I have to disagree with you. I think there are more good hunters than bad
hunters, just as there are more good birders than bad birders.
To begin with as a former hunter, I only stopped because my wife does not
eat wild game and I hunted to eat the game not just kill it. That being said
let me assure you I did not get MY KICKS from causing suffering and death to
the animal. Although I have stopped hunting I am still a member of Ducks
Unlimited. Why you may ask. Well because they place millions of dollars into
wetland and pothole breeding areas of the US and Canada. Groups like this
are not only sportsman but conservationists and environmental advocates.
Just last year while in Michigan I was a small preserve on Lake Huron and
while photographing a yellow headed blackbird I noticed a sign that read.
"Migratory Shorebird Area NO Hunting Allowed". Below that it said
"Constructed with funds from "Ducks Unlimited".
From: Vermont Birds [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [VTBIRD] hunters - question
Michael, in his posting, writes about "good hunters". Now, let me get
this straight - aren't hunters those guys (and, unbelievably, some
women) who get their kicks by causing suffering and death to animals?
So, what constitutes a good hunter - someone who takes pleasure causing
suffering and death only at mandated times of the year?
Hector Galbraith PhD
Galbraith Environmental Sciences LLC
837 Camp Arden Rd., Dummerston, VT05301
802 258 4836 (phone)