|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 19, 2013, 08:53 PM | #26 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
|
Funny how many against this hunt have no issue with sitting in a tree using bait to lure a deer in real close "because it is legal" yet is no where near as sporting as many other hunts. This was legal, it was determined as such by their version of Fish and Game - you side with the antis on this, then soon they will come to ban YOUR version of hunting as well
|
November 19, 2013, 09:53 PM | #27 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
Only the hunter and the gardener are do-it-yourself types when it comes to food. Everybody else hires some other person to do the scut work.
Hey, me, too, when I shop at the grocery store. Hunters have the strongest vested interest in the health of any and all game species. Absent a surplus, there is no hunting. Doesn't matter what the species is: Rats, coyotes, cougars, deer, elk, elephant, antelope or lions. There is either a surplus in an area or there is no legal hunting. |
November 20, 2013, 12:05 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
There is a dynamic at work here with cats where hunting the large males can have devastating effects on the population. Zambia recently banned hunting of lions for this reason. They used to issue 1 hunting license each year for lion in the Mushingashi Game Management Area. The foreign hunter would come in and take the pride's male. A new male would move in, and the next hunter would take him the next year. One problem with this - as soon as a male lion takes over a pride the first order of business is to kill all the cubs of the previous male. This brings the females into heat so he can make cubs of his own. So every year all the cubs of the pride would be killed by the new resident male, until eventually they realized that no cub had been raised to adulthood for 9 years. That pride may well be doomed despite the belated hunting ban.
Quite a different scenario than deer, where the new buck doesn't kill all the offspring of the previous one. |
November 20, 2013, 02:14 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 7, 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,000
|
Quote:
bottom line is that hunting even for trophies creates more value then if the native population would just hunt for meat or to protect their cattle and PH are conservationist and nature friends, they wouldn't spend every waken hour outside if not. it is not something you do to become rich, it is a hard life |
|
November 20, 2013, 02:20 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 7, 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,000
|
Quote:
one hunter pays as much as a busload of camera tourists basically it is a profitable way to conservate so why fight against it? you are free yourself to buy your own land and manage it how you like, see how that works out... |
|
November 20, 2013, 02:37 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
While I certainly hope that a bear that is put down in that sort of situation is taken to a meat locker for some sort of Hunting For The Hungry program, I would be surprised if it was. Generally speaking ethics change over time as well. A hundred and fifty-ish years ago people were laying waste to entire fields of buffalo, the meat left rotting in the fields. At one point, they would shoot the Buffalo from the trains without even slowing down, or harvesting anything, meat, tongue or hides. So all ethics are selective, and era dependent. Some people select a trophy as a valid reason to harvest an animal. Some don't. |
|
November 20, 2013, 03:03 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
|
November 20, 2013, 04:08 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 7, 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,000
|
if it works why stop doing it?
there is nothing that says that plain hippies will shoulder the work of the hunters. Strange I have yet to see some enviromental/hippie out in the woods placing a saltstone, creating a wild-field doing any sort of wildlife managment, creating habitats etc etc or help the cops track animals wounded in car-collisions... When the enivermentalists think they are helping they are most often woefully wrong and inedequate, look at those frekkin sea-sheppards, prime example of IDIOTS, protesting the hunting of a perfectly acceptable harvest. look atr greenpeace who stopped trade with walruss tusks and crippled eskimo economy etc etc |
November 20, 2013, 07:36 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
|
Quote:
|
|
November 20, 2013, 07:55 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
|
Sounds like a typical, case of emotional and illogical reasoning to put the concern for the individual animal ahead concern for the species.
The people in the region are dirt poor and starving and outsiders want to lecture them on preserving wildlife when they are more concerned about preserving their children form starvation. They see the lion as either a threat to them or a threat to their food. They see poaching as a lottery. The only thing that saves any animal such as this from being totally erradicated by locals is giving it commercial value. Preserves are limited in size, and support a limited number of animals. Populations of all species within the preserve are carefully managed to an optimum level that their habitat will support. Excess animals can either be culled at the preserve's expense, or some foreignor will pay big bucks to hunt one. The guide will tell him which animal to shoot. He will pay for all kinds of local services for this hunt. What is chump change for a service to you and I might be the average annual income for a person here. For many species, the hunter is not even permitted to take meat or any part of the animal home. The meat and hyde are harvested and distributed to the locals. Everybody wins. The locals will put greater effort into protecting the species because the money the foreignor pays to hunt the animal legally, feeds a lot more people than the individual animal, and the desire to keep it continuous ensures preservation by the locals. The only thiing that could make it better, and increase revenue even more is if misguided countries would lift their ban on the importation of of legally taken managed animals. For example, when elephants are culled to keep populations within the habitat's capability, the ivory is destroyed and cannot be sold. |
November 20, 2013, 08:31 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 114
|
This poor woman is being demonized for shooting a lion legally
Just who do you guys think funds those conservation efforts that have so benefited African wildlife and tribespeople? Safari Hunters, through licenses, taxes, and trophy fees that's who. To say nothing of the jobs provided. Without the value given it by safari hunters, that lion would be nothing more than a pest, to be machine gunned, trapped or poisoned as a threat to some tribesmans cattle, or poached for the Asian aphrodisiac market. I say good for her, wish I could afford to take a lion like that.
Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; November 20, 2013 at 08:40 AM. |
November 20, 2013, 09:54 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,876
|
She should have posted her trophy hunt here on TFL instead of Facebook. "Why look for trouble. Even if her few friends do hang out on Facebook" ____O well.
|
November 20, 2013, 10:04 AM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
|
|
November 20, 2013, 10:16 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
I think that trophy hunting isn't the only method of preserving and conserving wildlife in Africa, but to me, it seems as if it may be one of the most effective and visible.
I mean, anybody remember rhino wars on Animal Planet? What makes more sense allowing trophy hunting or hiring mercenaries to go after poachers?
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
November 20, 2013, 12:43 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
As I've said, trophy hunting has its uses however lions present a unique circumstance since once you kill the pride's male you indirectly kill all the cubs because the next male to encounter the pride will kill all the cubs. Not might kill, they will kill them. Every single time, every last one.
As far as I know all cats do this (including domestic ones) as well as other predator species like grizzly bears however lions are the only social cats and it's impossible for the lioness to hide her cubs from the males like others do since the males live in the pride. If the lions need to be culled it makes more sense to cull the females, but this doesn't give trophy hunters what they want. You could also hunt the young rogue males who don't live in a pride because they're too small to drive off the resident male but this also would be unsatisfactory to most trophy hunters. They're not as easy to locate either since they wander. |
November 20, 2013, 01:35 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
|
Chicagoan, read my post. A good PH won't let his customer kill a pride lion. They will target lions that have already been kicked out of the pride by a younger lion.
|
November 20, 2013, 01:37 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
|
I see nothing wrong with any type of hunting as well as it's well regulated. what she did is perfectly legal and is no different than killing a trophy whitetail. the declining population is because south africa wont regulate hunting because safaris are a huge part of their economy so because they don't want to tell people, "sorry, not enough lions, you can't come and spend your money here" the lions are dieing off. I personally don't like hunting shows because of the victory dance but I'm not going to deny that I've put pics up on facebook and I would never condemn anyone else for it even if they were posing with a white elephant.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin |
November 20, 2013, 02:33 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2005
Location: Lutz
Posts: 1,528
|
"PHs are just guides and odds are like Guides all over the world. For every one that is a true conversationalist, there is one that is driven by greed and will do whatever it takes for his client to get an animal so he gets a tip."
Nonsense. Do you know what it takes to get a PH license? Check it out, lots of time and effort. It's not something you go into to just have a job and rarely something you get rich doing from the reading I've done. Pull up a few episodes of Dangerous Game and listen to the 'guides' talk about what they do. There are unscrupulous individuals in every field but to imply that they are the majority just because you disagree with something is silly. As for alternate methods of maintaining populations- look up how many species went extinct from poaching when Kenya closed its borders to big game hunting. On top of everything else that's been said, you have to remember we are not talking about countries with the infrastructure and resources we have here in the US. We're pretty much talking about 3rd world countries that do not put the same values on things as we do. Last edited by Bigfatts; November 20, 2013 at 02:40 PM. |
November 20, 2013, 02:33 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
At any rate, hers was a canned hunt of an animal fenced in on a private reserve and probably acclimated to humans through feeding. Barely more sporting than shooting one at the zoo, hard for me to see the thrill in that. YMMV |
|
November 20, 2013, 02:54 PM | #45 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
"Fenced In"... yeah... and only 21,000 acres, 32 square miles.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
November 20, 2013, 03:03 PM | #46 | |
Junior member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
At least in her case her quarry can fight back and kill you if you aren't careful |
|
November 20, 2013, 03:07 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 6,161
|
I think fenced hunts are stupid, but perfectly ethical. I see no prize in killing a tame animal, but neither do I see it any more wrong than killing the tame cows I eat daily. Waste of money, but no ethical dilemma.
32 square miles might in all actuality make the hunt a true wild hunt. I have no idea whether this animal was truly wild or so tame it would eat out of you hand, but either way it poses no moral issue to me. I know someone who sells "Buffalo hunts." The Bison are so tame, they will lick you to death. He raises them for meat production. Every so often, he finds an idiot who is willing to pay him thousands of dollars to shoot one. Either way, they will die. |
November 20, 2013, 03:24 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,453
|
Quote:
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice. |
|
November 20, 2013, 03:25 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Posts: 117
|
There needs to be a like button on this thing. Reynolds357 responded succinctly and with moral clarity.
|
November 20, 2013, 03:43 PM | #50 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
Why not throw in sissy tree-huggers if we’re down to name-calling…. We were discussing professional trophy hunters in Africa, not domestic hunters around the Baltic. As I’ve said, hunting for food is no problem for me. Hunters, well-intentioned as some might be are addressing the symptoms, not the causes. Environmentalists are at least trying to address the causes. I've looked into the walrus. I read around the situation of the walrus. It seems to me like the Inuit economy was not that sustainable, long-term. Numbers were dangerously whilst ill-managed commercial fishing and climate change is further exacerbating any pressures on population that already existed. As such a new direction would have been and is needed in those communities no matter what Greenpeace may have done. As it happens, I cannot think of a single practice involving the harvest of natural (ie living) resources that has effectively, responsibly self-regulated once it has become an industry. Hence regulation is needed. That regulation can mean prohibition if things have already gone too far. But we digress…. Quote:
At best trophy hunting outfits will maintain a steady number of lions, in limited reserves. (Reserves: 32 squ mies. Serengeti: 12,000 Squ miles. Hmmm...) Clearly that is going to have little remedial effect when numbers had dropped by a grotesque 96% between 1940 and 2000 and have dropped still more since. For me, keeping some number stable in pockets is a poor substitute. It is not inconceivable that in our lifetime, the last wild lions will cease to be, if inaction persists. When that has happened, I guess we can all solemnly look ourselves in the mirror and say “ah… but at least we did everything we possibly could…” On the other hand, if we are serious about not just limiting the damage but rectifying it, then we need to halt habitat erosion. Namely by human activity. Not just the land lost, but also the loss of natural prey. It also means addressing the black market demand and raising the standard of living for locals. The latter would mean big companies paying realistic wages and the west, in turn, paying higher costs. That is where most conservation ceases to be so interesting to many, when they realise that they may have to help in it happening. All hope is not lost and some firms are waking up. Have a look at TED.com and look up Jason Clay's talk on biodiversity preservation. Does give me some glimmer of hope. When choosing a gun I often hear “Buy once, cry once.”. In other words, invest what is needed to get the best outcome. Are we, humans, willing to do the same to protect our biodiversity?
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Last edited by Pond, James Pond; November 20, 2013 at 04:01 PM. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|