<quoted text>Were it not for hunters like me paying the freight, you AR dweebs wouldn't get to view any wildlife.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. ..the biggest JOKE and the biggest LIE on the planet!!!! effing HILARIOUS that scumbag COWARDS claim that their MURDER SPREES are so that we can all view wildlife!!!!!!! Get lost you pathetic, desperate, spineless, witless PoS COWARD!! The FACT is that "conservation" is paid by the general taxpayer and non-gunning related industry.
As noted under “Desired Client Access,” hunter numbers are shrinking, while federal data shows surging numbers of birdwatchers, wildlife photographers, and other wildlife enthusiasts. Non-invasive recreationists increased from 62.8 million in 1996 to 71.1 million in 2006. Hikers, birdwatchers, bikers, and other wildlife watchers outnumber hunters 17 to one, and outspend gunners four to one.
Despite these margins, wildlife departments and industry partners (The Wildlife Management Institute, see below) resist reform. Rather than relinquish gun lobby control over public purse-strings and policy, trade has turned to “access and recruitment,” via increased access to public and private land, and recruitment programs aimed at children and women.
To make up the deficit, state wildlife departments have begun to have it both ways, pumping more and more tax dollars into hunting programs, while insisting that the agencies still be run by and for hunters. This leaves the departments politically vulnerable, with calls for commensurate public representation on wildlife councils and in management of public lands.
Conservation vs. Administration of Hunting Programs
Claims that hunting pays for conservation are inaccurate. Hunter fees pay for the administration of hunting programs. There is a difference. Hunter programs are narrowly aimed toward servicing a specific clientele: pen-raising pheasants, re-stocking hunted species, securing increased client access to public and private lands, hunter advocacy public relations, issuing licenses, and other duties.
Federal excise taxes (Pittman-Robertson) on handguns, long guns, and outdoor equipment finance propagation of hunted animals, hunter recruitment, poll tests, and public attitude initiatives. Hunter-generated funds comprise only 20 percent of excise tax revenues, yet the hunting lobby controls 100 percent of revenue dispersal.
For laypersons, the term “conservation” is positive: it means restoring and protecting wildlife and its habitat. For government practitioners and firearms partners, the overarching goal is propagation of “game” species to sustain hunter demand and, indirectly, firearms, archery and equipment sales.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges that creating monocultures for deer affects “significant acreage,” with negative consequences for non-game species dependent upon destroyed ecotypes. Sandhill cranes, short-eared owls; Henslow's sparrows, marsh wrens and grasshopper mice are among the dislodged. Habitat is modified via “controlled burning, chemical usage, seeding and planting, mechanical, water development, water maintenance and timber harvest.”
Gunning is not required to preserve habitat, and in fact directs public funding away from preservation priorities. Non-hunting Americans have proved extremely generous in public support for open space and wildlife habitat and foot most of the bill. Under State Wildlife Grants and other funding mechanisms, the general public will pay even more in the years to come, yet remains effectively barred from policy. http://www.safebackyards.com/Conserve.htm
Keep flailing about and FAILING miserably, you worthless PoS COWARD, because the FACT is that ARAs are increasing EVERY DAY while scum like you are on a steady DECLINE and you will be OBSOLETE!!!