There was some bilge on the internet the other day (Friday?) about how man acts to further degrade wildlife populations by focusing on the prime adults and not on the young and the weak like normal animal predators do, or would. The argument was that it acted to further degrade breeding stocks, leading to a world-wide population declines. Now, if the argument was credible (which, I'm not persuaded by), that would more-likely apply to big game than birds and fish. Most of the hunters I know (which, I'm guessing the vast majority of hunters fall-into) are simply not in the "super-predator" class. Most are lucky to ever have a game-meal, & maybe only once a year. Then....there are the exceptions, and I happen to know a few, that seem to always have game in their freezer (or freezers?). These individuals live for the hunt, devoting huge energy into the planning and execution of each trip. My question is this, are there enough of these types of hunters (& fishermen) to really make a difference in world wildlife populations? I'm fairly convinced there is not. I think degradation and loss of habitat is the primary challenge.
Last edited by Lloyd3; 08/23/15 03:45 PM.
