WILDLIFE AND ITS HABITAT CANNOT SPEAK, SO WE MUST AND WE WILL.
How does killing an animal to commercially sell its fur today differ from the past commercial selling of bison hides, passenger pigeons, deer, and the many other species that this Sister is supposed to protect? Were not whole populations of furbearers, wolves, lynx, beavers, fox, etc. also eliminated by past commercial hunting abuses? Why then is it ok to continue the commercial killing of these animals today but not others…for their antlers, horns, or feathers? Why can't a person today kill deer just to sell their hides, leaving the corpses to rot in a dump, as is done with the millions of furbears killed just to sell their fur? Trapping IS commercial hunting and thus is forbidden by the NAM…but the killing continues.
5) Game agencies should never have nor continue to support the introduction and maintenance of exotic species. Again, Sister #7, the use of science has repeatedly demonstrated that exotic species are detrimental to the maintenance and health of native ecosystems. Just how many more species like European boar (introduced by hunter-conservationists), ibex, roe deer, etc. do we need to suffer for these "conservation" agencies to get it? Exotics should NOT be introduced! Even what might be considered innocuous introductions of species like pheasants, chukers, Hungarian partridge, are detrimental to ecosystem health as game managers continue to suppress native predator populations in the false hope of increasing the number of these exotics for hunters to shoot. In "pheasant country" coyote killing contests are advertised by slogans such as "kill a coyote, protect our pheasants".
Instead of killing coyotes, efforts should be made to rid the landscape of these exotics. And why were these species introduced? Every time it is justified as ways of providing "more hunting opportunities". More opportunities for whom? For the small percent of the population who seems tired of killing the native species! The agencies entrusted with our wildlife heritage continue to destroy native ecosystems with careless non-scientifically based management objectives.
They resent, scorn, and belittle any input from those who don't hunt. In some states, true public opinion is further stifled because only those who hunt or fish can be on overseeing commissions! Where is the democracy in this? Under a truly democratic system, hunters would only have 6% of the say in how wildlife were managed as they only represent 6% of the U.S. population 16 years and older. Under a truly democratic system, the "game" division of game agencies should be housed in the small corner office while the rest of the building and resources is devoted to "nongame" species. But none of this is done in clear violation of these tenets. How can these agencies be entrusted with all wildlife when they purposely are funded from a select segment of society and thus feel obligated to serve just that segment? The answer is they can't. Until we have true economic representation in these agencies, they will stay game agencies and will NOT be administered democratically nor will the wildlife be held in the PUBLIC trust. And they will NOT be "conservation agencies".