View Full Version : Lots of African hunting videos...this is BS!
April 27, 2002, 10:38 PM
I knew people hunted game in Africa, like elephants and water buffalo, but just seeing this take place is really disturbing. Now, i love to hunt, but only stuff I am going to eat, like deer, which i love to hunt. (exception of yard pests...)
I just thought i would post this link to a bunch of videos. Most are pretty sad ex.) shooting elephants, lioness', hyena's, and every and any other African animal you can think of, even a bamboon sitting in a tree.
What is everyone else's take on this type of thing...
Some of you may have been to their forums over there, its new to me though.
April 27, 2002, 10:57 PM
Much of the game is in fact edible. The natives take a lot of the meat that doesn't suit the hunter's "tender" palate. It is a source of income for the local goverments and gets a lot of international attention, i.e., scrutiny. The type and number of game head you may take is, for the most part, strictly regulated.
April 27, 2002, 11:01 PM
Does the name Karamojo Bell mean anything to you?
It's hunting. Maybe not for food, but it's still hunting. People have their own interpretation of hunting, be it trophy, food, varminting, or the sport of it.
I personally don't think using a dog team to wear down and tree a bear has much sporting appeal, but it's still hunting, and bear hunters still have the right to do so. I've got a freezer full of deer and elk venison, which I hunted, dressed out, and quartered myself. It's hunting, even if the vegans in my area consider me a barbarian for doing so.
Dunno if that baboon in the video clip was considered a varmint or not. Maybe he was considered a rabies risk. It's still a hunting video, just like those videos for sale of prairie poodles being exploded into a pink mist by a .22-250 here in the U.S.
Saeed, the Arab gentleman in the video shooting that .577 Tyrannosaur from the bench, is the sysadmin of www.accuratereloading.com. He and his website are from the United Arab Emirates. It's a very well-run website, with some real stand-up folks, and it offers good information, especially in the reloading area.
April 27, 2002, 11:04 PM
I've always been under the impression that little is wasted. Even if it's left afield (which is probably the exception), something is still going to eat it. A lot of the time, the indiginous people will take the meat which they may not have had otherwise.
Making judgement of all African hunters just blasting away and leaving carcases is little different from non-hunters judging American deer hunters as doing the same thing.
Lack of information can help people make assumptions that fit their stereotypes...
April 27, 2002, 11:11 PM
I know i wasnt clear enough, but yes, i understand what "hunting" is... I was simply putting my opinion out there that i dont agree with this from a moral stand point. That is, i myself wouldnt go out and shoot some animal because i consider it fun, then leave then animal for someone else to eat or do whatever. I like to experience the actual work that follows a kill, be it draggin the animal out of wherever, or skinning it, which i doubt any of these men do.
to sensop, i am glad you pointed out a couple of things in your post...
My only problem with these people is there morality...which is no big problem, just my opinion and i thought i would mention it with this post.
Im not concerned with how well of a website is run, and yes, i knew hunting existed in Africa.
Again, to the slow ones, my problem is with the bloodthirsty hunters that shoot lions and elephants....its different knowing that this goes on and then seeing this done.
I would like to include that i am not stereotyping all "african hunters" here...and also say that i do believe and varmint shooting and the like for plenty of obvious reasons.
April 27, 2002, 11:48 PM
Quote from Remmy: "I like to experience the actual work that follows a kill, be it draggin the animal out of wherever, or skinning it, which i doubt any of these men do."
Before passing judgement on the folks in those videos,
here they are, after the hunt, barbequeing their take:
That's a duiker he's roasting. Before it got on the spit, it *probably* got dragged out of the bush, and skinned. On the same page are three water buffalo they shot for meat, as well as three guinea fowl for stew. ;)
April 28, 2002, 02:29 AM
:barf: I agree with Remmy (total BS) on this.These animals are too exotic to be shot.I don't care if they use the last toe nail on them and nothing goes to waste.
Don't understand how they could pull the trigger on a big cat or an ele. and enjoy it.Some animals are just too majestic to be killed in this manor.
April 28, 2002, 02:34 AM
Some animals are just too majestic to be killed in this manor.
In what manner? With a gun? Is that somehow a less noble death than disease or predation? (Or in the case of some cats, getting poisoned by a farmer to keep 'em out of his goats)
Nature is grand and beautiful on the Nature Channel in your living room, it's smelly and annoying when you're up to your knees in it all day long staring at the north end of a southbound ox.
April 28, 2002, 06:39 AM
Tamara, if nature is so wonderful, why aren't they homeless happier? How come the bunny huggers never live under a bridge or in a hole in the ground in the woods?
I could really care less if people hunt or not. I do not like the flabby flannels free riding on my money.:mad: However, if we eliminate P-R as we should and make the flabby flannels pay their own way (yeah, right, that will happen), they can shoot all the critters they wish.
April 28, 2002, 07:14 AM
Those animals are no more exotic over there than the whitetail deer is over here.
Without control, elephants would over populate and destroy there environment leading to starvation for them as well as many other species.
Shooting a lion is no different than shooting a coyote except that he can bite back, a thrill much the same as skydiving.
I have personally had elephant meat and think it's quite tasty.
A few hours reading some African history and actually researching the situation may help you put things in perspective instead of jumping on the "those animals are too cute to shoot" banwagon.
And lastly, animals that don't get taken by a hunter will die in one of two ways:
1. A predator will kill and eat it
2. It's teeth will eventually wear down to the point that it can no longer chew its food enough to digest it which in turn leads to lingering starvation. The same is true of herbivores as well as carnivores.
April 28, 2002, 08:58 AM
Animals are animals, and the more majestic, the greater the satisfaction in taking one. This is particularly true if the animal in question has the ability to take you, too.
I do not hunt in order to kill; rather, I kill in order to have hunted.
Stalking a wild animal of any type is the same, no matter whether one is using a gun or a camera. It makes no more sense to not pull the trigger than it does to not release the shutter.
Homo sapiens sapiens is the top predator on the planet. Accept it....or don't accept it. If you don't accept it, be aware that you are ignoring reality and not thinking rationally, if at all.
April 28, 2002, 09:16 AM
I couldn't help but notice the "fashionable attire" the man in that picture is wearing.
It looks like the animals are not the only ones "dragged" out of the bush. What's up with that?
April 28, 2002, 09:36 AM
What Sensop said. After a few "mystery stews" in some less traveled parts of East Africa, I can vouch for the fact that most meat is edible. Not necesessarily tasty, but edible.
April 28, 2002, 09:39 AM
Now that's funny. I guess it depends where you live and travel...
Now, about hunting:
If you regulate hunting elephants, for instance, charge a decent fee and share the meat and money with the locals, the elephants actuallly thrive. Their numbers actually increase since they're a valuable, renewable source of income and food for the locals. They become protected.
Eliminate the hunting, the shared fees and food, however, and the elephants struggle to survive. Their numbers decrease as they are killed with no hope of protection. Ivory poachers can whack a hole herd in just a couple of hours, and no one really cares.
It may sound illogical to some to think that regulated hunting actually increases the amount of game, but it's not. It's so simple and logical that a child could have thought of it.
April 28, 2002, 10:17 AM
1. No game species, worldwide, is threatened by controlled/regulated hunting. The threats are from poaching and from habitat change.
2. Most game species, worldwide, where there is adequate protection against illegal taking are increasing in numbers.
When local people have a vested, financial interest in the health of a resident species, that species will increase in numbers. This is most evident in Africa with the elephant, and in the U.S. with the whitetail deer and the wild turkey.
An American may believe a kudu is exotic and too pretty to shoot. An African may believe the same about a mule deer.
April 28, 2002, 10:31 AM
Just to clear things up again...although i have probably stuck my foot in my mouth in previous posts. :)
"My only problem with these people is thier morality", and the way in which they go about doing their harvesting, i guess i am just different, which i why i said someting along the lines of "this is my opinion" but i like to keep killing honorable etc. I respect the animals i hunt and like to appreciate the kill. Not saying that all these guys werent doing this, but some of the films gave me a feeling of the opposite, i dont usually laugh at the game i shoot, or gut shoot the animals either. Again, i know some of this wasnt intentional, and i dont deal with the type of game that was being hunted...
Lots of good points being put out there, and i stand corrected in some ways. I guess i felt like i needed to justify my opinion again...even though some were getting off on another angle.
I could go on and on, how some try to point out the obvious; saying "accept it or dont accept it"... when no one is trying to argue otherwise...(for instance, that humans are the top predator)
April 28, 2002, 10:35 AM
Remmy, here's what's really going on:
These are very poor nations where the hunts take place. It is a major investment for a place like Kenya to operate a game preserve park, both in terms of land not being used for anything otherwise providing a tax base, and to pay for game wardens to control poaching. Which would otherwise be a HUGE problem - due to the various wars all over Africa, AK47s are plentiful. And believe me, a whole banana clip of 7.62x39 commie surplus battle ammo WILL take down an elephant. You want ugly, and suffering? Try to picture THAT.
There's only one way the the African governments can maintain the parks: charging HUGE fees for hunting permits, to pay for the park's upkeep.
A major African hunting trip costs in the ballpark range of $20,000 per hunter, and goes WAY up from there. That figure won't net you an elephant, fr'instance. They've tried "politically correct camera safaris" but tree-hugger environmentalists WILL NOT pay $30,000 to take a picture of *anything*, for obvious reasons. Rich Arab or US hunters will pay that to SHOOT something cool :).
You want that ecosystem preserved, and the critters in it likewise? Then get your emotions under control.
The US is no different. You know all these various "wetlands" where game birds nest? Most are private property. What pays for their maintenance is the selling of duck blind spots for the season...usually over $1,000 a year. Same principle: the hunting pays to preserve the land, because it's the only way the land can generate income and still be a wildlife zone. So a few ducks die. Fine. The ducks as a species do better because despite moderate amounts of hunting, at least they have someplace to nest. And all the OTHER critters do too, from frogs to mice to...well, everything.
It's basic economics.
Get over it.
April 28, 2002, 11:18 AM
Stickslinger, Art, Straightshot and others have said it.
If it isn't a rock, it is food.
April 28, 2002, 12:19 PM
I've watched most of those videos, and most of it seems to be jovial congratulations rather than "laughing" at the animals. Not to mention cultural differences... not everyone's an American.
Also keep in mind laughter is a great stress relief, and when just having put down something that could kill you in a split second if you screwed up - I'd sure be giddy about still being on my feet!
April 28, 2002, 12:49 PM
There was only one video there that I found disturbing, theres one where before the guy shoots the animal he says "FU*K YOU"
obviously to the animal he is shooting.
But that was just one guy, that does not make me think bad about the whole site.
April 28, 2002, 02:09 PM
After some thought, I'm moving this one to "The Hunt" forum.
April 28, 2002, 03:45 PM
Remmy, you keep saying people don't get your point, but you keep falling back on the same point. You say you want to "keep the killing honorable."
The point everyone else is trying to make is that what those hunters are doing doesn't seem dishonorable to us.
Why is it dishonorable? Why is it wrong to kill something you yourself won't eat, for instance, as long as someone else keeps it from going to waste? There are people in Illinois who hunt whitetails solely to give them to Sportsmen Against Hunger, which gives them to homeless shelters. It's essentially the same thing.
If I might offer an opinion, it seems maybe this is your emotional reaction. Take a day or two to think about it and you might see their points more easily.
PS--Don't tell Rich how dishonorable he is unless you're sure! ;)
April 28, 2002, 10:22 PM
Maybe it's because I spent a lot of time around my grandparents' farming/ranching activities, but I have the attitude that meat's meat. Some animals might be prettier than others, but in the final analysis it's just food.
A hunter is a do-it-yourselfer in providing his meat. Meat from a grocery or in a restaurant just means you've hired somebody else to do the scut work for you.
Some people are ethical/moral/honorable in business, marriage or hunting. Some are not. You cannot rationally judge all of any group by the actions of just a few.
April 29, 2002, 12:24 AM
As a point of fact Baboons are killed on sight as pests and varmints in parts of Africa. they are very destructive crop and live stock raiders.
If there was no fee regulated hunting of elephants there would be no elephants left in much of Africa. Too exotic??? How about over populated and starving to death in many places!
As long as we are agreeing with your point of view why don't we just stop hunting all together after all the Whitetail is an exotic and rare animal in my part of the country.
Honorable? I find hunting dangerous game far more honorable than than mere deer shooting after all deer don't kill hunters very often "Water Buffalo" actually they are Cape Buffalo, do, along with lions and elephants.
Third point of fact it's people like you that are going to kill hunting in the long run. Your highly emotional yet totaly ignorant attitude towards hunting is exactly the type of divison that groups like PETA and Fund for Animals will use to rip us apart.
As a matter of fact why don't you get off your a** and actually go to Africa and see for your self of what I speak. And not some frickin zebra striped tour bus in some glorified disney land park either but the real Africa.
I think remmy that we have a clasic case of to much pop cluture left wing television historian going on here. National geographic and Discovery channel only program what they think will sell advertising. The truth can rarely be wrestled from modern day programing.
April 29, 2002, 08:49 AM
Unintended Consequences: Probably the worst enemies of rational interactions with wildlife--anywhere--were Felix Salter and Walt Disney.
Salter authored "Bambi", and we're all pretty much familiar with the rosy views of Disney's wildlife portrayals. Getting morals and aesthetics involved with your food supply might be a good way to lose weight, I guess...
April 29, 2002, 09:25 AM
"Third point of fact it's people like you that are going to kill hunting in the long run. "
I find that comment as an insult, but because you dont know me and it is really hard to get points across to some via typing/internet i can understand you could think that....Even though i never pictured myself as that type. I was feeling very refreshed reading the other very informative posts, and was realizing more and more what each was saying...because i was so uninformed.
A couple of notes: I dont think i mentioned anywhere that these animals were too exotic to shoot, someone else started that i think... but regardless, i didnt think what i was saying was "highly emotional". Just because i have opinions about how an animal is taken, that is highly emotional? And i didnt mean what is honorable in the hunt, the fact that cape buffalo can kill a man doesnt make the kill more honorable. The manner in which any animal is put down is what i believe to be the ethics or honor in a hunt... Typing out my thoughts is kind of difficult here...but i dont want anyone to think that i dont condone hunting.
I was however uninformed about alot of things, and reading so many of these informative posts have enlightened me...i never really intended to start up the post for argumentative purposes. Maybe i stuck my foot in my mouth a couple of times, but I guess thats what comes with the territory. :)
(that was probably a big ramble)
April 29, 2002, 11:56 AM
Rambling's okay; it's sorta like thinking out loud.
What's important is the thinking. There's often quite a shortage of thinking, as opposed to emoting. :)
April 29, 2002, 05:11 PM
When I reread my post I realised that it did get more than a little personal. For that I apologize.
You see your thread hit a raw spot with me and I took it personal as well.
African hunting is about lots of things, beautifull scenery, unbelevable hunting experiences, rich history, cool guns, weird calibers and characters of unimaginable ecentricity. Not to mention the economic and cultural boon to the local economy. You see hunting is not a sport to many natives it's a life, when asked what do you do a man will proudly stand and tell you he's a tracker or a hunter or skinner. These people take great pride in their profession and are revered as such in the bush of Africa. I felt that your comments were undermining the true fabric of this deep and rich tradition of African hunting.
Please accept my appology for taking it to the personal level. I also can see your point about some of these blood and guts videos out there some of them do cheapin the experience. I think however, many are just trying to capture the true drama of the hunt tend to go over board a bit.
April 29, 2002, 05:40 PM
I'm a trapper and I often kill without eating,but it's not without a purpose.I mainly target foxes and coyotes which are reducing our quail population to next to nothing.The African equivalent are taking food out of the mouths of countless of sheep herders and farmers.Trapping or shooting a jackal or a coyote may not be glamorous,but it serves a big purpose.
April 29, 2002, 07:25 PM
Apology accepted H&Hhunter, i understand tempers can flare when people discuss issues that are very important to them. I did/do however understand the importance of hunting, and some other concepts mentioned, although i was not aware of all the details of others...
pawcatch: I do the same, i have shot foxes and hunted coyotes myself...many people kind of swayed what i was saying, which may have led you to believe that i was against that. Im NOT...
This is getting really exhausted now, haha... some of its good discussion i reckon though :)
April 29, 2002, 09:20 PM
Peaceful and mature.
Love it gentlemen.
April 30, 2002, 03:19 PM
More important than culling the herds to prevent overpopulation, african game management brings in the revenue and will to prevent poaching, which is the real threat to these fine beasts.
I too have to use, or intend to use, some part of my prey or I just don't feel right. Not necessarily food, but fur, horn, claws, whatever. Exceptions might include an animal which presents a danger or unexpected danger.
Heck, I even skin skunks.
April 30, 2002, 04:43 PM
Pigshooter, back when I was a mean, evil, bad-nasty little kid and not the suave, debonair*, kind-hearted soul that I now am, I discovered the effect of "skunk oil" when applied liberally to the intake of a car's ventilation system.
Just a thought...
* Sometimes deliberately mispronounced "swayve and deboner", indicating the opposite...:D
May 1, 2002, 01:45 AM
While I was an undergrad I did research studies under two conservation experts, one specializing in elephants and the other in tigers and other "exotics".
One thing that most people do not understand about "endangered species" is that the species is not endangered, rather their habitat is. The species itself has no problem keeping itself alive, as long as it has an habitat.
For instance the "endangered" tiger exists more in captivity today than in the wild. People who keep tigers in cages as "pets" get criticized, but if it were not for those people, the tiger would have nowhere to live. More to the point, people that house tigers actually have to give the cats drugs to PREVENT them from reproducing! Tigers reproduce like rabbits! There is no problem getting as many tigers as we want, we just need places to put them.
You could apply this same theme to lions. I would be willing to bet there is no shortage of lions, and shooting one is not going to make a difference, especially when you are paying for their habitat to exist.
Where this leads is to a new perspective on "endangered" animals. Just because an animal is endangered does not mean that if you kill one you are doing a disservice. There may be plenty of the animal to go around, it is the habitat that is really endangered.
From here you can see that hunters do a great service to the species, when they pay big bucks to go shoot one. Hunters pay for the habitat that the animals live in. Without hunters funding that habitat, there would be none left, period.
And, as was said above, many of these creatures are seen as pests in other countries. We have to pay the people NOT to kill the animals such as baboons. If you can imagine, people in these countries get pretty annoyed when we come over and tell them that they can't kill pests. It would be like someone coming over from china and telling you that you are no longer allowed to kill termites because they are sacred animals.
PETA and other groups have given a false impression to people concerning these issues. They demonize people that that keep tigers as pets, for example, when these people are the only ones giving the species a place to live. They demonize hunters, when hunters are the ones paying for the habitat so that these animals have a place to live....and hunters have been funding and managing balaced ecosystems long before it was trendy.
I have more to say but I don't want to be lengthy. These groups have been successful at convincing people that if a lion kills an animal it is the balance of nature and ethical, but if a man kills an animal it is somehow immoral.
May 1, 2002, 08:13 AM
jd, some five-ish or so years back, a TV program on African wildlife focussed on elephants. It showed both the poaching problems for illegal ivory, and the habitat destruction brought about by the elephants, themselves.
It explained the benefits of the $30,000/elephant license fee, with a portion going to villagers and thus giving them a vested financial interest in protecting the elephants from poachers.
Unfortunately, it closed (and left a final memory) with a comment by a young woman of some "conservation" group. Her comment was that she almost wished for extinction of such a noble beast, rather than allow any to be shot by hunters. (Yet she professed awareness of the benefits of licensed hunting!)
When you're dealing with such views, such styles of emotional lack of judgement, rational interactions with wildlife is nearly impossible.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.