Stonepointer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 863
- Reaction score
- 21
Could someone please help me understand why some experts are saying about the booming wild hog population threats in North America, as not being able to be reduced to safer numbers by hunting?
I do not believe too many things I hear or see from television, but I feel certain issues are very important to pay attention and this might be one of them, as it is being pushed more into popular attitudes and thought.
In the last week I have watched several shows from television stations from what in my opinion are opposite quarters of thought, saying the same thing.
From a popular satellite TV station that showcases hunting, to an environmentalist nature station, both suprisingly pushing the same idea that hunting wild pigs will not be enough to stem dangerous population growth within the U.S.
I have heard Texas is most affected with this increase in population, followed by a few other states. There was some hog hunter in Florida on a very popular hunting show that was stating the opinion that hunting was not enough and could not take care of the problem.
I am not sure what they are trying to suggest, but I am thinking that those from the environmentalist viewpoint are pushing for sterilization by means of feed or some similar technique, and seem to want no European pigs here at all, because it is not an indigenous species; akin to how environmentalists think in New Zealand.
But neither is the javelina, or a few various other animals here that migrated or were recently imported from South America, but they will not complain about those not being indigenous.
I just do not understand how they say hunting can not stem a dangerous growth in wild animal populations, at the same time occasionally harp on historical data that large buffalo populations were nearly wiped out by mostly single shot rifles in the mid to late 19th century.
The idea of sterilization by feed is an even far more dangerous road to embark upon and could dangerously effect other species of animals and human beings. I cannot think of any other means they are considering to stem problematic population growths.
Also, just because an animal or plant is not indigenous to an area, does not always mean it is always bad.
If I have misunderstood anything about this issue, please clear it up for me.
I do not believe too many things I hear or see from television, but I feel certain issues are very important to pay attention and this might be one of them, as it is being pushed more into popular attitudes and thought.
In the last week I have watched several shows from television stations from what in my opinion are opposite quarters of thought, saying the same thing.
From a popular satellite TV station that showcases hunting, to an environmentalist nature station, both suprisingly pushing the same idea that hunting wild pigs will not be enough to stem dangerous population growth within the U.S.
I have heard Texas is most affected with this increase in population, followed by a few other states. There was some hog hunter in Florida on a very popular hunting show that was stating the opinion that hunting was not enough and could not take care of the problem.
I am not sure what they are trying to suggest, but I am thinking that those from the environmentalist viewpoint are pushing for sterilization by means of feed or some similar technique, and seem to want no European pigs here at all, because it is not an indigenous species; akin to how environmentalists think in New Zealand.
But neither is the javelina, or a few various other animals here that migrated or were recently imported from South America, but they will not complain about those not being indigenous.
I just do not understand how they say hunting can not stem a dangerous growth in wild animal populations, at the same time occasionally harp on historical data that large buffalo populations were nearly wiped out by mostly single shot rifles in the mid to late 19th century.
The idea of sterilization by feed is an even far more dangerous road to embark upon and could dangerously effect other species of animals and human beings. I cannot think of any other means they are considering to stem problematic population growths.
Also, just because an animal or plant is not indigenous to an area, does not always mean it is always bad.
If I have misunderstood anything about this issue, please clear it up for me.