So here go the environmentalists: “stop it”. Plain and simple. They come across easily, clearly. When you ask them why, it normally boils down to endangered species becoming more endangered (I’ll only talk about this side of the issue).
Presuming that there are edible species that are not endangered, they agree that we’d be depriving honest citizens from hunting them – if we ban spring hunting. Especially if we presume that dove and quail roam the island really and truly only come spring. More so if we agree about a bag limit. They also would contend that this is a necessary evil: as the arm of the law does not stretch enough as to enforce it.
I get the argument. It is true that if we allow spring hunting we’d be issuing a death sentence to that curious flamingo that would have spotted the rock some miles off our shoreline. But here’s the deal: enforcement lacks in practically every sector. Take fishing, just to stick to hunting. Is it disallowed as we don’t have enough patrolling going on to ensure fishermen follow quotas? Similarly, is owning a car disallowed as we don’t have a good enough system to rein in the odd over-indulged driver (how’s “odd” for a pun?)? Do I sense a different rule being applied to hunting?
That said, two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because tuna is not being hunted as should be does not mean the flamingo should be made up for grabs to a poacher.
So where would you side, really? More than that, is it really decidable?
Please don’t take this the wrong way. All I want is to prod your thought. I’m an environmentalist at heart and cringe when I see what we’ve done to our place. Or at the thought of unnecessary avian spitting of blood and last breaths.
I’ll leave with this…
but fish do not,
pray such news be spread,
on horse’s trot…