# Hunters Win Great Debate!!!!



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

To follow is an article that appeared yesterday in the Daily Messenger, a paper covering the Canadaigua, NY area. This article is by Len Lisenbee, a fellow Outdoors writer!
Really sums up the debate in a very accurate picture....


*HUNTERS WIN "THE GREAT HUNTING DEBATE"*

Well, it is over. "The Great Hunting Debate" was conducted on iNDemand PayPerView,
and it was more than just interesting to watch. It was the mother of all debates on this particular
topic. And, to cut to the chase, the cause for hunting won, big time. There can be no debate on
that fact.

The location was the historic Library of Kings College in London, England. Wayne
LaPierre, Executive Vice President for the National Rifle Association (NRA), headed the pro-
hunting side. Andrew Butler, the UK Representative for People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA), lead the opposition that desires to ban hunting world wide.

Truthfully, this was not in any way a contest. LaPierre had facts and figures on just about
every aspect of hunting and scientific wildlife management. Butler relied on emotions and fiction
to bolster his case. And, every single time he stated any emotional argument against hunting,
LaPierre countered with scientific proof to the contrary.

Here are just a few examples of the many points discussed. Butler stated that sport
hunting was not a valid way to "manage" wildlife species. He was countered with facts about
hunting being the only way to control and manage many wildlife species, including whitetail deer,
elk, moose, black and grizzly bear, European red deer, wild boar, and many others. 

Without hunting, each of these species, which no longer have adequate natural predators
to control their natural growth, would degrade and destroy their available habitat. And, because
nature emphasizes procreation, they would overpopulate all of their best remaining habitat in a
very short time, thus forcing the movement into even the most marginal areas where survival
would be almost impossible. That certain habitat destruction would lead to disease and
starvation, resulting in extreme suffering and the slowest, most painful, of deaths.

But some animals would survive even the greatest destruction from disease and starvation. 
And, they would continue to breed, until they once again overpopulated the available habitat. 
Then, disease and starvation would return. This vicious cycle would be never-ending, a horrible
thought for anyone who claims to love wild animals.

Butler tried every anti-hunting gambit. "Birth control" would prevent overpopulation. 
But, there is no birth control for wildlife. "Professional shooters" would kill excess animals
humanely. But think about that situation for just a moment. He suggests we hire professional
hunters and pay them with tax dollars to do what hunters now pay to do? And, what is the
difference between an animal killed by a professional hunter's bullet and one killed by a sport
hunter's bullet? 

Butler unwisely pointed out that Princeton, New Jersey had begun "a revolutionary new
program of treating deer with birth control in 2004." Then, LaPierre pointed up the truth on that
matter. The Princeton birth control program cost well over three million dollars to administer
(actual figures have not been released), and it failed completely. The truth is that more fawns
were counted in the June, 2005 deer census in that New Jersey City than ever before. Birth
control for deer simply does not work.

It was hardly a debate at all. LaPierre's facts overwhelmed Butler's emotional and
illogical arguments. But that was to be expected. Anti-hunters have never had the truth on their
side. They steadfastly refuse to accept that our modern world cannot permit populations of wild
animals to go unchecked. That is a complete disaster just waiting to happen.

Wayne LaPierre did a wonderful job. He was well versed with the facts, and with the
truth. He successfully and overwhelmingly countered every single argument mounted by Butler
and his PETA cronies. And, in the process of presenting the truth, he made the anti's look like
the mindless, emotional wildlife haters that they really are. No person who truly loves wild
animals would ever want those critters to suffer so horribly if hunting was banned.

It would be nice if more people could watch this particular debate (Re-runs are available in
some locations from PayPerView). The important role that hunters play in maintaining the
balance of nature that our modern society requires was pointed out time and time again. And, it
was also pointed out that, in those areas where urban society was developed to the point that
hunting could no longer be permitted, every single location had a serious to critical over-
population of wild animals to contend with.

I am proud to be a life-member of the NRA, and never more so than now. The truth that
Wayne LaPierre presented so overwhelmed the anti's tired lies and deceitful strategies that there
can be no doubt left. Hunting is an absolutely necessary part of good wildlife management.

Len Lisenbee is the Daily Messenger's Outdoor Columnist. You can contact Len with questions
or comments at [email protected].


----------



## Jim G (Apr 8, 2003)

*Wonderful!! thanks for sharing!*

Jim G,


----------



## lunghit (Aug 5, 2005)

Great job NRA


----------

