Quote Originally Posted by ZoraSpook View Post
Good points. Here's the reference that gave me dates I quoted. See what ya think. Note some of the early observations about migratory porcesses. And to be fair yes, observation porcesses have dramtically advanced. https://www.audubon.org/magazine/spr...-learned-about

The laws then were to keep hunters from destroying migratory birds sir! Not concerns about environment.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act passes in 1918 guides "the taking, possession, transportation, sale, purchase, barter, importation, exportation, and banding or marking of migratory birds.

So infact the concern for the birds is not environmental, its to make sure they are at your favorite hunting spot so you can blow them out of the sky....right? So you and Stripernut are more worried about preserving your hiunting trips, than the birds you prey upon? Is that right? Or just making sure you preserve enough birds so they will be availabe for your hunting trips?

So how does one declare themselve to be a concerned CONSERVATIONIST, and at the same time prey on the spieces they seek to protect? Is that a little of "Take care of the ducks I want to shoot".

Yep, I'm confused :-)

You are using the same logic and rationale as the democrats making people out to be racist.

The bold in your comment is something that I want to focus on because they are absolutely foolish. The birds themselves and their patterns plus number of birds are an environmental issue. And the laws that were made and reflect that we have a DIRECT impact on the total number of game and migratory patterns. Mostly detrimental. Habitat and hunting are intertwined, and to try and separate the two is impossible.

Any reasonable "conservationist" can make that connection.