Monday, October 22, 2007

On Hunting

Here's a really nice piece from John Lott in NRO on hunting:
The benefits of hunting extend well beyond deer and agriculture. Florida and Louisiana have about the same number of alligators, but Florida faces a problem Louisiana doesn’t: alligator attacks on humans. Alligators grow over their lives and can live to be over a100 years old. As they age their means of sustenance changes. A four foot alligator will eat fish and frogs. A twelve foot one will eat deer, dogs, and even people. Hunting keeps the number of these largest alligators in check.

Cougar hunting produces similar benefits. When young male cougars mature they are forced out of the dominant male cougar’s territory or they risk being killed. In California, where hunting has been banned since an initiative 1990, this is increasingly forcing them into human populated areas.

Preventing hunting also has another downside. It causes these dangerous wild animals to lose their fear of humans. In turn, they adapt to their surroundings, treating humans as just another vulnerable food source, and increasing the likelihood that they will attack.
You know, on another subject entirely, not to diss NRO and the mainline conservatives, but I'm getting a bit tired of the constant implication that we "fringe" libertarian/conservatives ought to look into our hearts and at least consider a Rudy or a Mitt. Read my lips...on the only issue that matters to me, there appears to be no difference between Mitt, Rudy and the Hillary-Beast. If that's my choice, I stay home and take my chances on the Dems. At least I know where they're coming from.

Want me to support Mitt and/or Rudy? All they've got to do is pass the litmus test, and I've got it boiled down to one simple question...answer "YES" and I'm with you 100%:

If you are elected President, do you agree to unconditionally oppose up to and including a Presidential veto any legislation aimed at banning or limiting law-abiding citizens' access to currently unregulated firearms and firearm parts, including so-called "assault weapons," so-called "high-capacity magazines" and so-called "sniper rifles?"

Golly gosh gee, how hard can that be?


dwight said...

I'm with you on principle -- in the primaries.

In the general election, remember: IT'S THE JUDGES!

Guaranteed Hildebeaste gives us more Ginsbergs.

Rudy or Mitt would at least give us a 50/50 chance of decent SCOTUS appointments.

HaroldB said...

I'm with you Micheal. No half measures in such an important position as President.
I'm for Fred this time.

Anonymous said...

If you stay home you are an idiot. At least go vote for the pro gun pols running on the down ticket races!

Sevesteen said...

Vote for someone, even if it is a third party or independent. Staying home sends a message of apathy. Voting for someone else sends a message that you care and aren't going to support someone just because they aren't Hillary.

DirtCrashr said...

No Rudy, No Mitt, no-way. Nobody wants The Beast, but I'd rather vote for an insane loser-man like Kucinich than another anti-gun Rhino (like Shawarzennegger). Won't get fooled again.

Fiftycal said...

Amen brother. Romney would sell us out in a minute and I believe that Guiliani will appoint the easter bunny before any "conservative" judges. We have about 3 months to convince the "semi-autos are evil" hunter crowd before the primary races start.

Jim Manley said...

The concern over judicial appointments is well taken; consider the prospects of Parker (the D.C. handgun case) post-Hillary. Not good. Vote your conscience in the primary; vote to survive in the general.

Anonymous said...

I'm always surprised when people say 'the party that's busy raping the constitution is the party that's better on the 2nd'.
Most people seem to forget that Ruby Ridge and Waco were ordered by Pappy Bush.
The democrats are too cowardly to stand up to this Bush when he has a 26% approval rating on subject like the S-Chip that have over 70% support in the population.
They'll never be brave enough to stand up to the popular NRA on issues most people are against.