Den (dewhitton) wrote,
Den
dewhitton

  • Mood:

Aerial hunting

On the Freefall forum is a massive about the aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska. The debate runs from emotive and uninformed to well informed. (Don't make assumptions about that statement. Some of the anti-hunt are very well informed, as are some of the pro-hunt.)

Normally I'd jump in to a debate like this because I'm an environmentalist and conservationist, but I don't know enough about the facts in Alaska so I'm posting here. From what I have seen and read the predator-prey cycle is a boom-and-bust thing, so reducing the predator numbers will not increase the prey numbers over the long term. There will be a short term increase, followed by a long term decrease caused by starvation, parasites and disease. (Read Mark Stanley's post)

Hunting for control is a highly emotive issue. People see animals dying for no real purpose. Here in Australia there is a huge outcry against aerial shooting of animals. "The animals have a right to live!" is the emotion behind the rhetoric.

Well, as an environmentalist and conservationist, I whole-heartedly support the extermination of wild horses, water buffalo, goats, pigs, cats, foxes, dogs (not dingoes), rabbits, donkeys, and anything else that is feral. I think the right to not become extinct is more important. I think bilbies, narla, numbats, hairy-nosed wombats, quokka, palmer wallabies, rock wallabies, leadbeater's possums and coroboree frogs have the right to not become extrinct.

And that is a very real possibility with all the animals on that list.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 2 comments