On 2016-10-21 14:07, Greg Troxel wrote:
Craig Wallace <[email protected]> writes:
I think this is wrong. A nature reserve an area to protect wildlife,
not to allow it to be shot. A nature reserve is managed for the
purposes of conservation. So if an area is primarily for hunting, it
is not a nature reserve.
I think you are off here. Nature is complicated, and "preserving
nature" is too. There's a long tradition of wildlife management areas
where hunting is allowed (subject to seasons and limits, set by state
wildlife biologists). In these, while deer and geese are taken, the
area remains natural, and the vegetation is somewhat protected from
overbrowsing by deer. And, killing individual deer is not bad for the
species. Around me, and I'm sure around Kevin, as soon as there are
areas that aren't paved over, there are too many deer compared to
historical norms. Around me, "Wildlife Management Areas" don't feel
different from "Conservation Areas", except that there are a few weeks
you should be wearing orange or avoiding them.
I am near a federal Wildlife Refuge -- and deer hunting is allowed, in
order to keep the population somewhat under control and protect the
vegetation and other species.
Yes, a nature reserve may allow some hunting, to control numbers of
particular species.
But that is different from an area is managed primarily to benefit
hunting. eg if they are keeping deer numbers artificially high (feeding
over winter, or breeding), just to allow as many as possible to be shot.
Despite the damage this causes to vegetation and other wildlife.
And these hunting areas often have misleading names. eg they claim to be
a 'reserve', when its more like a farm.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
