

Preliminary data regarding similar research into kangaroo overpopulation
in Australia do not in any way support the cost-effectiveness of this
approach.  It _may_ be cost-effective for deer--if you quietly overlook
the fact that the net cost to the state of deer hunting is _negative_
(i.e. a profit) because the (majority of) hunters pay for licences.
The cost comparisons are probably being done assuming that people have
to be employed to cull the animals, which is not in fact the case.
You figure people are going to pay for licences to implant contraceptive
pellets or spread baits?

There has been a fair bit of discussion about this here recently,
because the kangaroo population in the grounds of the Governor-
General's residence has now reached plague proportions.  Despite the
whines of the rampant animal-libbers, the most effective method of
controlling the population is still considered to be controlled
shooting.


Some people take satisfaction (IMHO, legitimate satisfaction) in eating
food that they have harvested themselves.  The pleasure derived from
hunting is the same as that you get from eating fruit and vegetables
grown in your own garden (and, in general, game meat is probably much 
freer of unpleasant chemicals than what you buy from the butcher or
the supermarket).


By "cannot now be justified" I guess you mean that you personally
don't see any justification.  Fine--but what makes your opinion
so important?


Certainly the last point is correct.  If politicians don't see any
votes for themselves in opposing stupid legislation or in developing
and supporting measures which might be effective in reducing the 
incidence of violent crime they won't do these things.