I am and if you check back in a few I'll tell ya why
2007-12-15 17:51:48 · 10 answers · asked by truthteller 4 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
I'm glad we have them because I love to hunt and without them the game and fish wouldn't have been started and without the game and fish I wouldn't be able to hunt not for the lack of laws but for the lack of animals cuz without regulation they would have been long since hunted to extinction.
2007-12-15 18:28:50 · update #1
Peta arn't activists they are fanatics and bigots or morons which ever you prefer.
2007-12-15 18:31:22 · update #2
I love to hunt so yes I'm glad to have them.
2007-12-15 17:53:33 · answer #1 · answered by Nick 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if they are conservationists. No, if they are preservationists for species that are not threatened or endangered. Yes, if they for preservation of threatened or endangered species.
Conservation is the wise use of natural resources. This includes harvesting surplus, restocking, replanting, good management, etc. Responsible sportspersons must be conservationists. A good example is Ducks Unlimited.
Preservation is a ban on the use of certain natural resources. It often ignores that when humans have changed the environment, the changes that result may require managing it. A bad example is the Humane Society of the United States, not to be confused with the positive work of most of the local ones.
For instance, in California, the ban on mountain lion hunting has severely impacted deer herds. The ban, now rescinded, on hunting tule elk, although opposed by hunters at the time, resulted in an increase in herds so that there is a harvestable surplus.
2007-12-16 05:49:11 · answer #2 · answered by Gerald G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like animal activists who save animals from puppy farms and stop the illegal trade of bear gallbladders. I don't like the ones that come on here and say we are all killing things without giving them a chance. That is just not true when people use bows and so forth. I don't have enough practise to hunt with a bow and arrow so I just settle for an open-sited rifle for now. I have less yardage to work with compared to if I had a scope and was picking off animals at 300 yards.
2007-12-16 23:48:50 · answer #3 · answered by Larry 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was hunters who started asking for laws to protect wildlife, not animal activists. It is also hunters who foot most of the bill for wildlife conservation efforts. Animal rights groups spend their money in the courts and on advertising that triggers peoples emotions with no regard for common sense. This is of course after the group founders, leaders, and lawyers get paid their 6 or 7 figure salaries. Without the Pittman/Robertson funds that hunters pay as an excise tax on sporting goods, there would be no whooping cranes in the world any more, and that's just one of the most obvious non-game animals that has been helped by hunters. These taxes, which hunters ASKED to pay have benefited more non-game species than game animals by far. If you love the fact that american wildlife is thriving, thank a hunter, they paid for it and continue to do so!
2007-12-16 10:30:55 · answer #4 · answered by brddg1974 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Activists by definition are PETA and others like that. Activism involves confrontation, strike, and demonstrations for their cause, which is what PETA does. A hunter and other conservationists do the same thing without causing an uproar, so no, I'm not glad we have them.
2007-12-16 13:28:15 · answer #5 · answered by Lou 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most of them have nothing better to do with there lives and they love to capitalize on anything to help make someone elses blood boil. So if you like that then-sure I'm glad we have them..
2007-12-16 08:37:38 · answer #6 · answered by Matt C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am most happy to see conservationists in action, but I've no respect for these animal rights activists.
Admittedly, I consider most dogs to be a better breed of people than most humans, and I don't much cotton to using defenseless animals for cosmetic research, nor medical research, why not use death row inmates? But I don't rank animals above human life, which these bunny huggers do.
Doc
2007-12-16 02:06:11 · answer #7 · answered by Doc Hudson 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
If you're refering to PETA and like minded ilk, Then NO!
2007-12-16 02:26:42 · answer #8 · answered by Stocky 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It was HUNTERS, not any kind of wild-eyed activists, who are to be given the credit.
2007-12-16 04:29:14 · answer #9 · answered by Gray Wanderer 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
not peta they suck they were backing up some law called brians law which would ban pits after a pit killed or two killed a little boy i forgot where
2007-12-16 03:15:32 · answer #10 · answered by BOBBY 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋