Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu!34aej7d
Date: Wednesday, 14 Apr 1993 09:16:28 EDT
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Message-ID: <93104.09162934AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Distribution: usa
References: <1993Apr13.174829.2324@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
 <1qfrhbINNo80@cae.cad.gatech.edu>
Lines: 27

In article <1qfrhbINNo80@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
Fox) says:
>[...]
>this measure as it will prevent the evil Bambi-killers from hunting,
>and another will fight it for the interference with Nature that it is.

Such a measure would also have another benefit. It would relieve the
various states of the thorny problem of what to do with the hundreds
of millions of dollars hunters pour into the economy annually. I'm
sure that, to attain sure a lofty, humane, liberal and ecologically
(not to mention politically) correct goal, the environmental and animal
rights groups/individuals supporting such a measure would be more than
willing to add their names to a list of supporters seeking increased
taxation to replace these lost revenues. I am equally confident that
these same entities, given their noteworthy record in the area of social
responsibility and respect for private property, would feel morally
and ethically bound to raise the necessary funds to acquire the
hundreds of thousands of acres of land now held in private hands
solely for use as private hunting preserves by the landowner(s). To
do less than this would place these same groups/individuals in
the ethically untenable (to say nothing of environmentally and
politically incorrect) position of sanctioning the logging and
subsequent development and urbanization of these former private
hunting lands, which would no longer be useable by, or of any
benefit to, the landowner(s) in such a capacity.

W. K. Gorman
