Huntin' License Do-re-mi

[Art Eatman]

Mention was made in another thread about the cost of hunting licenses and where the money goes.

The money from hunting licenses is one of the few sources for game wardens' and wildlife biologists' salaries. It also helps fund such things as state fish hatcheries; in Texas it helps with the administrative costs of public hunting lands.

The taxes on guns and ammo, fishing tackle and such (Pittman-Robinson; Dingell-Johnson) is prorated among the states according to how many licenses are sold.

Even if folks don't hunt or fish, the purchase of the licenses helps ALL wildlife. The Audubon and Sierra Club folks get a free ride on the backs of hunters and fishermen.

FWIW, Art

 

[ArmySon]

What do the Audobon Club do for hunters and fishermen? What do they do for wildlife conservation. I'm not a bird nut. Therefore, I don't follow the club at all.

[This message has been edited by ArmySon (edited August 25, 2000).]

 

[Art Eatman]

The "non-consumptive" outdoors types are not taxed to support wildlife.

Audubon's official policy is to be hunting-neutral, or to support hunting to maintain balanced populations. By and large, they are among the more rational of the pro-environment groups.

Sierra Club is anti-everything, near as I can tell. They don't like hunting, nor ranching on public lands. Heck, I read an article in their magazine indicating resentment of the Navajos' sheep on the Navajo Reservation! I don't question their sincerity, only their wisdom or judgement.

The problem is that preservation of, or improvements to habitat--which are costly--benefit non-game species as well as game species. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but birders and hikers benefit just as much as hunters--yet they pay nothing into the efforts.

Further, hunters benefit birders by killing feral animals. Wild dogs, house cats...Feral cats are incredibly destructive of songbirds.

Regards, Art

 

[Eric of IN]

This is way off the topic of hunting licenses, but it's a story I thought you might enjoy.

When I was in the Coast Guard, I served aboard a Polar-class icebreaker. Our job was to break a channel through the ice to McMurdo Station Antarctica, and to escort the resupply ships in and out. Well, it seems that Greenpeace didn't like the fact that there are scientific research stations in Antarctica, and decided the best way for them to get rid of them was to keep the resupply ships from getting through. They follow our channel through the ice pack a few miles, and turn the ship broadside so as to block the whole channel. You can probably guess what happened. We just went around them while escorting a bulk freighter in. A few hours later, they send out a distress signal to us, stating that they are stuck in the ice, and would we please come rescue them. We left that ship there for 4 days, until we were done with the escorts. Figured they were safe and out of the way. The day after they attempted their blockade, I switched my CFC donation from a general environmental pool, to Ducks Unlimited. I decided any group that collectively stupid was not getting a red cent from me.
Eric

[This message has been edited by Eric of IN (edited August 25, 2000).]

 

[BadMedicine]

You helped them at all????!?!? That'd a ship load less of the b*stards to taint our gene pool (kidding of course)

 

[Art Eatman]

Eric, I started dealing with enviroloonies in 1975. The sincerity is obvious, but the lack of knowledge or understanding of environmental facts is also obvious. There is just no way to deal with folks whose position is base upon emotion. Same problem in the gun-control arguments, of course.

I'd say y'all did the most rational thing possible in dealing with Greenpeace. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall, along about the third or fourth day, listening in.

, Art

 

[paratrooper]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BadMedicine:
You helped them at all????!?!? That'd a ship load less of the b*stards to taint our gene pool (kidding of course)[/quote]

Consider the alternative . The fish would eat them and introduce abject stupidity into their ecological system . That's gross pollution of the highest order . It borders on cruelty to animals .
If the Greenies die on land they will be buried . Then the worms will eat them . Since dumb worms are easier to find for fishing that would be a good thing . Dumb fish , on the other hand would be too stupid to bite on the worm . All things considered Eric done good .



------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA GOA

 

[LoneStar]

I think the fish could handle it, spending all that time in schools.

sorry