From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Lines: 61

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

>Promising field experiments are being done this year in several areas of
>the country relating to chemical contraceptive baits for deer. Preliminary
>data suggests that this will be a cost-effective and humane method for
>preventing over-population of habitats.

Preliminary data regarding similar research into kangaroo overpopulation
in Australia do not in any way support the cost-effectiveness of this
approach.  It _may_ be cost-effective for deer--if you quietly overlook
the fact that the net cost to the state of deer hunting is _negative_
(i.e. a profit) because the (majority of) hunters pay for licences.
The cost comparisons are probably being done assuming that people have
to be employed to cull the animals, which is not in fact the case.
You figure people are going to pay for licences to implant contraceptive
pellets or spread baits?

There has been a fair bit of discussion about this here recently,
because the kangaroo population in the grounds of the Governor-
General's residence has now reached plague proportions.  Despite the
whines of the rampant animal-libbers, the most effective method of
controlling the population is still considered to be controlled
shooting.

>So, now why should we allow hunting ... to prevent over-population of
>the deer/bear/<whatever> ? Sorry, but that 'justification' of blood-
>lust is now gone with the wind. Once mass-production of this stuff
>begins, animal populations can be easily managed without a shot being
>fired.  This leaves only the fact that some people *like* to go out
>in the woods and *kill* things.

Some people take satisfaction (IMHO, legitimate satisfaction) in eating
food that they have harvested themselves.  The pleasure derived from
hunting is the same as that you get from eating fruit and vegetables
grown in your own garden (and, in general, game meat is probably much 
freer of unpleasant chemicals than what you buy from the butcher or
the supermarket).

> That may be a motivation, but it
>cannot now be justified. Expect PETA and like organizations to use
>this argument to get hunting banned - period. 

By "cannot now be justified" I guess you mean that you personally
don't see any justification.  Fine--but what makes your opinion
so important?

>With no legitimate hunting, with the papers filled with stories of
>senseless murders ... I guess there won't be a chance in hell of
>building a case for the RKBA that will withstand either public
>opinion, necessity or scientific scrutiny. Don't give me that
>"silent majority wants guns" crap ... they are and will be 'silent'.
>No votes for RKBA, no RKBA. 

Certainly the last point is correct.  If politicians don't see any
votes for themselves in opposing stupid legislation or in developing
and supporting measures which might be effective in reducing the 
incidence of violent crime they won't do these things.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.edu.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy

