[ek_hornbeck]

What leftist animal-rights types fail to understand is that if you remove the economic value of wildlife as a source of food, recreation (and thus tourist revenue), that removes any and all economic incentives to conserve wild areas or wild animals. A deer that can't be hunted is just a crop/garden pest and a road hazard. So the net effect of banning hunting will be less wildlife habitat (i.e. no economic incentive for state or private entities to preserve forests) and eventual culls when deer and other animals become nuisances.

A good case in point is African wildlife. In places where trophy hunting is legal, Africans have an incentive to protect animals from poachers because rich Americans are willing to pay $100K or more to shoot an elephant or a lion. Take away that source of revenue, and governments in Africa have exactly zero incentive to conserve wildlife that are dangerous and/or threats to crops or livestock, and where wild savanna is better converted to grazing lands for cattle or farmland. So elephants and lions are doing well in countries with trophy hunting where poachers are killed on sight (either by law enforcement or private citizens protecting their income source), while they're on their way out in countries where trophy hunting is not available. The same thing would play out in developed countries because the same incentives apply, just not quite as starkly.

Of course, none of this matters to urban "environmentalists" or animal rights nutcases. They're more interested in appearing virtuous and morally superior to actual measures that might conserve wildlife.

[Uncle Miltie]

I know what redneck hunters and fishermen are like. They’ll follow reasonable rules for hunting and fishing.

Unreasonable rules will be met with unlimited poaching.

This will be WORSE for the animals. I promise.