Honest question about hunting from 30,000 feet level

quote:

---

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, most often referred to as the Pittman–Robertson Act for its sponsors, Nevada Senator Key Pittman and Virginia Congressman Absalom Willis Robertson, was signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937 and became effective on July 1 of the following year.[1][2][3][4] It has been amended many times with several of the major ones taking place during the 1970s[1][2][3][5] and the most recent taking place in 2000.[6]

---

quote:

---

The Pittman–Robertson Act took over a pre-existing 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition.[7][8] Instead of going into the U.S. Treasury as it had done in the past, the money is kept separate and is given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the States.[4][8][9] The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.[2][3][6][9][10]


These States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their hunting license sales may be used by anyone other than the State’s fish and game department.[3][6][8] Plans for what to do with the money must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.[6] Acceptable options include research, surveys, management of wildlife and/or habitat and acquisition or lease of land, among other things.[1][6][10] Once a plan has been approved, the state must pay the full cost and is later reimbursed for up to 75% of that cost through P–R funds.[1][3][10] The 25% of the cost that the State must pay generally comes from its hunting license sales.[1] If, for whatever reason, any of the federal money does not get spent, after two years that money is then reallocated to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.[6][9]

---

quote:

---

This piece of legislation has provided states with funding for research and projects that would have been unaffordable otherwise.[10] According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service webpage that was updated in January 2010, over two billion dollars of federal aid has been generated through this program, which in turn means that states have kept up their 25% contributions with over 500 million dollars.[1] The habitat acquisition and improvement made possible by this money has allowed some species with large ranges such as American black bears, elk, cougars, and others, to expand those ranges beyond where they were found prior to the implementation of the act.[1] Important game populations such as white-tailed deer and several Galliformes have also had a chance to recover and expand their populations. Critics claim that state Fish and Wildlife agencies use funds primarily to create new hunting opportunities and that hunters in general feel the tax they pay on fire arms should be used to facilitate hunting. The result is that little money is spend directly on initiatives that don't result in providing increased hunting opportunities. [1][8] Wil

---

quote:

---

Sure. But that's not his point.

---

quote:

---

Take the idea with humans. For thousands of generations, only the smartest and most aggressive humans were able to reproduce. And we thrived.

But now it's the opposite. The more highly educated you are, and the wealthier you are, the fewer kids you're likely to have.

And the idiots who have been rejected by society -- the ones who should have been culled -- are encouraged to do the most breeding.

How can we possibly think this won't have consequences?

In just the last 30 years, the world added 1.6 billion people to the work force. Most we from educated populations in Asia and Europe. And the world economy has done well.

In the next 30 years, we are only going to add about 800 million workers to the work force. But many of the 1.6 billion from this generation will still be alive.

But the 800 million we're adding are mostly from India and Africa, and over half will be illiterate.

Look at that math and tell me we're not fricked?

---