ORIGINAL: JeremiahJohnson
Hillbilly - You're almost there dude! Here's the rub - if no one hunts behind high fences, then the whole operation has a HUGE capital flow problem. Without hunting, there's no funding, therefore no high fence, therefore the animals go away. Do you think do-gooders like PETA and the Humane Society are going to save species? No way - it's always hunting dollars that work. Hunters have the power to say which species stay and which species go because when it really comes down to it hunters are the ones that really care by putting their dollars where their mouths and "feelings" are.
I understand that hunters in general are great conservationists and that that point is lost on many non-hunting idiots but again In most cases (THE Non-AFRican Game--now for the 4th time), I can see no connection and do not believe there is one between canned hunting (again, For North American Big game) and conservation
I can't tell you how many species in Africa have been saved due to hunting.
Again, and now for the 5th time--I'm not talking about Africa or African game
Now, to the not-endangered species. I don't hunt indigenous species behind fence either because there's no need for me to pay extra money for bigger trophies - I don't care about that sort of thing. However, if I owned enough land and could afford to put a fence around it to keep poachers and trespassers off and protect my food plots, you better believe I'd do it.
Would you pay the rest of us for the publicly owned animals that are now behind your fence???
Would I hunt it? If there was enough to make it challenging you better believe I would.
how much is enough??