Does hunting animals help preserve their species like Huckabee states? Do you agree with his statement?

Question

"The truth is hunters are the ones who preserve the species," he said, since hunters have an interest in preserving wildlife and their license fees pay for conservation efforts. "In many cases extinction comes from not having some level of hunting. It's the hunters who actually keep the wildlife alive. A lot of people think that when you hunt you're destroying the wildlife."

Answer 1

I dont even like the guy. But he is right!

And to our anti-hunter; What have YOU done of late for animals? Hummmm?

Every year I spend a considerable amount of cash for hunting, fishing and trapping, part of that goes to help wildlife. I also help other locals work on wildlife habitat. We plant plants to improve habitat, clean up trash people left in the woods when they party with their friends (ah teenagers!) and we also put up nesting boxes for birds.
AGAIN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE DEAR ANTI?

Answer 2

Exactly zero species have become extinct because of the pressures of recreational hunting. Research it however you want and you will not find anything to the contrary.

Recreational hunting is the primary tool of wildlife management because most species would gladly eat and reproduce themselves out of house and home, especially the species, such as whitetail deer, whose major predators have been pushed away by the advances of "civilization". Do you really want wolves and mountain lions wandering through the subdivisions? The deer do it.

Yes, the hunters are the ones who care most about keeping a healthy, balanced population that approximately matches the carrying capacity of the range. This is called "conservationism".

"Preservationism", on the other hand, insists that we are never under any circumstances allowed to take any of these animals, thinking that this is the best way to preserve the species. This is a load of bull and is the method used to almost eliminate the Grand Canyon Elk herd. All predators that could be killed were and all hunting was banned and the herd boomed, for a few years. And then the herd outgrew the amount of forage growing there and there were a few dry years. The resulting crash almost eliminated the herd through starvation and disease.

It is primarily MY money that funds state wildlife management programs, habitat and access acquisition and safety training programs through licensing fees and through a federal excise tax paid on all hunting equipment. There is another such tax for fishing equipment, too, but that is not the subject here. I also have the option of paying $5 extra that goes into a state fund for habitat and access purchases when I buy my license and I do that. That same excise tax is also collected on all the ammunition and equipment I purchase for competitive shooting and that amounts to several times what I spend yearly for any hunting-related purchases.

I'm willing to pay my own way. How many want me to pay for them too?

Answer 3

Yes, I agree whole heartedly. It's not just game animals, and it's not just license fees either. The Pittman/Robertson act levies an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and other hunting related sporting goods. This tax was requested by hunters and is used for things like hunter education programs and habitat improvement/restoration. These P/R funds are responsible for the return of many wildlife species that were on the brink of extinction, one of the most notable being the whooping crane. If you are happy that wildlife is thriving in the United States, thank a hunter, they have been paying for it for a long time.

Answer 4

Well, current day hunting I would say this is a valid point, but past hunting has been a holy terror to wildlife. Like when people on the Canadian Pacific Railway used to just shoot buffalo out of the windows and leave them there to rot, that nearly destroyed the buffalo. The same goes with wild turkey, they were extirpated (excinct in one area) in Ontario until we started the wild turkey program here, now there are hundreds of thousands of the things.

Answer 5

YES wildlife is a renewable resource as long as it is managed properly and it has Food, Cover & Water.* As long as the Hunting Seasons & license's are managed properly.* There is an enormous amount of wildlife, both big game and small that is killed every year by cars and trucks, which needs to also be taken into consideration.*

Answer 6

It is not the hunting that saves them. It is the fact that Hunters are the biggest conservation proponents out there. We use common sense to improve and create new habitat for all game and none game animals.

It is the Enviromental people that really do nothing to improve wildlife habitat ever.

Answer 7

That's an over-simplification. Hunters do good with license fees and can be used to solve over-population problems. On the other hand, the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction.
If you hunted animals on the endangered species list, that probably isn't going to help those species.

Answer 8

In agreement with that statement, I offer one made by Ted Nugent : "If you want to save a species, simply decide to eat it. Then it will be managed - like chickens, like turkeys, like deer, like Canadian geese."

Answer 9

There's no opinion with which to agree or disagree; you can only be right or wrong. It's just fact, plain and simple.

Answer 10

What he says is not opinion, but fact. It doesn't really matter whether or not I agree with him. Which I do, by the way.