December 18, 2017

More Nonsensical Nonsense About Man’s “Impoverish”ing Wildlife

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As nauseating as it is, we hear it all the time – how man is destroying everything and how man is disrupting the balance of nature… which doesn’t exist. Most often mixed in with the rant about how man treats animals we hear, although most often implied, that man should just go away. That, of course, can only be defined as man must die in order to save the animals and our ecosystems.

Last time I checked the Earth is inhabited with a variety of plant and animal life, and while many often want to see man disappear, none are willing to step forward and be the first to do what they have deemed in their tiny minds as the only right thing to do to “Save the Planet.”

In addition, we can also read really stupid things. Here’s an example. This author evidently believes that it is wrong to “manage” game species for surplus harvest. He writes, “A typical response of utilitarians to environmental harm is to call for better management.  So, for example, wildlife agencies manage game species and their habitat so that more of the desired species are available for “harvest.”  In Maine, we manage coyote (that is encourage hunting coyotes) because of the belief that coyotes reduce the number of deer for hunters.”

Simply stated, this is a reasonable approach to utilizing a valuable resource rather than letting it go to waste. Science does show us that within a robust population of, let’s say deer, a percentage of those animals will suffer and die simply because there are too many of them. Is this somehow better than harvesting a percentage to fulfill the wants and needs of people?

Although we could argue this point until the moon turns blue, a point I wanted to make is that while this author finds it wrong to manipulate animal and game populations for the benefit of all, including hunting, he evidently sees no problem with manipulating feral and domestic cat populations for the benefit of “saving” song birds. “As I pointed out in an early blog…, feral cats and cats whose owners let them roam outside kill hundreds of millions, maybe a billion, song birds each year.  Why is it that we get to choose that a species we domesticated is more important than wild birds?”

The fact is, people are never going to take it upon themselves to either leave their cats, and all their other pets indoors. Therefore, the only other course of action to “save song birds” is to kill cats. While the author questions whether manipulating the number of coyotes that kill deer, that are used as a food source, is an ethical thing to do, evidently the feral and domestic cats don’t share the same rights of existence as the coyote. In addition, I guess it just depends on one’s selfish desires of how they want to take advantage of wildlife.

No matter how you view the use of our God-given resources, I wonder, if ever, people will one day realize and admit that man is on this earth and that it belongs to them…even if for a short time? We simply cannot approach wildlife management with any formula that does not include the existence of man.

  • RattlerRider

    The mismanagement of elk and deer populations in Idaho before the wolf debacle was self evident to many hunters who complained at meetings IDFG held that they were over selling tags in certain regions and opening hunting to early and to late seasonally for special draw hunts.. We could see it and were told to shut up, and ignored.. So it isn’t the consumptive use hunter that has been the problem it has been the management people before during and after the wolf.. So along with large carnivore over protection there has been over hunting. Albeit the wolf between 2002-2009 did over populate and did over kill a lot of other species of wildlife along with large and small predators including wolverines bear cubs and cougars and bobcats.. Foxes and badgers.. It’s interesting that all of the management supports the ideology of the United Nations Environmental Policies which is intentional depopulation of people by attacking every economic thing people need to survive.. Ruining hunting ranching, farming, destroying the job market all across the board.. Economic collapse.. It all ties together.. It is what it is.. Double Speak couched in legal terms. And the best part is nobody and i mean nobody is correctly addressing this problem in full on implementation against us all.. Not SWW not RMEF nobody. No group advocating as if they defend hunting, no author nobody. Overlooking the distinction between words and terms is a serious error most people make. Their all to worried about their source of income and their fken credibility.. Wildlife has been turned into a political tool by all involved. YES those eugenicists would kill all of the wildlife to get to us..