Do vegetarians/vegans support (financially) their local DNR?

Question

(Department of Natural Resources) The guys and gals responsible for game management, habitat quality and quantity and constant surveillance and monitoring of 'at risk' species? Or, is it just hunters that pay for all of this animal support?

It seems that they only gripe and groan about factory farm animals; you know, ones specifically raised for food. Why is that?

Answer 1

this is for miss fabulous............the DNR does require that anyone who harvests an animal while hunting must use  as much of the animal as possible.............wasting game meat is against the law and carries severe penalties

Answer 2

why would vegetarians support an organization that encourages hunting and fishing as a means for "population control"?? that's just silly.  there are plenty of other organizations that support habitat quality and monitoring of "at risk" species...it's not necessary to support one that encourages hunting for sport by calling it "population control".

EDIT: the DNR may not tell people to go kill for sport, but they don't mandate that people eat what they kill either.  by opening hunting season you are allowing people to kill for sport whether you specifically tell them to or not.

Answer 3

I do not support local DNRs - in Canada they are provincially funded and operated.  I support a wildlife sanctuary that's about 10Km from my home, as well as my local humane society.

Do hunters really feel compelled to give to their local DNR out of the goodness of their hearts?  Or are you speaking of a mandatory fee for a hunting liscence?  (IMO, They SHOULD be forced to support a DNR seeing as they're responsible for destroying animals.)

I have a very hard time believing that the majority of persons who give funds to wildlife preservation group identify themselves as hunters/fishers.

To answer your last question, the reason you hear veg*ns opposition to factory farming is because it's the biggest animal-cruelty industry in our society.  96% of the human population in North America eats animal flesh and therefor financially supports the factory farming industry, so naturally the biggest problem is going to get the most attention.

Answer 4

are you trying to say that buying a hunting license is some kind of charitable act?

you know i am pro-hunting, i am out hiking most weekends and often support the parks i go to, but i find it a bit presumptuous to assume intent of anything other than wanting to hunt in buying a hunting license. Do you donate above and beyond these mandatory costs? do you think that most hunters do?

Answer 5

As hunters are the only ones likely to overkill a species, I don't think a threat needing management comes from vegetarians, I think that hunters should be responsible for the costs of maintaing the system in place.

        Also, to separate the apples and oranges you are speaking of, if you take a look at the statistics between game animals or "huntable animals" you will find numbers involving game so minute in comparison to mass farm animal ramifications that it would be almost nonexistent.

         However, to gripe about one thing and not so much about another related you need but look a short distance to see that, using myself as an example of griping about gas prices and overlooking the cost of diesel fuel because I drive a gas powered car, there are many ways to gripe about something without focusing attention on related areas due to circumstance which only seem on the surface to give the appearance of indifference.

Answer 6

10 billion "food" animals are slaughtered in the U.S. every year. It's hard to even wrap your mind around that scale of suffering. "At risk" species are important, of course, but they are not being crammed into cages so tiny they can't move or being slaughtered while fully conscious.

"The question is not 'are they cute?', nor 'are they rare?', but 'are they suffering?'"

-- Vegan Outreach

I support environmental organizations that are aware of the connection between raising animals for food and environmental destruction. Greenpeace, for example.

Answer 7

Nope.

Around here, and likely this is the case all over, is that management of wild animals basically means killing. Doing silly things such as killing wolves to allow certain animals to have larger numbers for hunters or whatever, or kill game animals due to numbers being to large, or to manage disease  or whatever... it's just silliness with the decisions being made by suits living in the city with no idea of what is going on in the wild... Just read the book Never Cry Wolf to see exactly what I mean -- it's a true story, but of course fictionalized in certain parts etc. to make it readable.

I know from an inside source that when people call regarding a bear wandering around in their backyard or local park etc., and the bears are tranquilized and taken away... they tell the public that the bear will be relocated further north into the forest, but in reality there is no budget for such things and they just kill the bear, and that's that.

Answer 8

Well as the DNR (coming from someone who almost married a wildlife biologist currently employed with the DNR) is a government operation, part of everyone's taxes go towards wildlife management (including culls) but we don't specifically pay for open hunting. Keep in mind that culls are very calculated and done with preservation in mind. It's not killing for killings sake.

Fabulous: yes that's true, we don't know what is always done with their harvest but it does improve living conditions for those animals at risk for starvation and lack of habitat.