>>213813They do a marginal amount, at best. You should stop listening to hunting propaganda
>>213847Work by ecologists and proper funding to parks and management types do far more for the environment that hunters. And yes, I'm aware that hunters do funnel money into conservation, but in the grand scheme of things the money isnt as much as hunting parties make it out to be.
I'm not against hunting at all, but working in conservation the one thing I hate most of all is "HUNTERS AND SHOOTERS AND FISHERMAN DO MORE THAN YOU HIPPIE CUNTS EVER COULD". Everything else aside, quite a number of the most destructive introduced fauna (to australia) were introduced (and are still being deliberately moved around) due to hunters. Conservation hunting also relies on drastic decreases in population number to be effective, at least 70% but more like 90+% to be properly effective. Studies into conservation hunting found that most conservation hunting barely hits 5% to 10% of a population in a lot of cases. And even if hunters did adequately control these numbers, there wouldnt be anywhere near as much to shoot in the future - the whole idea is flawed as it relies on continual supply of animals to shoot, in a lot of cases animals that you're wanting low numbers of in a conservation sense. Its just fucking paradoxical. Deer are still being moved from some parts of the alpine regions into other areas by certain hunters so there is more game available. You can believe whatever you want, but go do a course in conservation, or even work in the field for a week, and you'll find out pretty quick that hunters are as often counterproductive in conservation as they are actually helpful with it.
