If you are not going to eat it why shoot it?

Originally Posted by Skyline

I can say that if I was a moderator on this forum no one else would have to worry about reading any more of his posts. I am sure that some find this sort of poster amusing. I do not.

Skyline, I agree, he has been banned. I'm all for members discussing and sharing their opinions, but if someone comes here just for the purpose of destroying the ambiance here they won't be tolerated. He obviously had the intention just to create discord.

To all of you, this is YOUR forum and community, and I am determined to keep it informative, friendly and enjoyable for you to come here. I will listen to you!

I give you 5 stars Jerome, the posts was just too obvious and that of an anti hunter, a bloody waffle footed liberal on the move to create havoc.

I am so, so very sad Chaser left.

And without so much as a forwarding address, pity.

I had him a great job as an economic adviser with the Obama administration.

And do not anyone try and kid yourself, that's what this is all about

If the trophy fee on a lion is say $25,000 then if the trophy fee is raised to $50,000 you will have twice as many.

It is a proven economic tenant that if you tax something (i.e. reduce its value) you will have less of it.

A classic example is whitetail deer in Texas, the higher the cost of hunting the critters get (and its getting quite high) two things occur, we kill more deer and the overall herd population increases.

Another is the success of the elephant in Africa

I ask you, how many elephants ( or lions or whatever) would you have if you couldn't hunt them. I dare say substantially less, if any, because the higher value placed on the individual animal the more that are produced and the harder people will work to preserve their habitat.

I mean, if you cannot hunt a lion what is it worth and if it has no value why would people put up with having them around...aesthetics only travel so far, especially at the poverty level.

The people in this world that are working the hardest to preserve, maintain and advance species are those associated with the hunting industry, it is just an economic fact

The only species that seem to be doing well or better are those considered "game" or have somehow imparted "value" to their existence

The vast bulk of species doing poorly and headed for extinction are non-game

Gentle readers, (and I so detest doing this) To quote Al Gore...."the debate is over"