiva >> >> >> From: "Tom Hargrave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Ok, it's the "earn a living" argument. In the sub-Sahara, earning >>> a living >>> is probably the equivalent of $300.00 / year or so and most would >>> never >>> come >>> here. >>> >>> The steady flood of immigrants from South of the border has >>> nothing to do >>> with earning a living. It has everything to do with a huge >>> standard of >>> living difference, separated by something as trivial as a border. >>> And the >>> same differences have driven population migrations from the >>> beginning of >>> time. History is full of examples of people moving for a better >>> life, the >>> more recent in this country being the massive immigration from >>> Europe into >>> this country over the past 300 or so years, the gold & silver >>> rushes out >>> west and the move westward. >>> >>> If we want to stop immigration from South of the border then we >>> need to >>> figure out a way to improve their economy. >> --------------------------------------- >> Whether it's Mexico, India, Africa, China, Malaysia, Turkey, >> Morroco, or >> nearly any other third world country; a big problem that no one >> seems to be >> able to do anything about is the birth of more people than the >> countries can >> support. This drives down the quality of life and their citizens >> move to >> richer countries when they can. >> Should Western industrial nations such as the U.S. permit this >> migration? >> First generation immigrants work hard without complaint for low >> wages, >> businessmen love them, and they help make prosperous countries >> even more >> prosperous. However, the second and third generation become >> industrialized >> citizens with the same expectations as the general citizenry. The >> result is >> an increase of citizens, usually poor, in the industrial nations, >> who do not >> work hard for low wages without complaint. Often unemployed and >> poorly >> educated, they become a liability instead of an asset to the country. >> >> Usually, as in Mexico, the population exceeds the ability of the >> arable land >> to support them, so even if Mexico should suddenly become a well >> organized >> democratic country instead of an oligarchy of wealthy families >> (Carlos Slim >> of Mexico has recently become the richest man in the world); the >> constant >> increase in population would still lead Mexicans to immigrate to >> the U.S. >> >> Population increase seems to be a major worldwide problem which no >> one knows >> the answer to. Historically the answer was the Four Horsemen of the >> Apocalypse: War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death. Science has >> eliminated >> famine, pestilence, and early death in much of the worlds population. >> Unless someone comes up with a better solution, it looks like the >> remaining >> Horseman, War, might be the eventual result. Not a good solution >> IMO. >> Gerry -- Clay Seattle Bioburner 1972 220D - Gump 1995 E300D - Cleo 1987 300SDL - POS - DOA The FSM would drive a Diesel Benz _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
