Apparently some stuff that I put on birdchat (as a response to statements
there that struck me as utter nonsense) was forwarded here to tweeters.
Removed from that context it may seem as though I was taking issue with
statements on tweeters (such as one from Russell Rogers a week or so ago)
reminding people that hunting fees contribute to habitat preservation.
That statement is true and I don't disagree with it. The offending
comments on birdchat went well beyond that statement, however, claiming
that hunters as a group have a demonstratedly stronger conservation ethic
than do birders as a group because all hunters pay for habitat via license
fees, whereas not all birders contribute to habitat preservation -- and
that birders should therefore be ashamed to dare to criticize hunting.


David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu