Even with the amont of 4000lbs that over 1000 snakes Do you think you can take this amount and there will be no effect on local populations?
There is no need to think/speculate about it, you can tell by the consistently large takes that the populations are not declining. Again, you need to begin with actual data rather than speculating and asking others to agree with your speculation.
Lets hope they are right...
No, if you don't agree, go find data that supports your contentions/assertions/speculation.
You can not justify your opinion with speculation, emotion and hope. Opinions are justified by data/evidence/facts.
As for exporting of alligators I find it ironic that you can get papers to go out to kill them in their 100s but no paperwork to be able to export 2 live baby ones. Only in America.
Animals can be legally hunted at levels that will maintain population levels, however, there are strict limitations on other activities involving animals, particularly activities that might be considered commercial. Market hunting, and trapping game animals for commercial sale/export are generally illegal.
You have come here with emotion, speculation and opinions but no facts. You have been answered with logic, and with facts.
In spite of that, you continue to argue.
You have committed a number of logical fallacies, a few of which are listed below:
Appeal to authority: "As a biologist that specilizes in reptiles".
Appeal to emotion:
- "if it moves shot it" (not legal except with certain very limited species)
- "killing them on sight" (not legal except with certain very limited species)
- "The TV shows on reptile hunters being brave people are laughable."
- " it is crule and ...more important no place in a civilized world."
- "It's this bravdo that these TV programes seem to promote that sickens me."
- "this barbaric custom"
- "wholesale slaughter"
- "The obsession that a lot of Americans have with guns and to an extent killing animals"
- "a days killing spree"
Stating "fact" with no evidence to support it or when the evidence directly contradicts it:
- "With reference to ratttlesnake round ups its a fact the numbers are not as many as in the "good old days" and the sizes are on the whole are smaller." (You finally admitted you had no evidence more recent than the 1960s)
- "There's one thing the need for killing animals for the "pot" another in large scale killing for money and sport/fun." (The rattlesnakes are used for food, skins and for antivenin, there may be money and sport involved, but ultimately the animals are eaten and are otherwise made use of.)
- "Even when there is a quota its the attitude of "we must use the quota" at all costs that you see animals of all sizes being taken it doesn't seem to matter." (While unprotected species, like rattlesnakes may be taken at any size, the take of most game animals is restricted both by quota and generally by such other aspects as sex, antler configuration, size, etc.)
Since you seem to have no interest in debating this topic on the basis of factual evidence and since you continue to rely on emotionally charged, "sound bite" style "arguments, it is clear that you came here neither to discuss this topic rationally in the interest of responsible hunting/firearms ownership, nor to inform, nor to be informed.
That leaves only two possible goals.
1. You came to air your opinion but with no accompanying goal to support it factually. If that is your goal, it has certainly been accomplished and there's no need for the thread to continue.
2. You came to stir up trouble. That is unacceptable and if that is your goal, this thread can not continue.
Either way, this thread is done.