Whooping cranes mean more than people.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

So let me get this straight, a government program that is doing what it was created for has "run amok"? How has this program, which is based on restoring Wildlife, "running amok" by restoring the whooping crane?

So I guess we should just go ahead and doom anything that is not hunted. How many species do we hunt or fish for in Louisiana? I'm going to take a wild guess that its not even 25% of the wildlife species that occur in the state at any given period. Just in terms of birds I know we don't hunt but 30-40 of the over 400 species of birds in the state. That's about 10%.

So you would have only 5-10% of the funds dedicated to 75% of the species that you percieve have no economic value? That doesn't seem reasonable.

In fact, it seems down right ridiculous. Just go ahead and doom the other 90% of species in the state by only appropriating 10% to their management.

The single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard is the statement that WLF should only manage game species or species that can be harvested. I guess all oak trees should be allowed to be cut down and not replaced either, since the economic value of such trees is no where near the economic value of pines.

You missed my point. My point was that license fees and taxes paid on sporting equipment should be focused on benefits for the taxpayers who paid those taxes. You are more than welcome to go to the LA Legislature and request funds for WC and the other 75% of species from the general fund.

But consider your own reasoning too. Why are 90% of species "doomed" unless megabucks are spent on their management? Why do 90% of species in Louisiana need expensive government programs?

When I was trained as a hunter's ed instructor, they emphasized how license fees and P-R funds go into supporting wildlife management and how much hunters and anglers benefit from these funds being invested in good management. This pitch seems dishonest if most P-R funds and license revenues are diverted toward programs which do not directly benefit those paying the taxes and fees. Benefiting other wildlife is a fine and noble goal, which I support. But why should this burden fall disproportionately on hunters and anglers?