Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Herring: Hunting and Fishing With 450 Million People

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Conservationist
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

May 18, 2010

Herring: Hunting and Fishing With 450 Million People

By Hal Herring

You could say that I’m reading it so you won’t have to. The book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050 by Joel Kotkin, a professor at Chapman University in California, and a scholar of economics, sociology, and the history of cities.  The Next Hundred Million celebrates what to some of us will be a disturbing fact: the US is one of the only industrialized "First World” countries that is experiencing rapid population growth. By 2050, the US will have a population of 400-450 million people.

According to Joel Kotkin, we are moving into a new golden age, where our economy, based on the needs and the production of so many human beings, and based on the freedoms that our citizens enjoy, will make our country the most competitive and powerful nation on earth.

There are a lot of questions raised with Kotkin’s  view - water supplies, the loss of agricultural lands, and how the new society- which he sees as living mostly in vast suburbs- will be supplied with energy for its homes and cars. Kotkin does note that greenways “could provide a break from the monotony……and ideal sites for the preservation of wildlife.”

Nowhere in the book is hunting or fishing ever mentioned.  That is not Kotkin’s subject. His subject is a US thriving with 400 to 450 million people.

But hunting and fishing is very much my subject, and the subject of every person who reads Field & Stream.  A couple of years ago, I sat on the porch of Jim Range’s home in Craig, Montana after a day of hunting sharptails. Range, who died last year, was a staunch conservative Republican, helped to write the original Clean Water Act, co-founded the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and was one of our country’s great conservation leaders.  He said that day, as he did often, in his Tennessee drawl, “We got to preserve this thing we love, because ain’t nobody gonna do it for us!”

Okay. How do we do that? How do we preserve this thing we love, in a nation racing toward 400 million people, so many of them from countries where nobody but the wealthiest has ever hunted or fished, where there are no laws that protect wildlife or the environment?  When so many of our native-born have never drank from a spring in the rocks, ripped a tenderloin from a deer, or wondered how we have kept all of these things, from clean air to cougars, even as most of the world has lost them.

How do we make sure that it goes on? What questions are we NOT asking, or answering?

Comments (23)

Top Rated
All Comments
from baconboy206 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

what were not asking or answering is the very root of the problem, there's to many freaking people, stop illegal immigration entirely, slow other forms of immigration and maybe a child limit or tax to keep things in check and were golden. The development of the wild areas will no longer be an issue, there will be less of a or no strain on our water supply,food supply, jobs, everything. Its all because there's to many people, everybody has to admit that at some point we will reach a point where there are so many people that the earth can no longer sustain us, it WILL happen, and hunting and fishing will be the first things to go. Why wait till things get worse? we can stop it now while we still have a good quality of life.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Glad you read it and not me.

I wouldn't spend the money.

The current problem is that "Government" has gotten derailed, and is no longer what it used to be.

With some unseen political force driving the President and Congress, and without allowing inputs from the people, this country is heading in a New Direction.

It seems to be headed by Constitutional Lawyers who know how to subvert the Constitution.

Who employs them is not clear.

This is quickly becoming a Socialist country which is a part of an artificial worldwide economy.

The Only Way To Survive is going to be Join Them or Die.

Glad I won't be here.

It is Economic Armageddon.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

"a staunch conservative Republican, helped to write the original Clean Water Act, co-founded the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and was one of our country’s great conservation leaders."

Where is are those guys now? They apparently don't exist anymore. All you hear from Conservative Republicans is "Drill Baby Drill" and opposition to strengthening the CWA. Conservation is for stupid liberals and socialists now, apparently. Funny how some guys on TV and radio can brainwash a whole lot of people. TR part of the cancer? Thinking TR could be associated with the cancer is the cancer.

Our population problem is a serious one. Seems like anyone that addresses it or has ideas to slow it is painted as a radical. This Kotkin guy is blind and lost. 400-450 million is not a good thing. It's a nightmare from hell. We already have too many people running around this place.

Part of the problem is you get tax cuts for having more kids and the welfare leaches get more money if they make more babies.

It's a little screwy how the people that have problems with fertility are well off, educated, and intelligent. It's the inbreds, the methheads, and the welfare leaches that can't afford children that are popping 'em out like rabbits. A conspiracy to make a very large, very dumb/numb population of economic slaves?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Oh. yes.

Hunting.

Fuggeddaboudit!

There won't be any animals, due to the atmosphere and "water".

People will have traded anything that can be used as a weapon for air and water filters.

Then they can only get more filters by snitching on anyone who is disloyal to the Roman Homosexual Church.

No one will care that they engineered Worldwide Dominance in A.D. 700 by forging a document that gave them possession of all assets of the Roman Empire.

I wuz looking at Remington's production Records, and it showed that over 100,000 rifles were produced for the Vatican Army.

They were used for the conquest of South America.

This is possibly the most glaring hypocrisy.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill", right.

They conquered a new continent and established Centers for Tax Collection.

At any rate, the Central World Government will revert to the Vatican.

Remember: The New World was divided up by The Pope.

Everybody in Government will be a Predatory Homosexual.

The heteros will live in projects in poverty.

They will be 70% of the world's population.

Everybody will have the same lifestyle worldwide.

There will be no gas or any need for it.

People will eat Tofu, when available, and bred for stupidity and flavor so the Homos can feast on their bones.

At this point, there will be no sex, as the heteros will have been cloned as sexless cattle.

They were such an inconvenience anyway, what with their demand for "Rights", etc.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

You're all neglecting the fact that, population growth will not occur unless there is corresponding increases in technology. Immagration will not happen without job oppotunities. If you can't feed yourself, you probably won't marry. If you and your wife are hungry, you probably won't have children. If, somehow, we develop means to provide energy so that industries reemerge, and employment goes up drastically, those estimates could be accurate. By providing energy, I don't mean flipping a switch.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

simple explanation, your regressing back to a third world country :P

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from cmrosko wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

A good start would be for everyone to work at altering the general concept of what is an overall desirable direction for individuals and society to take. As beings that must cohabitate the planet with nature this is a top priority. One good place to start would be not using words with opposite meanings to try and explain dynamic activities, such as using the word "economy" to explain what really is another term for decadent extravagance. Almost everybody in America wants to live like a king at the expense of life on earth. Just look at how most people will mow down acres of native plants and wildlife and replace it with a monotonous chemical laden non native palatial lawn. That's quite a statement in itself.

A 30% reduction in the honey bee population, a 30% reduction in bird populations world wide, elevated mercury levels in most inland fish and waters, elevated levels of human induced chemicals and toxins leached and dumped into the environment. etc., etc.

It seems that maybe humans will soon be forced into waking up and paying attention. Hopefully it won't be too late for the rest of the planet.

Incidentally, I've become increasingly ashamed at the mindset of many "hunters and fisherman" who often support legislators with a history of trashing the environment and this events leading up to the recent gulf spill have really topped the cake. A recent Pew research poll shows that only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans. Why am I not surprised about that?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bryan01 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Getting back to the original question - how do we ensure that there will be hunting and fishing in the future? I see it as a two part question - how do we preserve it in the west, where the federal government owns a large fraction of the land and can enact policies that directly and immediately have an impact on the availability of hunting and fishing lands, and in the east, where more of the hunting takes place on private property.

There have been initiatives in a number of states recently trying to factilitate hunting access on private property - I don't know whether or not any of the programs have succeeded - but I do think that this is an area where much more thought and effort needs to be focused if we are going to preserve hunting for future generations.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

You have posed an interesting question with a counter intuitive answer. I'm pushing 60. When I was a kid the US population was 150 million. Then bald eagles were extinct over huge swathes of the country, human feces were flushed directly into our rivers and water clarity was a joke. Today we have a population of 350 million people, I watch eagles and ospreys from my deck as they fly over my beaver pond. How can the environment improve beyond my wildest dreams, while the population doubled? Ain't technology a wonderful thing?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dann wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Is that the book the movie "idiocracy" is based on?

With about 10% of the US population being hunters and fisherman (and holding steady), its doubtful that any land that maybe left in 2050 will be available for hunting. Afterall, the other 90% will want to take the monorail to the wilderness activity center's, look thru the one-way glass and see the animatronic "Bambi".

Laugh if you want, but its sad. Many of my coworkers have never had a farm fresh brown egg because they say they're dirty. They have no idea where their meat really comes from (other than the store)and the idea of growing some of their own vegetables is overwhelming and beyond their abilities. I guess seeds are a mystery.

Folks have lost touch with nature and I don't see it getting better.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I agree with Dann

The real monster problem staring outdoors men and ladies is the misinformation ladled out to an increasingly non rural population. The PETA and Gorean crap is a pleasing guilt free way for non participants in the outdoors to control what used to be thought of as a way of life for a significant share of America. Are there really bald eagles in my backyard if the NY Times says that they are gone? Who is the public going to believe, some redneck old farmer or one of their experts?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WesMcCormick wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Stop Illegal immagration now! Do not send us your tired, your poor, and your hungry....Give them jobs in your country and figure it out yourselves. Hell everything we buy comes from overseas anyhow. Lets get back to reality and the America we all grew up knowing. Not this i'm afraid to offend or hurt someones feelings crap. You might want to buy a chunk of land while you still can folks. Now is more important than ever to stop making excuses of why you cant take your kids hunting, fishing and camping. They are the ones who will have the power to change this when were all gone.

In the words of Earl Pitts "WAKE UP AMERICA!"

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dann wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

While I'm a huge supporter of technology, it comes with a responsibility, a responsibility to use it wisely and selectively. Too many in our society were born with technology as a birthright. Our kids cannot concieve of a life without cell phones, HD satellite TV and instant world-wide communication.

Instead of participating in the natural process, they'd rather watch nature in neatly bundled electronic packages, available in your choice of DVD, Blu-ray, Smartphone and I-pad.

Think I'm kidding? Try this at home, Cut the power to the house, confiscate the cell and suggest the kids find something to do outside.

The go-green generation thinks hunting is barbaric and destructive. This same generation thinks nothing of tearing out habitat, building houses they can't afford and naming the streets after what USED to be there i.e. "pepper tree lane, Deer run St, Beaver lake". Every time I see ANOTHER golf course go in, I can't help to wonder how many generations of wildlife were destroyed to provide a controlled, sterile, outdoor environment so folks can excercise and feel "outdoorsy".

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I think we have to shoot for zero population growth. Retool our energy system so that it is largely based on solar and wind for daytime electrical generation and possibly wave reactor nukes for night time generation.

Once that is done, production costs for industrial work in the US will decline. But it has to come with exclusion of Chinese goods. Centralized planned economies with fixed currencies have NOTHING to do with free market principles. Poor people are too damb poor to care about conservation; they don't much get to use the great wild places, and they work too hard to have time enough to give a toot. Increase their standards of living and you will see alot more investment in conservation.

Finally, NO MORE IMMIGRANTS from 3rd world countries. No more illiterate slobs whose motive for immigrating is a rumour of streets paved with platinum, welfare for all, and opportunities for personal enterprise of the criminal sort. We should, like Canada, fish for legal immigrants who have strong educations, speak English, and have a substantial cash reserve so that they are not immediate burdens on our publically funded social service sector.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Uh...baconboy206: I agree with your thoughts on illegals and immigration, but please don't discuss a "child limit." That is so completely unacceptable it defies the imagination.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Mike Diehl, I agree with everything you said except your first paragraph. Zero population growth is unrealistic, unnecessary, and leads to a boat-load of ethical issues. As for energy? Having our energy dependent upon undependable sources is not a good idea.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

With the destruction of the human genome by endocrine disrupting chemicals (that we still insist on polluting the waters with) I think this guys fantasy of 450 million is highly unlikely. With 85% of the smallmouths in the Potomac intersexed, what DO you think is gonna happen to the people who depend on the water also? If it is in the Potomac, how can it not be in all the other rivers too. We have laid the rope that we will strangle our own children with. Trannies don't usually breed you know...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jakenbake wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Illegal immigration is such a small problem in the big picture for our country - the fact that people keep having giant families is a MUCH larger problem. I have friends who are parts of families with 10-19 kids in them. Yes, 19. (And none of them are on TV :P) All of those kids are going to go on and have families of their own, and before you know it you can pretty easily see why the population is growing so quickly. Now, I'm not saying we go the China route and force couples to only have one kid to try to limit population growth, but maybe if we talked about the harms of having such large families people would make the choice on their own. Large families used to be necessary to run the family farm, but how many of those even exist any more? We need to change the culture of large families more than we need to plug the holes in the border.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I have to admit that I find more people fishing on the places that I want to fish than I like. I drive to Ak to catch silvers for two months because there are too many people fishing my home state. However, the fact that of the total population, a shrinking % is of the hunting and fishing persuasion diminishes our electoral clout. Join the NRA and other groups. The NRA is the largest voluntary group in the US. It is not the most influential. The 4 million plus NRA members have less political clout than the NOW group which at its peak had less than 5% of the numbers of Americans supporting it tan the NRA does. We live in a politically correct world, be not silent. The environment today is better, from a species select view, than it has been in 150 years at least. You young folks, read up on the reality of where we are now against where we were 40 years ago. This isn't rocket science, anyone can see where we are at.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

there is enough food in the world and enough energy harvestable from the sun to keep all people currently living fed and cozy. its just the distribution is wrong and based on economical incentives. And the biggest enviromental factor is agriculture in poor countries where the need to feed people overruns whatever right threathened species there have to live. fixing the world is easy really if politics arenth involved.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

"Zero population growth is unrealistic, unnecessary, and leads to a boat-load of ethical issues."

Mandating child limits is unaccaptable, I agree, but somehow we need to get people to stop making tons of babies like it's 1832. Zero population growth is very realistic, it's happening in many countries, and needs to happen here.

"As for energy? Having our energy dependent upon undependable sources is not a good idea."

Who brainwashed you? What is more dependable than the sun and the wind? No one said that we have to be utterly dependent on wind and solar, but the more we get going, the better. It's "free energy". The idea that it takes a ton of land to provide one household its energy needs is a lie. Try telling that to the people that do this. Are they not real?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Plotner wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

hmm they can take my land over my dead body how bout some thinnin the herd?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MPN wrote 3 years 44 weeks ago

"It seems that maybe humans will soon be forced into waking up and paying attention. Hopefully it won't be too late for the rest of the planet."

It's only a matter of time before we have no choice but to change our current ways. It's been proven that the world can't sustain us at the current way we are living and using up resources. Big businesses don't want to change because they'll lose money, everything is based around the economy. But don't we realize that there won't be an economy if we keep destroying the only planet we have to live on until it can't support us anymore. Don't even bring up the notion of living in space or other planets because can you imagine the costs? Change is going to happen it's just a question of will we change before disaster hits or are we going to be forced to change because there is no other option.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from shane wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

"a staunch conservative Republican, helped to write the original Clean Water Act, co-founded the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and was one of our country’s great conservation leaders."

Where is are those guys now? They apparently don't exist anymore. All you hear from Conservative Republicans is "Drill Baby Drill" and opposition to strengthening the CWA. Conservation is for stupid liberals and socialists now, apparently. Funny how some guys on TV and radio can brainwash a whole lot of people. TR part of the cancer? Thinking TR could be associated with the cancer is the cancer.

Our population problem is a serious one. Seems like anyone that addresses it or has ideas to slow it is painted as a radical. This Kotkin guy is blind and lost. 400-450 million is not a good thing. It's a nightmare from hell. We already have too many people running around this place.

Part of the problem is you get tax cuts for having more kids and the welfare leaches get more money if they make more babies.

It's a little screwy how the people that have problems with fertility are well off, educated, and intelligent. It's the inbreds, the methheads, and the welfare leaches that can't afford children that are popping 'em out like rabbits. A conspiracy to make a very large, very dumb/numb population of economic slaves?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from cmrosko wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

A good start would be for everyone to work at altering the general concept of what is an overall desirable direction for individuals and society to take. As beings that must cohabitate the planet with nature this is a top priority. One good place to start would be not using words with opposite meanings to try and explain dynamic activities, such as using the word "economy" to explain what really is another term for decadent extravagance. Almost everybody in America wants to live like a king at the expense of life on earth. Just look at how most people will mow down acres of native plants and wildlife and replace it with a monotonous chemical laden non native palatial lawn. That's quite a statement in itself.

A 30% reduction in the honey bee population, a 30% reduction in bird populations world wide, elevated mercury levels in most inland fish and waters, elevated levels of human induced chemicals and toxins leached and dumped into the environment. etc., etc.

It seems that maybe humans will soon be forced into waking up and paying attention. Hopefully it won't be too late for the rest of the planet.

Incidentally, I've become increasingly ashamed at the mindset of many "hunters and fisherman" who often support legislators with a history of trashing the environment and this events leading up to the recent gulf spill have really topped the cake. A recent Pew research poll shows that only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans. Why am I not surprised about that?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

simple explanation, your regressing back to a third world country :P

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from baconboy206 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

what were not asking or answering is the very root of the problem, there's to many freaking people, stop illegal immigration entirely, slow other forms of immigration and maybe a child limit or tax to keep things in check and were golden. The development of the wild areas will no longer be an issue, there will be less of a or no strain on our water supply,food supply, jobs, everything. Its all because there's to many people, everybody has to admit that at some point we will reach a point where there are so many people that the earth can no longer sustain us, it WILL happen, and hunting and fishing will be the first things to go. Why wait till things get worse? we can stop it now while we still have a good quality of life.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Glad you read it and not me.

I wouldn't spend the money.

The current problem is that "Government" has gotten derailed, and is no longer what it used to be.

With some unseen political force driving the President and Congress, and without allowing inputs from the people, this country is heading in a New Direction.

It seems to be headed by Constitutional Lawyers who know how to subvert the Constitution.

Who employs them is not clear.

This is quickly becoming a Socialist country which is a part of an artificial worldwide economy.

The Only Way To Survive is going to be Join Them or Die.

Glad I won't be here.

It is Economic Armageddon.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

You have posed an interesting question with a counter intuitive answer. I'm pushing 60. When I was a kid the US population was 150 million. Then bald eagles were extinct over huge swathes of the country, human feces were flushed directly into our rivers and water clarity was a joke. Today we have a population of 350 million people, I watch eagles and ospreys from my deck as they fly over my beaver pond. How can the environment improve beyond my wildest dreams, while the population doubled? Ain't technology a wonderful thing?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dann wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Is that the book the movie "idiocracy" is based on?

With about 10% of the US population being hunters and fisherman (and holding steady), its doubtful that any land that maybe left in 2050 will be available for hunting. Afterall, the other 90% will want to take the monorail to the wilderness activity center's, look thru the one-way glass and see the animatronic "Bambi".

Laugh if you want, but its sad. Many of my coworkers have never had a farm fresh brown egg because they say they're dirty. They have no idea where their meat really comes from (other than the store)and the idea of growing some of their own vegetables is overwhelming and beyond their abilities. I guess seeds are a mystery.

Folks have lost touch with nature and I don't see it getting better.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I agree with Dann

The real monster problem staring outdoors men and ladies is the misinformation ladled out to an increasingly non rural population. The PETA and Gorean crap is a pleasing guilt free way for non participants in the outdoors to control what used to be thought of as a way of life for a significant share of America. Are there really bald eagles in my backyard if the NY Times says that they are gone? Who is the public going to believe, some redneck old farmer or one of their experts?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WesMcCormick wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Stop Illegal immagration now! Do not send us your tired, your poor, and your hungry....Give them jobs in your country and figure it out yourselves. Hell everything we buy comes from overseas anyhow. Lets get back to reality and the America we all grew up knowing. Not this i'm afraid to offend or hurt someones feelings crap. You might want to buy a chunk of land while you still can folks. Now is more important than ever to stop making excuses of why you cant take your kids hunting, fishing and camping. They are the ones who will have the power to change this when were all gone.

In the words of Earl Pitts "WAKE UP AMERICA!"

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I think we have to shoot for zero population growth. Retool our energy system so that it is largely based on solar and wind for daytime electrical generation and possibly wave reactor nukes for night time generation.

Once that is done, production costs for industrial work in the US will decline. But it has to come with exclusion of Chinese goods. Centralized planned economies with fixed currencies have NOTHING to do with free market principles. Poor people are too damb poor to care about conservation; they don't much get to use the great wild places, and they work too hard to have time enough to give a toot. Increase their standards of living and you will see alot more investment in conservation.

Finally, NO MORE IMMIGRANTS from 3rd world countries. No more illiterate slobs whose motive for immigrating is a rumour of streets paved with platinum, welfare for all, and opportunities for personal enterprise of the criminal sort. We should, like Canada, fish for legal immigrants who have strong educations, speak English, and have a substantial cash reserve so that they are not immediate burdens on our publically funded social service sector.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

there is enough food in the world and enough energy harvestable from the sun to keep all people currently living fed and cozy. its just the distribution is wrong and based on economical incentives. And the biggest enviromental factor is agriculture in poor countries where the need to feed people overruns whatever right threathened species there have to live. fixing the world is easy really if politics arenth involved.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dann wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

While I'm a huge supporter of technology, it comes with a responsibility, a responsibility to use it wisely and selectively. Too many in our society were born with technology as a birthright. Our kids cannot concieve of a life without cell phones, HD satellite TV and instant world-wide communication.

Instead of participating in the natural process, they'd rather watch nature in neatly bundled electronic packages, available in your choice of DVD, Blu-ray, Smartphone and I-pad.

Think I'm kidding? Try this at home, Cut the power to the house, confiscate the cell and suggest the kids find something to do outside.

The go-green generation thinks hunting is barbaric and destructive. This same generation thinks nothing of tearing out habitat, building houses they can't afford and naming the streets after what USED to be there i.e. "pepper tree lane, Deer run St, Beaver lake". Every time I see ANOTHER golf course go in, I can't help to wonder how many generations of wildlife were destroyed to provide a controlled, sterile, outdoor environment so folks can excercise and feel "outdoorsy".

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

With the destruction of the human genome by endocrine disrupting chemicals (that we still insist on polluting the waters with) I think this guys fantasy of 450 million is highly unlikely. With 85% of the smallmouths in the Potomac intersexed, what DO you think is gonna happen to the people who depend on the water also? If it is in the Potomac, how can it not be in all the other rivers too. We have laid the rope that we will strangle our own children with. Trannies don't usually breed you know...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

"Zero population growth is unrealistic, unnecessary, and leads to a boat-load of ethical issues."

Mandating child limits is unaccaptable, I agree, but somehow we need to get people to stop making tons of babies like it's 1832. Zero population growth is very realistic, it's happening in many countries, and needs to happen here.

"As for energy? Having our energy dependent upon undependable sources is not a good idea."

Who brainwashed you? What is more dependable than the sun and the wind? No one said that we have to be utterly dependent on wind and solar, but the more we get going, the better. It's "free energy". The idea that it takes a ton of land to provide one household its energy needs is a lie. Try telling that to the people that do this. Are they not real?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

You're all neglecting the fact that, population growth will not occur unless there is corresponding increases in technology. Immagration will not happen without job oppotunities. If you can't feed yourself, you probably won't marry. If you and your wife are hungry, you probably won't have children. If, somehow, we develop means to provide energy so that industries reemerge, and employment goes up drastically, those estimates could be accurate. By providing energy, I don't mean flipping a switch.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bryan01 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Getting back to the original question - how do we ensure that there will be hunting and fishing in the future? I see it as a two part question - how do we preserve it in the west, where the federal government owns a large fraction of the land and can enact policies that directly and immediately have an impact on the availability of hunting and fishing lands, and in the east, where more of the hunting takes place on private property.

There have been initiatives in a number of states recently trying to factilitate hunting access on private property - I don't know whether or not any of the programs have succeeded - but I do think that this is an area where much more thought and effort needs to be focused if we are going to preserve hunting for future generations.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MPN wrote 3 years 44 weeks ago

"It seems that maybe humans will soon be forced into waking up and paying attention. Hopefully it won't be too late for the rest of the planet."

It's only a matter of time before we have no choice but to change our current ways. It's been proven that the world can't sustain us at the current way we are living and using up resources. Big businesses don't want to change because they'll lose money, everything is based around the economy. But don't we realize that there won't be an economy if we keep destroying the only planet we have to live on until it can't support us anymore. Don't even bring up the notion of living in space or other planets because can you imagine the costs? Change is going to happen it's just a question of will we change before disaster hits or are we going to be forced to change because there is no other option.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Uh...baconboy206: I agree with your thoughts on illegals and immigration, but please don't discuss a "child limit." That is so completely unacceptable it defies the imagination.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Mike Diehl, I agree with everything you said except your first paragraph. Zero population growth is unrealistic, unnecessary, and leads to a boat-load of ethical issues. As for energy? Having our energy dependent upon undependable sources is not a good idea.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jakenbake wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Illegal immigration is such a small problem in the big picture for our country - the fact that people keep having giant families is a MUCH larger problem. I have friends who are parts of families with 10-19 kids in them. Yes, 19. (And none of them are on TV :P) All of those kids are going to go on and have families of their own, and before you know it you can pretty easily see why the population is growing so quickly. Now, I'm not saying we go the China route and force couples to only have one kid to try to limit population growth, but maybe if we talked about the harms of having such large families people would make the choice on their own. Large families used to be necessary to run the family farm, but how many of those even exist any more? We need to change the culture of large families more than we need to plug the holes in the border.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I have to admit that I find more people fishing on the places that I want to fish than I like. I drive to Ak to catch silvers for two months because there are too many people fishing my home state. However, the fact that of the total population, a shrinking % is of the hunting and fishing persuasion diminishes our electoral clout. Join the NRA and other groups. The NRA is the largest voluntary group in the US. It is not the most influential. The 4 million plus NRA members have less political clout than the NOW group which at its peak had less than 5% of the numbers of Americans supporting it tan the NRA does. We live in a politically correct world, be not silent. The environment today is better, from a species select view, than it has been in 150 years at least. You young folks, read up on the reality of where we are now against where we were 40 years ago. This isn't rocket science, anyone can see where we are at.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Plotner wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

hmm they can take my land over my dead body how bout some thinnin the herd?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Oh. yes.

Hunting.

Fuggeddaboudit!

There won't be any animals, due to the atmosphere and "water".

People will have traded anything that can be used as a weapon for air and water filters.

Then they can only get more filters by snitching on anyone who is disloyal to the Roman Homosexual Church.

No one will care that they engineered Worldwide Dominance in A.D. 700 by forging a document that gave them possession of all assets of the Roman Empire.

I wuz looking at Remington's production Records, and it showed that over 100,000 rifles were produced for the Vatican Army.

They were used for the conquest of South America.

This is possibly the most glaring hypocrisy.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill", right.

They conquered a new continent and established Centers for Tax Collection.

At any rate, the Central World Government will revert to the Vatican.

Remember: The New World was divided up by The Pope.

Everybody in Government will be a Predatory Homosexual.

The heteros will live in projects in poverty.

They will be 70% of the world's population.

Everybody will have the same lifestyle worldwide.

There will be no gas or any need for it.

People will eat Tofu, when available, and bred for stupidity and flavor so the Homos can feast on their bones.

At this point, there will be no sex, as the heteros will have been cloned as sexless cattle.

They were such an inconvenience anyway, what with their demand for "Rights", etc.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment