Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
First, it shouldn't be surprising that people who's job it is to look after and control animals end up killing more of them, since it is part of the job, and done as a last resort by people qualified to make that decision.
As the bold...because it is a park, for conservation of wildlfe. You keep ignoring that part, so it's all I'll type.
|
So, the people in charge of conserving wildlife can kill wildlife and that’s understandable, but people who are attacked by wildlife… can’t… because we need to conserve the wildlife that conservation officers are going to kill because they attacked a person… got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Well yes, because the rules keep guns away from non-hunters...
|
They don’t, actually, as you can carry a gun for wildlife protection without hunting and nobody is suggesting changing any of the rules related to gun ownership or licensing.
I read those studies as well, I also read this one, but like those the information just doesn’t tell an accurate enough story to know exactly what to make out of if:
https://www.ofah.org/wp-content/uplo...l-activity.pdf
Basically says that non-hunter injuries stemming from hunting activity is extremely rare, and that’s in areas where hunting is actively occurring, not in a National Park where hunting would still not be allowed.