# Do Conservatives really care about conservation?



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

what to believe? believe that not all conservatives give a rat's arse about conservation but the bottom line is that most hunters are conservative and on the balance, the conservation advocated by conservatives is more sane than the bambist nonsense pushed by the liberals. I note that some hard leftists-from neo-trotskyites like the spartacus youth league, to whackos like Lyndon LaRouche, reject the yuppie-left "leave it alone" environmentalism on the grounds that the yuppie vision is a middle-to up class sierra club vision of having pristine backpacking trails while the natural resource wealth is unavailable for working class jobs and pay


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Hammer said:


> Recently this section of the board has become a bat with which some bash liberals by making generalizations with regard to how they or how they do not look at the sport of hunting. Some here insist that it is a fundamental value of the Left to undermine hunters and hunting inasmuch as it is a fundamental value of the Right to get all of our children to pray to the one and true God. Some here are insisting that Liberals in general don’t support hunters and are against the sport of hunting altogether.
> 
> Watching the ball game taking place around here I got to thinking that some people believe that the term Conservative has nothing to do with Conservation nowadays, and that in fact it is a fundamental value of Conservatism to exploit all aspects of nature with less regard to its sustainability for the sake of what can be squeezed from it right now to enrich themselves with. Agree or disagree, I think that a lot of folks see ANWR in this light and that is way it is so hard for the Republican controlled Congress to get legislation passed that would open it up?
> 
> ...


Hunters and anglers certainly share differing political leanings, right, left and center, which is a universal truth that is undeniable.

However, it is also an undeniable truth that the ANTI groups, whose agenda is to stop hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, camping, and any involvement in the great outdoors by man, woman and child are clearly and without argument embraced by the political Left in our Nation. This is not something that I am sure anyone would debate.

I think the challenge is not Left or Right, rather it is the understanding of two entirely different terms; conservation and preservation.

In the context of the Great Outdoors, the definitions of each are as follow. I stress that we keep the context in mind!

Conservation - Use of our Natural Resources in such fashion that we assure these resources are available, useable and enjoyable for future generations, maintaining as much natural beauty and natural stability as possible, so that our children and beyond still have these resources to enjoy and caretake.

Preservation - Elimination of use of our natural resources, in an effort to maintain a natural environ unchanged. 

Preservation works very well with historic buildings, ancient documents, special articles, such as wedding dresses, archaelogical finds, etc. Preservation does not work in Nature. Why? Because preservation is the practice of preventing change, deterioration of an object or another item (for lack of a better descriptor) from destruction. To believe that we, as humans, can accomplish this with Nature, is arrogant and illustrates the sheer ignorance of those who espouse such a philosophy. You see, NATURE CHANGES on its own, we cannot stop it. Simply "preserving" does not work in Nature. If anyone wishes to debate this one, please feel free to do so. Preservation is the absence of management (lands, wildlife, etc.) Natural succession is ever in motion. Without management (which is the lynchpin to Conservation) environs suffer such events as wildlife starvation, small lakes and ponds disappearing, species becoming extinct at a faster rate, forest fires destroying thousands of acres of habitat, the list goes on and on.

Can a liberal, or leftist, be a Conservationist? Absolutely, no doubt about it. HOWEVER, the attacks on our hunting rights, 2nd Ammendment Rights, Fishing rights, and so on, are coming from one side of the political aisle, and have been for DECADES (since Disney's Bambi, and even earlier) from the LEFT, or from Liberals. Look at who PETA, HSUS, ALF, Fund for Animals, SHAC, World Wildlife Fund, ASPCA, and the list of other "environmental" activist groups support, and which side of the aisle actually listens and supports their nonsense, and we find that it is the LEFT.

Exceptions certainly exist. Development is an issue on both sides of the political spectrum, not limited to a Conservative or Liberal point of view. Both sides have an equal capaicyt and willingness to demonstrate greed and lust for power. With that being understood, which side of the fence would an Outdoors Enthusiast rather camp? The side that is working to defend our rights, or the side that is working to remove them? All we need to do is examine legislative action, as action speaks louder than words.

Turning our attention to Minnesota, and the 1998 State Constitution Ammendment to guarantee no actions to BAN hunting and fishing will occur in MN, who sponsored this move and who opposed this move? Let's have Minnesotans battle that one out. But, regardless, did this not happen under Ventura's watch? Also, although this ammendment halts attempts to BAN hunting and fishing in MN, it does little or nothing at all to curtail excessive and unnecessary laws that unduly restricts hunting and angling through additional restrictions, cumbersome requirements, and confusing legislation that can drive people away from participating in these sports. Debate, but debate nicely, please...


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

The other threads hammer refers to in this thread had one argument and one fact:
Most if not all anti-hunting legislation comes from the liberal, left, Democratic party. Period. Hammer relates conservation with enviromentalism, not the same ball park is it? 
Yes there are some Dems who support hunting rights. Gee, even Kerry crawls on his belly after deer! And seeing that in print makes most of us suspicious of the REAL motives behind any Dem that supports hunting. Go figure


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

ELKARCHER said:


> The other threads hammer refers to in this thread had one argument and one fact:
> Most if not all anti-hunting legislation comes from the liberal, left, Democratic party. Period. Hammer relates conservation with enviromentalism, not the same ball park is it?
> Yes there are some Dems who support hunting rights. Gee, even Kerry crawls on his belly after deer! And seeing that in print makes most of us suspicious of the REAL motives behind any Dem that supports hunting. Go figure


This is very true. Coming from New York, I have to suffer the Democrats, but, we do have some outstanding Democrats (although few and far between.) One man I will point to, and always consider a friend to the Outdoors Enthusiast is Retired State Assemblyman Dick Smith, from Hamburg, NY. He was and is a staunch supporter and defender of New York Sportsmen and women, and 2nd Ammendment Rights. He was not on the left, yet he is a Democrat. 

Environmentalism is not the same thing as Conservationism. All we need to do is peak under the covers of each side's bed to see this. Conservationists tend to be out in the great outdoors, while environmentalists tend to like concrete forests, coming from cities. Those who have a true understanding of the environment are almost universally conservationists. Those who want to feel good, rather than do the work needed, are typically environmentalists. Those that believe man ought to be responsible in Nature and do the things we need to do are conservationists. Those that think man is not a part of nature and has no business in nature are environmentalists.

On the whole, conservationists are conservative, environmentalists are Liberal.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Jim C said:


> what to believe? believe that not all conservatives give a rat's arse about conservation but the bottom line is that most hunters are conservative and on the balance, the conservation advocated by conservatives is more sane than the bambist nonsense pushed by the liberals. I note that some hard leftists-from neo-trotskyites like the spartacus youth league, to whackos like Lyndon LaRouche, reject the yuppie-left "leave it alone" environmentalism on the grounds that the yuppie vision is a middle-to up class sierra club vision of having pristine backpacking trails while the natural resource wealth is unavailable for working class jobs and pay


Exactly!!!! See Ted Turner...


----------



## Twang! (Apr 20, 2002)

doctariAFC said:


> Hunters and anglers certainly share differing political leanings, right, left and center, which is a universal truth that is undeniable.
> 
> However, it is also an undeniable truth that the ANTI groups, whose agenda is to stop hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, camping, and any involvement in the great outdoors by man, woman and child are clearly and without argument embraced by the political Left in our Nation. This is not something that I am sure anyone would debate.
> 
> ...


You're missing the point and I'm glad that you in particular decided to jump onboard here because I feel that you’re casting a fairly wide net after taking over.

I might argue that those entities that are concerned more with the exploitation of the environment for the sake of the here and now identify more with the Conservative Party - wouldn't that be a fair counter to what you've been going on about lately? I'll tell you what - I bet that the view of a majority of Liberals is that conservation and hunting can exist side by side with each other (as made apparent in Minnesota) inasmuch it is the view of any level headed conservative. 

Also, you might note that Ventura typically took up causes more Liberal than not. As well you might notice that the AWB got bipartisan support the first time round and Bush stated for the record that he would sign it had it came across his desk.

It cuts both ways right?

You asked for a nice debate yet shoot a flaming arrow into the middle of it by insisting that those on the Left in this country are the problem. If you want to moderate than that is great, because we all know that can be a tough job if done right, but then don't incite. Be specific.


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

*Is this a fair statement?*

There is a common saying, "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim"? I think that also fits for this righty/lefty issue. "Not all dems are anti-hunting, but all anti-hunters are dems."


----------



## Twang! (Apr 20, 2002)

CM JOAD said:


> There is a common saying, "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim"? I think that also fits for this righty/lefty issue. "Not all dems are anti-hunting, but all anti-hunters are dems."


You mean like 'not all Conservatives are dumb people, but all dumb people are surely Conservative'.

Is that what you mean 

*** CAREFUL.... BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING.... PLAY NICE.... doctariAFC ***


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

> You mean like 'not all Conservatives are dumb people, but all dumb people are surely Conservative'.
> 
> Is that what you mean


It depends who is defining "dumb". It can be very subjective. Like, it depends what the definition of "is" is.


----------



## Stroud Creek (Jan 13, 2004)

I have really tryed to see things from hummers point of view but I just can't get my head that far up my @ss.

** CAREFUL.... Let's try to avoid these "typos" please. Play nice.... Please... I am an EOP.... (that's Equal Opportunity Prick) doctariAFC **


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Hammer said:


> You're missing the point and I'm glad that you in particular decided to jump onboard here because I feel that you’re casting a fairly wide net after taking over.
> 
> I might argue that those entities that are concerned more with the exploitation of the environment for the sake of the here and now identify more with the Conservative Party - wouldn't that be a fair counter to what you've been going on about lately? I'll tell you what - I bet that the view of a majority of Liberals is that conservation and hunting can exist side by side with each other (as made apparent in Minnesota) inasmuch it is the view of any level headed conservative.
> 
> ...


Ventura got elected riding the wave of voters being fed up with both the Democrat and Republican parties and their loudmouth style of politics in Minnesota, without delivering any different results from the other when either were in power before the Ventura election.

Like all politicians, I agreed and supported some of Ventura's initiatives, and was opposed to others. What impressed me the most about Ventura was his staunch belief in personalo responsibility early in his term. I recall a visit he made to some college and a minority woman began griping about his proposal to cut child day care spending because she was in school and had a child and she couldn't take care of her kid while she was in school so the government had to do it, and his reply was, how is that the government's responsibility? This is not up to the government, you have family, you have friends, you have means to make the choice you need to make.

Of course, later on, Ventura got worn down and knuckled under to the demands of the LIBS, and he elected not to run for re-election, I believe. But, since I don't live there, only hunt there from time to time, I could care less about what your state does or doesn't do, beyond hunting and fishing rights and access to these activities in your beautiful and bountiful state.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Hammer said:


> You're missing the point and I'm glad that you in particular decided to jump onboard here because I feel that you’re casting a fairly wide net after taking over.
> 
> I might argue that those entities that are concerned more with the exploitation of the environment for the sake of the here and now identify more with the Conservative Party - wouldn't that be a fair counter to what you've been going on about lately? I'll tell you what - I bet that the view of a majority of Liberals is that conservation and hunting can exist side by side with each other (as made apparent in Minnesota) inasmuch it is the view of any level headed conservative.


I would not necessarily agree with you, here, Hammer. The biggest exploiter of the environment we have in this country is Ted Turner. He owns 2 million acres of land, profiteering on hunting and fishing on his property. I do not think you could call him a conservative, can you?

Both parties have elements of their actions that exploit our natural world for the here and now. And no one is arguing, nor have I ever suggested that folks who consider themselves liberals cannot also be conservationists. I certainly hope this is obvious in my statements and arguments. If not, then perhaps some confusion exists, which I will now clarify.

WHen a thread is posted, stating "More bad news from the Left" or "The Left Loses Again" or "PEAT and the LEFT stoop even lower", these titles are accurate, in that the ARA's, who are all members of the extreme LEFT, and are supported and pandered to by the Democrat Party, the self-proclaimed "home of the left", it is more tha fair to call the spade a spade. And those who are fighting them are certainly conservative. Not all those who disagree with the anti's, but the Conservatives, and mainly these folks are made up of Republicans. Not all, on either side, fall into this, but the majority, indeed the vast majority, do. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate, or I deem it appropriate.

And, thanks for the props on the moderator decision. A lively debate makes for an active debate. But as you are noiticing, I will not tolerate a toilet debate, or one that strays into nonsense land too far. Hunting Rights and Outdoors Legislation is what is important here, both in terms of the issues and WHO the ENEMY of Hunting Rights through Outdoors Legislation and other legal actions are. After all, we cannot protect Hunting and Fishing and the Great Outdoors from the enemies without first know who they are and what they stand for, right?


----------



## affe22 (Sep 29, 2005)

Sorry to say, but I tend to see the high-up Republicans as people who could care less about ensuring that land is protected or used wisely. I just have yet to see anything really good come from them in terms of protecting areas or animals unless it is in their monetary interest. The Dems do tend to go a little overboard the other way though. That is why it is good we have both parties to keep a balance.

And surprise, I would not call myself a conservative in a lot of areas, but I'm not a liberal in some areas either. I tend to lean more left than right lately though. I think hunting is important and has a place, but I also think we need to protect and be stewards of the land and the species that exist in it.

About Ted Turner, generally people with that much money aren't really very liberal. He might say so in public, but what actions point to him being on the left? I really don't know that much about it, so any info is great.


----------



## Twang! (Apr 20, 2002)

Stroud Creek said:


> I have really tryed to see things from hummers point of view but I just can't get my head that far up my @ss.


HEY MOD - IS THIS CALLED FOR?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Hammer said:


> HEY MOD - IS THIS CALLED FOR?


Nope.... It is not.... I am an EOP. However, I think we all know that I will excerise my little red font to attempt to keep this section as civil and as on topic as possible. 

If I see personal attacks, I will reward these with red marks, and habitual violators will be sent to the Happy Hunting Ground 

But, since these topics are very, very important to the future of hunting and fishing, let's all keep that ultimate truth in mind, and act accordingly.

thanks much


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

FROM ABOVE POST:


I bet that the view of a majority of Liberals is that conservation and hunting can exist side by side with each other (as made apparent in Minnesota) inasmuch it is the view of any level headed conservative.

Why do you CONSISTENTLY separate hunters and hunting from conservation? Hunters are conservationists!!!

Think Wildlife Refuges, started funded an dmaintained by fees provided by PIttman/Roberts act.

You know, the refuges that the Dems are trying to close to hunters.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

affe22 said:


> Sorry to say, but I tend to see the high-up Republicans as people who could care less about ensuring that land is protected or used wisely. I just have yet to see anything really good come from them in terms of protecting areas or animals unless it is in their monetary interest. The Dems do tend to go a little overboard the other way though. That is why it is good we have both parties to keep a balance.
> 
> And surprise, I would not call myself a conservative in a lot of areas, but I'm not a liberal in some areas either. I tend to lean more left than right lately though. I think hunting is important and has a place, but I also think we need to protect and be stewards of the land and the species that exist in it.
> 
> About Ted Turner, generally people with that much money aren't really very liberal. He might say so in public, but what actions point to him being on the left? I really don't know that much about it, so any info is great.


Who he supports and what he has publically stated and supported. You can catch a glimpse of some of this from one of his many websites (just google on ted turner).


----------



## Tom C (May 25, 2002)

So interesting...........MC's trying so hard to separate himself from his party on this one subject. Can't do it though!

I wonder which of the left wing sponsored groups put up the billboard at a recent major bass fishing tournament. If you didn't hear about the billboard/sign it showed a picture of a dog with a crankbait in its mouth and asked if "you would do this to your dog". This is a major issue for those of us that wan't our kids kids to enjoy hunting/fishing as most of us here do. By casting votes and electing left wingers......you are infact supporting the anti's. There is no getting around it! I'm sure some serious spin is headed our way.....hold on tight......or maybe another redirect as has already happened in this thread. 


tom


----------



## Twang! (Apr 20, 2002)

ELKARCHER said:


> FROM ABOVE POST:
> 
> 
> I bet that the view of a majority of Liberals is that conservation and hunting can exist side by side with each other (as made apparent in Minnesota) inasmuch it is the view of any level headed conservative.
> ...


And hunters are Liberals, Democrats, Conservatives, Republicans, and so forth and so on - why is it you who seperates with your own blanket generalizations?


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

Hammer said:


> And hunters are Liberals, Democrats, Conservatives, Republicans, and so forth and so on - why is it you who seperates with your own blanket generalizations?


I'LL TYPE THIS REEEAAL SLOOW

Most if not all anti hunting legislation is introduced by the left liberal Democratic party. 

That is not blanket--- notice the word----------MOST



Not all dems are anti hunting all anti hunters are dems or on the left of the political spectrum

It is also the truth backed up by statistics and articles about anti hunting posted on other threads --- threads you stopped answering because you were proven wrong. 

Just as will happen on this thread shortly.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Its the same situation with gun rights. One party has some serious gun haters-Lincoln Chaffee, Rudy G, former Senator Danforth and others who will sell out gun rights for political reasons-John Kasich (the swing vote on the AWB) while the other party has some pro gun supporters-like John Dingell (D-Michigan etc)> HOWEVER, every major gun ban scheme introduced in the senate since 1930 has been done by ONE Party including

1) the 1934 NFA which severely restricted the sale of automatic firearms, silencers etc

2) THE GCA of 1968-patterned after the Nazi Nuremberg gun laws

3) The INFAMOUS HUGHES AMENDMENT-a poison bill stuck on the pro gun FOPA by Congressman Hughers (D-NJ) and allowed to stand by Jim Wright (D-Texas) banning all future manufacture of machine guns after May 19, 1986 to licensed civilians

4) The idiotic waiting period Brady act-1994

5) The even more moronic Assault weapon ban-1994


----------



## Twang! (Apr 20, 2002)

ELKARCHER said:


> I'LL TYPE THIS REEEAAL SLOOW
> 
> Most if not all anti hunting legislation is introduced by the left liberal Democratic party.
> 
> ...


Hey, I'm just happy that this thread went over the 3 post ELKARCHER threshold.

Thanks! :thumbs_up


----------



## 2005Ultramag (Apr 3, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> This is very true. Coming from New York, I have to suffer the Democrats, but, we do have some outstanding Democrats (although few and far between.) One man I will point to, and always consider a friend to the Outdoors Enthusiast is Retired State Assemblyman Dick Smith, from Hamburg, NY. He was and is a staunch supporter and defender of New York Sportsmen and women, and 2nd Ammendment Rights. He was not on the left, yet he is a Democrat.
> 
> Environmentalism is not the same thing as Conservationism. All we need to do is peak under the covers of each side's bed to see this. Conservationists tend to be out in the great outdoors, while environmentalists tend to like concrete forests, coming from cities. Those who have a true understanding of the environment are almost universally conservationists. Those who want to feel good, rather than do the work needed, are typically environmentalists. Those that believe man ought to be responsible in Nature and do the things we need to do are conservationists. Those that think man is not a part of nature and has no business in nature are environmentalists.
> 
> On the whole, conservationists are conservative, environmentalists are Liberal.


Very astute post. Likewise, we have a local Democrat in Maryland I've actually campaigned for door to door because of her stands on the same issues.


----------



## huntelk (Jan 11, 2004)

*what are you?.....take the test!*

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

Question: How do you tell the difference between 
Democrats, Republicans And Southern Republicans?

The answer can be found by posing the following
question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife
and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist
with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes
with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises
the knife, and charges at you. You are
carrying a Glock cal .40, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your
family.

What do you do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the
question!

Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire
him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock
the knife out of his hand?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind
of message does this send to society and to my
children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be
content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my
family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day
and make this happier, healthier street that would
discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with
some friends for few days and try to come to a
consensus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:

BANG!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Southern Republican's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the
Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"


----------



## huntelk (Jan 11, 2004)

*All in fun of course*

just trying to keep it light


----------



## dreygo (May 30, 2003)

Is it…could it be…does the Soap Box live again? Can we discuss the issues of the day once again at AT? I’m liking what I’m seeing over here…


----------



## bushbuck (Feb 6, 2005)

I believe the statement of not all Democrats are antis, but all antis are democrats, says it all..It really is that simple..


----------



## Tom C (May 25, 2002)

dreygo said:


> Is it…could it be…does the Soap Box live again? Can we discuss the issues of the day once again at AT? I’m liking what I’m seeing over here…



Yep....thats what I was thinking. Problem is......MC starts a valid thread and then he tosses out some of his typical "Bait" (ie...You mean like 'not all Conservatives are dumb people, but all dumb people are surely Conservative')........bait that starts the flame, gets off the subject, then has the gaul to complain to the moderator even though if he had stuck to the original subject of his on thread and not gone off with a silly childish analogy....... the comment he complained to the moderator never would have been said.

I have no problem with MC starting threads in this forum and as a matter of fact I would love to see him try to defend the Anti's or do whatever he can to try to say that if you vote left at the ballot box you are not supporting the anti's...........BUT HE HAS TO STAY ON TOPIC.....this is not the SOAP BOX!

If he can't stay on TOPIC (LEGISLATION AND HUNTING RIGHTS) which I don't think he can because its impossible to defend the liberal position on this subject then WE should be the ones that take up his strategy of complaining to the moderators and have his off topic analogies removed from threads he participates in. 

I look forward to seeing whether or not MC can and infact stay ON TOPIC....he's already dropped the ball on this thread.......stay tuned we will see if he can debate LEGISLATION and HUNTING RIGHTS without reverting to his tactics of getting of topic with analogies not related to the subject mater and hand inorder to redirect and inflame!

tom


----------



## jorkep (Oct 13, 2005)

*All Politicians are bad*

All politicians are the same these days. It doesn't matter who you vote for. They only care about themselves. With our two-party system, we're dominated by lobbiests who have money and time to influence our elected officials.

*** WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HUNTING RIGHTS AND LEGISLATION??? IF YOU CAN DRAW THE STATEMENT TO A RELATIVE CONCLUSION REGARDING HUNTING, FISHING OR OUTDOORS LEGISLATION, THAT'S FINE. BUT, WE WILL NOT HAVE GENERAL STATEMENTS ABOUT POLITICS IN HERE, WITHOUT HUNTING ISSUES AT THE CORE!!!! doctariAFC ***


----------



## CM JOAD (Oct 9, 2005)

*Why there is a right and a left*

Heaviest Element Discovered


*** FUNNY, BUT OFF-TOPIC.... WARNING ISSUED.... APOLOGIES, BUT THIS IS THE PLACE FOR HUNTING AND OUTDOORS ISSUES. EOP. MESSAGE DELETED BY doctariAFC ***


----------



## derekm (Feb 19, 2004)

If one were to look in the UK, it isnt quite so clear cut...more a town vs country.

As regards the person buying up the land and allowing no hunting. Thats okay you need diverse habitats, some of those can include an abscence of a key predator. Its only a problem if you get too much of that type of habitat :teeth:


----------

