xav72 wrote:"hunters know how to manage contrary to what an urban ecologist may think who has never seen game in his life, but who knows that it should not be killed"
I am a good countryman, however.
But what should not be seriously heard ..
Without you and your beautiful skewer hunters, the world would go wrong I forgot!
SORRY !!!
Do you want a medal or maybe a statue?
So go satisfy your desire to kill, because deep down it is especially that which leads you ..
After that, if you like nature so much, go and walk around, but without pissing off people and wildlife.
why so much hatred
to walk in the nature I love like you, but would you walk with a quiet air if you could cross a big predator
Do not confuse the pleasure of killing and hunting, a hunter does not take pleasure in killing, because if it was the case in the absence of game he will find his pleasure on other preys
without the hunters the population of boars would explode, it is already limit
that deer, deer too, herds are already substantial
the population of rabbits has been contained only with the help of myxomatosis, the rabbit returns but as its habitat is destroyed it swarms only on motorways and any place forbidden to hunters, airports, military camps ...
you focus on the huntsman cons I too militate against the cons of hunters, but cons there are in both camps, the pros and cons
so if tomorrow you agree to share the campaign with foxes, wolves, wild cats in numbers not a few dozens like currently OK hunters will be able to put the rifles (I do not speak of rabies more)
have you ever had sheep slaughtered by wolves, hens taken by a fox, your garden ransacked by wild boars, crossed a stag that charges you during the slaughter, these accidents are not uncommon and all its animal populations are contained so imagine if that was not the case
in countries where there are still wolves, lynx, foxes it is rather advisable to go in an armed natural environment
in Australia rabbits were introduced (it's a nice bullshit) the hunt never managed to eradicate them,
since man, because of his spread of population, has invaded the wild territories, he has never stopped exterminating the predators who were competing with him or threatening his life (wolves, lynx, bears) or who frightened him (black cats, owls) the other species have disappeared at the same time as their natural habitat, nobody hunts the big hamster of Alsace and yet it is endangered
since he has taken an ecological conscience he would like to go back, but it is impossible, our campaigns are no longer wild territories, just green points between our cities in total ecological imbalance
We must therefore see the hunters as a necessity (every year there are administrative battues to destroy certain species, there is of course no talk of hunting), once again the man must overcome the nature that can no longer to work without him so much it intervened, parallel with agriculture, without pesticide, fungicide, fertilizer or other could one still produce as much for the same price, I spoke about price not quality
afterwards, as mentioned above, there are the good and the bad, because in order for a species to develop again in an environment, it is necessary to rehabilitate the environment, in the natural parks hunting is not prohibited, just better supervised and practiced by good hunters (in rural areas there are hunting societies that operate on the same principle) it is because there is good management and rehabilitation of the environment that it works
for example every summer the hunters drink to the birds, of course the partridges, the pheasants come to drink, but all the others too, have to do it because the wetlands have been suppressed, the hunters put pressure on the farmers for leave the fields fallow for a short time before returning everything after harvest so that the animals can eat what the machines did not pick up
afterwards we always come back to a question of money, the large hunting areas owned by the state are rented to the hunters, and it is auctioned, so the more quality the territory, the higher the prices, the more private territories are often reserved by the owner
so for the common man he often remains at his disposal, the communal land (industrial wastelands, stadiums ...) and as the fauna is not exuberant, well there it shoots everything that moves and it is this image that goes on TV
fishermen, for example to restore the thread of the watercourse must be blown up dams mills of the early twentieth that no longer rotate, but it is impossible without the agreement of the owners, so the restoration is not possible everywhere, that's in my village, so you can ban fishing it will not return the fish that can not pass these obstacles, ben similar for hunting
in the middle of the hunt the type of hunters you talk about, we call them viandards (they kill for the sake of killing and so that it pays) and the hunters do not like them more than you, so if you talk about these hunters there we totally agree
after there are bad killers in the slaughterhouses, then we must close all the slaughterhouses, a cold sheep without its wool so we must forbid to mow them and so we all become vegan, will nature be better off ? there will be nothing but fields, to produce all the necessary cereals, to feed us, to clothe us
If man was always virtuous we could suppress so many things, A Benalla occupies all media must make this exception a generality to disrupt all the work of the police and the gendarmerie, it over-mediates the police blunders, but the daily work of law enforcement is ignored
I will not try to convince you, the aggressiveness of your message shows in which category of opponent to hunting you are located, I speak of what I know because I have practiced in many different situations, on very different territories, there is no hunting but hunts, so I know what I'm talking about and I also met cons hunters, but cons everyone meets every day
