Sleake, is your gripe a safety issue or an environmental issue?
I'm not a hunter. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. However, I don't see any ethical problem with hunting, especially hunting for food. If an animal is going to die for my table, I'd rather it have a wild, free life first rather than in a pen or cage. That means I should hunt to satisfy my own ethic. I'm just too much of a coward.
In my very limited experience, I've found most hunters to be environmentally aware and possessing very strict moral and ethical standards. I think many (if not most) would be more environmentally aware than your average national park tourist.
Feral animals are a blight on our ecosystems. Yes, one way to control this would be through professional hunters. However, the NPs don't have that sort of money and never will. It's not a strategy that has any hope of working. Why not utilise people that want to do the job for free, provided they are regulated. I can't tell you what such regulation would look like because I'm not a hunter. But if a professional hunter can do it, then why not an amateur that sticks to the same regulations?
As for safety, it gives me the willies too. But I admit to being ignorant. I'm not aware of the NZ case that you speak of, but no doubt it's a tragedy that could have been avoided. I wonder how many tourists in parks like Yosemite, Squamish, Zion etc have been taken out by climbers dropping or dislodging something. Should we be banned too.
Without looking deeply into the regulations proposed I don't know if it's a good idea or not. But I sure can't say it's a bad idea either as there seems to be some real benefits if the safety side of things can be controlled.
|