05-05-2018, 04:09 PM
(05-05-2018, 01:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:How many rangers and trained professionals would you need to hire to replace the hunters in the state of Minnesota? How much revenue would the state loose? How much state and local economic activity would be lost as well? How much of a tax increase would the state need to employ and equip full time of park rangers/hunters and emergency response teams to deal with pesky/dangerous looking/dangerous acting critters and pay for services of professional hunters/groups of professional who are qualified and fully equipped to deal with nastiest critters and manage the size of larger deer/antelope/elk/caribou herds without any shots being heard?(05-05-2018, 10:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:I know that compromise with gun advocates is needed for these purposes and others. However, I do not see sport hunting as legitimate. In our time of humans endangering life on the planet, animals should be allowed to live. Where population regulation is needed, we have rangers who can deal with problems in more humane ways.(05-04-2018, 07:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(05-04-2018, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(05-03-2018, 10:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Meanwhile, the reds (and especially the NRA leadership and all who support their policies) DO want to stop people who live in cities awash in guns from regulating them.
From my perspective, the phrase "awash in guns" is a values statement that the situation is unacceptable, and must change. The desire to regulate is a desire to use the force of government to change the culture. Thus, the point stands. Both cultures desire to change the other, and must to get their goals? They just don't see their own culture's infringements.
Certainly, in many urban areas, being awash with guns is indeed unacceptable. Those in rural areas seem resigned to accept it, although they too experience heightened gun violence as a direct result.
Except perhaps in such places as Detroit, which is becoming rural due to depopulation, the only legitimate uses for the common man for firearms are sport-hunting, target-shooting, or self-defense. If I had to live in bear country or cougar country I would keep a high-power weapon.
That includes tranquilizer guns and transport vehicles to move animals to their proper territory. This could also be an alternative for those living in bear or cougar country. Then again, why should humans live in bear or cougar country? Shouldn't other species be allowed to have their territories as well as humans?
Bears are scary beasts. But I remember in the old days my family would take a vacation in Yosemite and the bears would come at night and steal food. We heard one; he came and went and that was that. Unless their cubs are threatened, bears may not be all that dangerous. But I know, fear is understandable.
Why shouldn't humans live in bear country? They're living in human country. We have had some bear sightings in the community. Evidently, a few bears migrated from bear country to suburbia which the clueless blues must not have believed was possible because bear country is widely considered to be further north. We also have a few cougars that have been sighted who migrated from cougar country as well. Oh, and we have wild deer and turkeys and coyotes wondering around and disrupting traffic and upsetting humans all over the place too. I get the feeling that nature doesn't give a shit about human rules and the obvious signs associated with human country.