Joe describes the 2006 deer season so far, discusses license fee increases, outdoor news, and a tip of the day!
Click Here to Listen!!
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Episode #10 2006 Deer Season, Rising Costs of License Fees, News and Tips!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
RSS Feed!
Posts
Comments
2 comments:
At this time I would like to respond briefly to proposals of using "immunocontraception" in wildlife management.
Those who push for "immunocontraception" as a method of controlling deer populations fail to address several important problems associated with the process. Among such are ...
When a deer populations exceeds desired physical and/or social carrying capacities, only through the removal of those excess deer can the problem be properly addressed.
While immunocontraception may incur the potential to help control future deer birth rates, it does nothing to address an overpopulation problem when such is already in existance.
While one Jay Kirkpatrick may be able to claim "It Works" , the fact that the "injected" substance PZP may prevent the process of contraception in does is moot unless it can be properly and feasably delivered to those deer requiring it.
As it pertains to immunocontraception vs lethal population control, such as hunting, the ultimate goal of those who are pushing for immunocontraception, i.e. the Humane Society of the United States, etc., is not to have immunocontraception used as an additional method, or in locations of significant human development where concerns about hunting may occur, as a potential alternative, but rather as a replacement to hunting for all purposes of wildlife population management.
When you remove hunting from the process however , not only do you lose a you lose a cost efficient and proven effective method of wildlife population control, but you also lose valuable financing for wildlife management, conservation, and hunting's subsequent economical benefit.
Excellent post......... well said!
Your point, "As it pertains to immunocontraception vs lethal population control, such as hunting, the ultimate goal of those who are pushing for immunocontraception, i.e. the Humane Society of the United States, etc., is not to have immunocontraception used as an additional method, or in locations of significant human development where concerns about hunting may occur, as a potential alternative, but rather as a replacement to hunting for all purposes of wildlife population management." is spot on, and we need to take this threat more seriously than we do.
Post a Comment