Eliminating predators is at one extreme. Not doing anything about them is at the other. The middle road--controlling predators--is the path to follow.
Toby, in this country, most of the money available to the states for projects that benefit wildlife--protection and creation of habitat, purchase and maintenance of public land open to hunting etc--is generated by hunters. Sources are the sale of hunting licenses and a hidden federal tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition, which is returned to the individual states from Washington based on how many hunting licenses they sell. This means that game species have more real "value" than predators. Fewer game birds and animals means reduced hunting license sales, which in turn means reduced revenue for various wildlife-friendly projects. And with trapper numbers on the decline and the campaign against fur, 4 legged predators in particular aren't being "controlled" to the same extent they were in the past.
We can talk all we want about the balance of nature, but we humans have upset it very badly. About all we can do is recognize that, to benefit ALL wildlife, some species--such as the ones we hunt--are more "valuable" than others. And we need to control predators, within reasonable limits, if we want to see game species thrive and increase in numbers.
As far as avian predators go, they're all protected in this country--as I believe they are as well in the UK.
Last edited by L. Brown; 03/17/14 08:29 AM.
