Friends,
As a hunter and someone who is tired of listening to the anti hunting nonsense of the so-called "green" types, I am suggesting defining "green hunting" from a hunter's perspective.
There are a number of places in the world that are threatened by exotic animals that have been introduced there in the past. The places range from the galapagos islands whose indigenous wildlife is threatened by introduced goats, dogs, cats, horses etc and, if I remember right, some years ago, the British government even sent SAS commandos to shoot some of these animal invaders there on a request from the Ecuadorian government. New Zealand has a huge problem from opossums, tahr, chamois etc. Other countries must have similar problems - I would leave it to those who are more learned than I am to list them.
My suggestion is that if the laws and the relevant authorities allow this, could hunters who can, help in preserving the environment of these most endangered places by doing what we enjoy best, ie hunting?
I thought this could be considered another kind of varminting, but couldn't bring myself to call horses, tahr and chamois varmints.
Am I crazy or is there any merit to this idea?

Regulated hunting is just about the most effective tool available for game, non-game, and ecosystem management. In the absence of regulated hunting, few effective stategies are available. Just ask the suburban homeowners across the U.S. who are located near good whitetail habitat about their problems where those deer can't be hunted.

As for a definition of Green Hunting - I believe the definition as it relates to African animals is close to catch and release in fishing both salt and fresh water. It involves the capture under what amounts to fair chase rules and tranqulizing the animal. This is followed by a photo session and a vet check of the animal. An antidote is used to revive the animal and off it goes and all is well.
What you are suggesting is more along the lines of a conservation/cull type hunting and the greenies oppose ANY killing regardless of intent and need. This gets into the whole issue of conservation vs preservation and all its various subtle nuances and sidebars.

While trying to hold cultural diversity within the animal kingdom, true native species management(ie. only animals indigenious to an area) gives way to a very large discussion and topic base.

My 2 cents on this subject

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the reintroduction of animals into habbitat in which they have long been gone. For example take the Elk populations introduced in Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Yes, these animals once roamed freely around here, but the environment has change greatly over the past 100 years. Just ask a Pennsylvania apple farmer what he thinks of a big bull elk tramping through his orchards that he cannot "legally" shoot. The same goes for wolf populations in certain areas out west versus sheep farmers who once again cannot "legally" shoot these animals.

However, I also do not want to see any animals hunted to the point of extinction.

As for humanly "fixing" animals such as deer. That is a total bunch of crap as far as I am concerned! First of all, animals are not human. Not even a persons beloved pets. They are pets period, nothing more. Doing the "fixing" as they do is also very expensive. I work for a very large government agency and see my tax dollars flushed down the toilet by political appointees every day. I don't give them any more than I have to.

Deer can very efficiently be taken in non-hunting areas by means of special sharp shooters. I rean an article about this just a little while ago where a fellow and his team go into a town that have been hired by the local governemnt. They explain in a town meeting what they are going to do, answere questions/concerns, etc. None of the meast is wasted. The deer are shot, usually in the head with a 223 using night vision, gutted, put in a refridgerated truck and processed. Yes it is very politically charged, but I'm a politically incorrect person.

[ 10-09-2002, 20:13: Message edited by: jcsabolt-2 ]

Until recently hunters were about the only "greens". Hunters wanted to preserve wildlife and their habitat long before it became a politically lucrative money machine/ bureaucracy builder. Don't lose the argument before it starts. Ethical and prudent hunting is and has been "green". The methods, seasons and tools are flexible and change over time, but the general concept of living off the land and respecting your quarry and it's home will never be out of date.

No habitat = no animals = no hunting. Most hunters are environmentalists of sorts. We just like to utilize the excess capacity of our world insead of letting it rot.

If you want to protect a species, make it a huntable species.

We hunters are the only group who foots the bill, pays their own way, and generally do a good job of improving the resource.

Look how hunters and sportsmen have improved; waterfowl hunting, deer hunting, elk hunting, turkey hunting, etc. How many non-hunters actually re-build habitat, breed & stock game, etc., etc. ?

I predict we'll have limited grizzly bear hunting in the western states in the not too distant future, and that would be the best thing that could happen to assure long term survival of the species.

Release Ralph Nader into a 20 acre, high fenced field...pursue, but BEWARE!.....he may charge and slap you with a rolled up copy of Consumer Reports.....