Trophy Hunting

Maybe it's in the terminology...hunting for sport (meat), killing for food, culling for density control (economic stimulus) and eradicating a predator/varmint...people seem to be overlapping their values/ethics across a broad spectrum of activities.

If it is legal, and I can afford to hunt it, I have no qualms with pulling the trigger. As I mentioned in a comment when an old friend posted the video, it is poaching, not regulated trophy hunting that is the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Maybe it's in the terminology...hunting for sport (meat), killing for food, culling for density control (economic stimulus) and eradicating a predator/varmint...people seem to be overlapping their values/ethics across a broad spectrum of activities.

---

Or simply different groups with different values for a justifiable killing of an animal.


Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rfb

The days of so called trophy hunting should be over. Harvesting an animal for meat is one thing, but just for the hide and or antlers is something that should no longer happen.

To the gentleman who said it was only because giraffes are cute that there was an outrage, and that if it was a lion or tiger being shot, I'd disagree. Firstly, most large predator species are under enormous pressure and dissappearing quickly. So there would be condemnation for that reason. And last I checked, lion and tiger meat isn't on anyone's menu so you are harvesting for a rug basically. People would be outraged by that.

And if you're going to hunt, it should be an animal that can sustain harvest. Giraffe numbers are down 40 percent over the past 15 years. Yes, they are still locally abundant but anyone with half a mind can see where they're headed.

I think harvesting animals for meat, from species that can sustain their populations despite hunting pressure, should be the only hunting allowed.

---

so if we agree that there are plenty of deer thy can be hunted ,how is it bad for me to sit in my tree till the last day of the season waiting for a deer with big horns or a trophy deer rather then shooting the first deer that walks by just for the meat ,how you hunt is up to you but to judge others for doing something legal is kind of anti ,,I hunt for me and harvest for my family what animal I choice to put my tag on is no ones concern as long as it is legal ,,Dutch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchhunter

so if we agree that there are plenty of deer thy can be hunted ,how is it bad for me to sit in my tree till the last day of the season waiting for a deer with big horns or a trophy deer rather then shooting the first deer that walks by just for the meat ,how you hunt is up to you but to judge others for doing something legal is kind of anti ,,I hunt for me and harvest for my family what animal I choice to put my tag on is no ones concern as long as it is legal ,,Dutch

---

this is not what we are defining as trophy hunting though... you are utilizing the animal... now if you shoot that trophy buck and only take the head as a trophy, you are breaking ontario law, and what i define as "trophy hunting" for instance when hunting grizzly bears in BC/Alaska, you are not required to use the meat, the head and hide is all that they are after (not everyone)... that doesnt sit well with me...

and with coyotes groundhogs etc, most are hunted around farming areas, where they are a nuiscance, so you are helping a farmer out by taking these animals... i would shoot a wolf/coyote in farm land, but would not shoot one deep in the bush...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rfb

Really, you want to use Africa as a model for hunting. A place where they auction off the right to kill endangered species. And if trophy hunting is such a great thing why are more and more African countries banning it?

Before you paint me as a Peta member I'll restate my beliefs. I hunt populations of animals that can sustain a harvest. Deer, grouse, geese for meat. That's my bag. If someone ever said these animals couldn't sustain a harvest I'd stop.

I think varmint hunting where you are doing it to control pests is a rare occurrence. Mostly you're doing it to simply blow something away and leave it there to rot.

As far as hunting to maintain healthy animal.populations, we only do.that because we've killed most of the apex predators that used to do the job, so we don't get to pat ourselves on the back for that.

As far as hunting something just to have a rack to stick on the wall or a rug in the floor, I think it's time has come and gone. We're more enlightened these days.

---

Each to their own as long as we're legal. Anyone who hunts has no right to judge others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Each to their own as long as we're legal. Anyone who hunts has no right to judge others.

---

I think that's a cop out. Legal does not mean ethical. The young woman who shot the giraffe did so legally. But in my opinion she crossed an ethical line.

It's also legal to hunt exotic species on game ranches in Texas. They're born and bred for the hunt and it's about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel.

Hunting is not exactly popular with the general public these days. We do ourselves no favors in coming out in support of these practices.

Everything evolves including our attitudes. I think we should be past the point where we kill an animal simply because we want something to hang on a wall.

Who are any of you or Ricky Gervais to extend your morality upon a person? It's ridiculous to do so. The important point here is that without these hunts, there wouldn't be conservation in Africa plain and simple. Why would anyone, in a country where people are starving, throw all that money into conservation if there was no gain? They hold these hunts and the results are money for the conservatory, money to enforce game laws, money into the local economy, and for many I suspect some much needed food.

Without hunting in North America, or specifically Ontario conservation would be minimal. Our tags are playing 66% of the MNRFs budget. It makes me happy to know that my couple hundred dollars a year is going back into the organization responsible for enforcing and regulating hunting.

Organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, Pheasants Forever and the entire National Park system in the United States are the result of hunters and conservationists getting together to preserve those areas for all uses. These programs benefit everyone from birdwatcher, to hiker to hunter.

I wouldn't shoot a coyote for being a coyote but that doesn't mean I can or should look down on someone who does. It's legal and I am no so full of myself that I would judge a man or woman on it either.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Conservation efforts in Africa have been going on for decades and will continue with or without the.money from hunting.

The idea that allowing trophy hunts benefits conservation by putting money into conservation is a very controversial one and there's no real proof that it works. Trophy hunting has proven extremely detrimental to lion populations in Africa and many African nations have started to ban trophy hunting.

And hunters helping to create the national.parks system, that's news to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rfb

And hunters helping to create the national.parks system, that's news to me.

---

Theodore Roosevelt did a heck of a lot including expanding the National Parks Service.