http://distractify.com/alex-scola/tw...eet-bang-bang/
There is a big stink all over my Facebook feed on this story, just wondering what some of your guys thoughts are on trophy hunting....
Printable View
http://distractify.com/alex-scola/tw...eet-bang-bang/
There is a big stink all over my Facebook feed on this story, just wondering what some of your guys thoughts are on trophy hunting....
First off what one does with in the rules and regulations is their prerogative. As for me my guiding principle is kill nothing I'm not going to eat. The notion of trophy hunting plays little into my decision of taking an animal or not. True I do appreciate and animal that displays better than average attributes however would never pass on a legal animal in the hopes of getting a "trophy" one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
my thoughts exactly....
This is a PR disaster. It was a stupid thing to do without any thought to repercussions. Had this been a Lion,Tiger,charging Cape Buffalo or Rhino,there likely wouldn't have been an issue,but,this was a "cuddly" Giraffe which,at some point,every kid has as a stuffed toy to cuddle at bedtime.
Some things we do because we should and other things we do because we can. The trick is to know the difference.
Can you define trophy hunting ? It likely means different things to different people. For me every animal I take is a trophy to me , does that make me a trophy hunter.? Some folks wait all season for that big buck or mature bull and never take a shot or loose an arrow during the season. Does that make them a trophy hunter?
Others travel the world hunting animals an pay big bucks and experience hunts many of us could only dream about . Are they trophy hunters?
As far as I am concerned we are all just hunters . As long as its fair chase and the animal does not go to waste I dont have a problem. Having said that if you post a picture on the internet lying down beside a dead giraffe you should expext some backlash even if it is misguided or uninformed backlash.
The only type of hunting/ shooting I would consider trophy hunting would be paying money to kill an animal inside a cage unless that cage is at least 5000 acres in size
my defination of trophy hunter, is someone who only takes the animal as a "trophy" so in the case of a buck hunter, would basically be shooting the animal only for antlers, or bears as only shooting for the hide... so long as the meat is consumed i am fine with it... even if it is donated... my heart pumps whether i see a fawn come walking into my stand or a big 10 point... i like a nice rack as much as the next guy and alot of times i will pass on smaller animals early in the season in hopes of a larger deer, but more so for extra meat, as a 200 lb buck has more meat than a 100 doe, the antlers are just a added bonus... bears i choose to only shoot small animals for the quality of meat, couldnt care less about a "trophy bear" and would and have passed on such an animal...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
i can remember every big game animal i have shot, and could take you to the exact place i pulled the trigger, each one is a trophy animal in its own sense :)
in the debate about not eating coyotes etc, i am fine with that as they are a nuisance in most areas, and are not being hunted a purely trophies...
Such Trophy Hunting to me is about bragging rights, notoriety or profit and doesn’t interest or fit who I am.
My 2-main reasons for killing an animal through hunting is:
- To harvest meat.
- To remove a nuisance or threatening animal.
When an animal is legally taken then I have no negativity to toss out.
Ed
You fellas are referring to Deer and Moose as Trophy's which they most certainly are but the reason you are out in the woods is meat, whether it be from a giant buck or bull. I can't wrap my head around feeding the locals with there kill, the locals have survived a really long time without someone flying in and shooting it for them just cause they had to urge to kill something. I myself am not fully educated on the hunting out in Africa and such. But for me when I see on Wild Tv these guys killing 2 or 3 Antelope to string from a tree just to bait in some Leopards to kill for what I assume to be fun (I know assuming makes an out of you and me) as far as i know no one eats Leopards. I just change the channel at that point.... You are right though as long as they are doing everything legally who am I to judge.
I seem to have missed how this went from a comment in regards to people posing for pictures with dead animals to be an issue about women in hunting.
His quote was "What must've happened to you in your life to make you want to kill a beautiful animal & then lie next to it smiling?" wrote Gervais."
It wasn't sexist...but she immediately responded: " "Ricky Gervais has used his power and influence to specifically target women in the hunting industry..."
So he has an opinion about people taking Trophy pics....why is that wrong ?
yes i hear you... no personal interest in hunting africa... and killing the antelope just to kill a leopard wouldnt set well with me either... but have seen shows where say a leopard of lion has become a danger in villages, and they have hunters in to hunt it... so i mean i can see it there...Quote:
Originally Posted by CDNSportsman
ya she just ran out of things to fight back so tried playing that card... i do like what the one girl had posted, where she posted the pic and was like i had these as pudding afterwards lolQuote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
My feelings exactly. You tournament bass fishermen , have been trying to convince everyone , for years, that bass taste like poop.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishy steve
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 no coyote hunting? Ground hogs? Raccoon? Crows?Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
As I see it . this a a big reason to " Stay Off Of Face book " I don't have the time nor the inclination to go on it !
There are so many out there that at the slightest thing , go and post it on face book , they should get a life .
This is my opinion !
If it was my call, no. Killing for the sake of killing is just an enormous waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
To the best of my knowledge the meat from these hunts usually go to the local villages so it isn't wasted.
If true, that's good. But that wasn't her intent. She wanted to kill a giraffe for a trophy, nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
You are getting pretty close to the position of those who want hunting banned - and if you want to eat meat, buy it at the store. It's a slippery slope you're on.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
If you're only purpose in hunting is to have some meat at the end of the day, you're missing out on a lot. What you call "killing for the sake of killing" many others will call "killing to have hunted".
"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job.
Jose Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
Do you know,for a fact,that it was her sole motive? Do you have any knowledge of the philosophies of African Safari hunting? Are you even aware that virtually all African big game hunts are conducted within vast game preserves under exceedingly strict game laws? Are you also aware that Professional Hunters and guides strictly control which animals may be taken and that federal guidelines of all African nations dictate under what circumstances and qualifications the professional hunters must operate and require of their clientele? Are you aware that there's many species that are specifically classified as varmints/predators that make humans there number one food choice and must be quickly controlled? Hunting is the world's most recognized method of animal population control to maintain a natural balance. I understand,completely, your opinion that all hunting should be for food only,but,the world of hunting isn't as "black and white" as you seem to espouse. Are you a hunter or someone who doesn't hunt,but,has an ant-hunting philosophy? I only ask because your posts have a slightly ant-hunting tone to them.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.
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.
Or simply different groups with different values for a justifiable killing of an animal.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Ed
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 ,,DutchQuote:
Originally Posted by rfb
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchhunter
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...
Each to their own as long as we're legal. Anyone who hunts has no right to judge others.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
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.
Theodore Roosevelt did a heck of a lot including expanding the National Parks Service.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
I will give you that. He was a hunter and he did create I believe 5 new parks In his role as Us president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
He did a little more than that. This is a quote from the NPS website.
"After he became President in 1901, Roosevelt used his authority to protect wildlife and public lands by creating the U.S. Forest Service and establishing 51 Federal Bird Reservations, 4 National Game Preserves, 150 National Forests, 5 National Parks, and enabling the 1906 American Antiquities Act which he used to proclaim 18 National Monuments. During his presidency,Theodore Roosevelt protected approximately 230,000,000 acres of public land."
I read that article as well. And good on him for doing that. But i think it's a bit of a stretch to extrapolate that to hunters plural helped create the national parks system.
Tough to say. Could be he got all the credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
There's an article I read on roosevelt and the National parks service that states that he had originally gone out west to.the badlands to hunt but had become alarmed by the devastion he saw there. His creating the parks was a reaction to the environmental destruction he saw including the virtual destruction of big game species. Seems he was kind of disgusted by what unregulated hunting had done.
Yeah, that was one of the big motivations. The article you are referring to is from the same article I previously quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
True. Anyways I've said all I have to on the subject. I am still against trophy hunting and am still disgusted by the girl killing the giraffe.
But i respect your right to disagree with what I have to say. Good luck in the great outdoors
There you have answered many of the statements that have been made about hunting legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
The "trophy hunting "in Africa " is definitely not unregulated , it also is a way of bringing in much needed dollars to the economy through licence and trophy fees, and the meat is not wasted , as even the Giraffe is very edible and is donated to the neighboring villages that get little to no meat most of their lives.
A friend has been going there to hunt for several years and confirms that as soon as the word gets around that meat is available , they come in hordes and take everything from that animal that they possibly can, even the blood and some of the intestines .
If you hunt at all, Do Not Judge or Condemn Others that hunt legally ,all you are doing is exhibiting a " holier than thou attitude " by your statements.
Thanks for your concern, but as an adult, I'll come to my own conclusions and state them. If that makes me holier than though so be it.
That's one thing i hate about the hunting fraternity, the whole circle the wagons approach when it comes to criticizing our sport. Just because I hunt, doesn't mean I have to accept practices I disagree with.
I stand by my contention that trophy hunting should be relegated to the past.
The issue of trophy hunting in Africa is complex. I haven't seen a definitive study that says it aids conservation. And as I've stated before, for whatever reasons, a few African nations have banned it recently in a move to protect wildlife.
You're entitled to your opinion and conclusions - misguided as they are - just as peta members are. Just don't expect your anti-hunting sentiments to be embraced on a hunting and fishing discussion forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
It's always good to stick your head in the sand and ignore what's going on in the world. And just because I disagree with one aspect of the sport, doesn't make me anti hunting. But i guess it's easier to play the character assassination game than to actually think about the issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Not very aware of history are we?Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
You do realize that virtually all wildlife and habitat conservation measures in place today were originally to protect hunter's interest?
Why do you think organisations like DU and Delta were started?
You do know Audobon was a hunter?
You do know Jack Miner was a hunter?
That's all very well and good but what does that have to do with trophy hunting today.
And when hunting and fishing in Canada is banned for the same reason will you still consider it a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
If you think it will stop with African hunting you are wrong!
Really?? Our ability to keep trophy hunting as a viable option in Africa is going to make or break hunting in Canada?Quote:
Originally Posted by oaknut
I've actually put quite a bit of thought into it....and what I've come up with is that if hunters concede their right to hunt "because we want to", we have lost our right to hunt. As soon as we say "only for predator control", "only for food", etc, if that matter can be addressed otherwise - then why should we be allowed to hunt at all? That is the question you need to answer. As soon as you start putting what other hunters do "out of bounds" you can expect others to do the same to your hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
What you are doing by posting here against one segment of hunters (trophy hunts) is employing the anti-hunters divide-and-conquer strategy, so don't expect it to be welcomed here. You're not the first to do it and you won't be the last either. And I think you're going to find that you may provide a bit of distraction for a few days, but in the big picture, it's not going to work.
In reference to you're prior statement "I read that article as well. And good on him for doing that. But i think it's a bit of a stretch to extrapolate that to hunters plural helped create the national parks system".Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
United we stand, divided we fall
Poaching is the danger to African big game, not trophy hunting. And trophy hunting is what is being used to fund wildlife protection there. You should do your research on this before you start slagging it.
I've done my research and the studies on hunting as a conservation tool are mixed at best. I'm perfectly willing to admit poaching plays a large part in the decimation of populations as well but hunting, the way it is set up currently there, plays a role as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
We've already lost the ability to hunt various species so I don't see a real.problem with banning the practice of hunting for rugs or racks only.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
And let me ask you this. You see any real support in the general public for hunting? You think that massive uproar over the giraffe kill was an anomaly?
Our sport isn't exactly a cute and cuddly poster child. We seem to be losing in the battle of public opinion. We provide a lot of money in certain sectors and that's about the only reason politicians ever side with us.
But if people start screaming too loudly because of idiots like this girl posing with her giraffe, we're going to start to lose.
I'd rather cut off a part of the sport I deem repugnant and make the case for hunting as a viable sustainable resource that has a semi defendable purpose, putting meat on the table.
But that's my opinion, feel free to rebut or ignore it. But last time I checked, we still had free speech in Canada so I'll be damned if you'll shut me up.
You and peta both.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
Character assassination. The time honored tactic of people too lazy to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
It doesn't take much thinking to see you have a peta approach to trophy hunting. That's you, all you, not me.
If you want to take a peta position on something, that's fine - but don't whine when someone calls you out for it.
As far as "character assassination" - you peta posts here are pretty much "character suicide". Don't blame me for what you typed.
If we cut off every part hunting that some hunting groups "deem repugnant" we are left with what? NOTHING!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
Hard to believe you'd post that crap on a hunting and fishing board.
What a load of crap. It's like calling someone a communist back in the days of macarthyism. It's a cheap tactic and the last refuge of someone who doesn't have the balls to debate someone on a level playing field.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
I actually respected what you had to say up till this point even if I didn't agree with it. But this is just grade school BS.
Absolutely!Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
As already stated. In Africa.
Animal is legally harvested.
Meat is consumed.
Head gets hung on the wall should you choose.
In Canada . Poaching aside.
Animal is legally killed.
Meat is consumed.
Head goes on the wall should you choose.
See the difference?
Neither do I!
Nothing wrong with calling a communist a communist.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
The point you're missing is that antis dont care WHAT, WHEN, or WHERE you are hunting. Its all the same to them. The giraffe is the same as the whitetail deer. The rest of it is ignorance.
The funds for African hunts go to a variety or soures. They're a source of income for locals (through direct payments or employment). They go to conservation. Other times the animals in question would be killed by the locals anyways as protection of property (crops/livestock). Whats the difference if a guy pays for the privilege to do it or the locals go out and kill it? We've already mentioned the food, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
I'm not sure what your talking about in regards to public opinion either. Hunting is gaining in popularity across NA, not diminishing. There will always be those who are against it, but recognition and approval as definitely up from 10 years ago.
I am seeing more and more young hunters out there, more hunting stores, more tv shows. Hunting has been declared a heritage activity, seasons are becoming more liberal. If anything I would say hunting is on the rise in Canada not the decline which some may want us to think.
So is shooting in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by kdp89
As in most debates, there is never agreement. I respect your right to be wrong about this subject.
Once I thought I was wrong , but I was mistaken.
I wish we had more guys like Ricky Gervais on our side, he knows how to make people speak and look stupid and it seems like he is not against hunting ("I wish people would stop confusing hunting to eat and hunting for thrills, tusks, or to hang an endangered species on the .... wall..")
This girl isn't the brightest and should have keep her mouth shut, instead of finding some stupid excuses. She is just giving more opportunity to get us bashed. Or at least just tell the true "I shot them because I can and I like it! End of the story...". I wish people like her were an endangered species it would benefit us....
And personally, why on earth I would kill a giraffe?!?!? Not for the sport or the meat that's for sure, so if it's just because I can I would pass the opportunity.
And I yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
Throw your support behind Chris Pratt (Zero Dark Thirty, Guardians of the Galaxy, Jurassic Park 4). Avid hunter.Quote:
Originally Posted by seabast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glz7zzKbfhA
Thanks for the link, this is the type of speech that do us good!Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_saber
I hope I didn't give the wrong impression, I do not support Gervais, but I just wish that trophy hunters that post picture of their kills were as good as he is to defend themselves.....
I like Chris Pratt. In that little video it sounds like he knows what it'd all about. Hunting and not wasting the meat. Because to do so would be a sin.
Are you aware that in most parts of Africa where big game hunting is allowed , the game animals are managed and controlled to the extent that "cull hunts " are being done .Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
Animals, when there are more than a concession is capable of handling or when there are more aggressive males that the territory can handle , are culled [shot ] for which the hunter also pays for the privilege , this is also done on game ranches through out the U.S.
A cull hunt is a little cheaper in cost than a so called Trophy Hunt , but the animal shot is still a Trophy to the hunter as it is shot/ hunted under the same type of conditions.
Now can you say for certain that the giraffe that was shot was not a cull giraffe that had to be taken out of the heard? no you cannot.
Even Zoo's have to cull some of their animals, not too long ago this exact issue came up where a Zoo had to kill off one of their giraffes because of aggressiveness and age , and that meat did not feed any natives in Africa.
Big Game Hunting , is thriving and doing well in most parts of Africa ie; South Africa , Botswana , Namibia , Cameroun to name a few, the only countries there that have stopped it are the ones where there is a lot of political unrest and it is not safe for foreigners to travel .
You don't have to go to Africa, just look North...
http://www.nunavuttourism.com/things-to-see-do/huntingQuote:
Big game hunting is a part of Nunavut's tourism industry, for good reason. Nunavut features some of the most exotic and highly prized big game animals on Earth, including extremely dangerous polar bears, numerous herds of muskoxen, abundant barren-ground caribou, a sustainable harvest of walrus, plus the healthiest and least threatened population of wolves in the world. In addition, there are plenty of small game animals, such as arctic hares, ground squirrels and ptarmigan. Detailed knowledge of native wildlife species and proper survival techniques in the arctic, combined with the incredible patience, tracking skill, physical strength, stamina and courage required to become an effective hunter-provider are fundamental values in traditional Inuit culture.
http://www.polarbearhunting.net/
Quote:
Canada's management system is designed to respond to the full suite of threats to polar bears and their conservation, including climate change. A sustainable harvest implemented through agreements and quotas involving local people and governments, has been in place in Canada since the 1970's. Harvest quotas are based on the principles of conservation and aboriginal subsistence hunting, and are not market-driven.
http://www.canadanorthoutfitting.com/polar_bear.shtml
That's simply not true. The hunting bans enacted had to do with preserving game animals, not a concern for foreigners safety.
And as I've said ad nauseum, the science of using trophy hunting as a means of conservation (fees etc being used to fund conservation) hasn't been proven and is still very controversial.
And for the love of all that's holy, please let's not bring zoo management practices into this as a way to defend trophy hunting. Peta will show up then.
Really, you're using a hunting camps promotional brochure to justify trophy hunting as an aid to conservation?Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Yup...because that's the reality of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
Just because it ruffles your feathers doesn't mean it's wrong .
The giraffe that started this whole thing was an older male that was to be culled. But lets not let the truth about this ruin rfb's thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
"When I was in Africa five years ago I was of the mindset that I would never shoot a giraffe. I was approached toward the end of my hunt with a unique circumstance. They showed me this beautiful old bull giraffe that was wandering all alone. He had been kicked out of the herd by a younger and stronger bull. He was past his breeding years and very close to death. They asked me if I would preserve this giraffe by providing all the locals with food and other means of survival. He was inevitably going to die soon and he could either be wasted or utilized by the local people. I chose to honor his life by providing others with his uses and I do not regret it for one second. Once he was down there were people waiting to take his meat. They also took his tail to make jewelry, his bones to make other things, and did not waste a single part of him. I am grateful to be a part of something so good.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hunte...#ixzz3YAMuh2du
Now there's an impeccable source, the woman at the center of the controversy. Gee, I wonder if she has any incentive to bend the truthQuote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Well, it's her story and she gets to tell it. Were you there? What basis do you have to contradict her?Quote:
Originally Posted by rfb
You are aware that there are many, many cull hunts sold. One outfitter I talked to complained that Canadian's are cheap and he sells more cull hunts than trophys. He was comparing his business to an European counterparts who sold almost exclusively trophy hunts.
RFB, This was posted by Aaron Neilson in regards to Ricky Gervais Facebook Rant. Thought you might find it interesting. As someone who hunts and makes a partial living off of Trophy Hunting in South Africa I would love to hear why you think conservation through hunting does not work. On the concessions in RSA that we are responsible for there are numerous species of wild game now roaming as freely reproducing herds where there once was nothing but cattle. Why? Simple hunters dollars. If it pays it stays, otherwise you can be sure that the indigeneous species will be cleared quickly out in order to make way for progress. All you have to do to see the decline in wildlife is look at the countries where it has been stopped and the hunter's dollars have gone away. Botswana should be enough to rest my case. Anyways enjoy the read below and remember that when the antis obtain one victory they will be back for more. Don't look far ... the spring bear hunt right here at home should be enough proof of their lobbying power. When it was reinstated the first thing I went out and did was book a bear hunt, because that's what legal law abiding hunters do ... they support each other!
"Ricky, I see you are "sticking your neck out" for wildlife? It appears African wildlife in particular? That's really great Ricky!! Knowing your dedication to the preservation of Africa's wildlife, maybe you can share with your 2.7 million followers all that you have done to "stick your neck out" as you claim?
Surely you wouldn't mind then disclosing the exact amount of money you have contributed to "on the ground" wildlife protection projects throughout the Dark Continent? Remember to be specific as to who/when/where your money was sent, thus we can collaborate your story? Of which, I am sure there is many!
No doubt you can also tell us, and show us (a guy like you would never miss out on a photo op) all the places you've been across the continent of Africa - actively protecting wildlife, providing support (both financially and emotionally) to actual anti-poaching units who really are "sticking their neck out" for wildlife. And I'm not referring to some game park in South Africa 30 minutes from Joberg that needs little to no protection in the first place, or the Serengeti National Park. I'm talking about Africa's truly wild places - where the game you seek to protect are desperately in need. Like most of Tanzania's wild game reserves, or Zambia's Game Management Areas, or Zimbabwe's National Parks Safari areas, or Mozambique's numerous Coutada's - all of which are constantly under attack from illegal poaching activities.
Surely you've been to some of these places, stepped foot on the ground, shared a campfire or two with the game scouts / anti poachers who work tirelessly - day in and day out, sometimes paying the "ultimate price" all in the name of wildlife protection? Please tell me you have shared their sacrifice, if only for a few days? Please tell me you have seen the struggles they face, and participated in their never ending search for the those who are really out to decimate the game we all so love?
Interestingly enough, I already know the answers to my questions....and so do you! I know, because unlike you and the many talking heads of the anti-hunting movement - I have in fact seen, experienced and participated in all of the above. I have been shot at by poachers, I have raided poachers camps, I've seen hundreds of animals killed by their indiscriminate snaring, poisoning, and so on - but more shocking than all of what I have experienced over the past 20 years in the wilds of Africa, is what I have never experienced! I've never one single time seen a representative from any "animal rights / welfare" organization, or "individual", in any of these wild places, trying to help the wildlife or the people, NEVER!! What I have seen in over 500 days of personal time spent in the African bush is the sole support of the wildlife departments / anti-poaching units solely supported by hunters, and the companies (outfitters) that lead their expeditions.
The hunters/outfitters are supplying the anti-poaching units with money, fuel, vehicles, clothes, camping gear, supplies, and the list goes on. Where are you, your money, your help/support - where are any of you? No where to be seen, that's where - other than ranting via social media in hopes of gaining a few more inexperienced followers! Hunters dollars almost solely fund Tanzania's Wildlife Authority, certainly its not coming out of your pocket. Outfitters are employing local villagers as camp staff, trackers, anti-poachers, and hunting license/game fee dollars allow game departments to employ locals as game scouts, wardens, etc. Again, why are you and your cronies not stepping up to the plate and covering these costs? After all, you are "sticking your neck out" for wildlife, correct???
Rather than truly supporting the wildlife you claim to love, you lower yourself to vile name calling, and the use of foul language on a public/social media site (one visited by children as well) to attack and defame a legal, ethical, conservation minded hunter, Mrs. Rebecca Francis. You and your followers do so out of ignorance, poor judgment and lack of knowledge/experience because its the only counter argument you have. Those of us who have "been there, done that" know the truth and know the harsh reality that is the African bush, and what it takes to protect its precious Flora & Fauna. You sir, most certainly do not! You sir have not the fortitude or vigor to see and experience for yourself what reality is like in some of Africa's most remote and wild places.
Mr. Gervais, in the name of fair play - I here on your own FB page challenge you to a public debate on the subject of international / conservation minded hunting. I'll do so at any time, and any place! You name it, and I'll be there. Do as one of your followers has already suggested. Host a 2-hour tv special, air it in the UK, the USA and anywhere else you deem necessary. Lets see who is really educated, experienced and knowledgeable on the subject of legal hunting, and the role it plays in wildlife conservation. There's no reason you shouldn't accept the challenge. I'm no one special, I have no special wildlife degrees, or extended education in wildlife management. I'm just a normal guy, from a modest background who speaks only from "on the ground" experience. Certainly I couldn't possibly be more knowledgeable than someone as famous, wealthy and experienced as you, could I??
I'll be waiting for your reply, I'm not hard to find."
Regards,
Aaron Neilson
Beautiful!! This is,without doubt,the best post I've ever seen. Some people around here of late need to get down off their high horse and pay attention. It seems they have a lot to learn about hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by KMG Canada
Facebook... I can't hate it enough. I know there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in bashing social media when I am in fact participating in a form of it right now, but I'd rather talk hunting with a bunch of people I don't know then read absolute nonsense from a bunch of people that I quit talking to 15 years ago for a reason.
Personally, I am a meat hunter first and foremost. I've had my fair share of squabbles with trophy hunters on here over the years, usually after an unfair comment is made to a meat hunter about what or how many animals they took in a season, but I've also changed my views quite a bit about who these folks are and how much they really do put forth for the hunting community. I have no numbers to back it up, but I would bet that as a rule, trophy hunters put far more of their free time, energy and money into conservation efforts than the average meat hunter. I remember having words with one fellow in particular on here about his attitude towards meat hunters, only to end up sending him a PM him a couple of years later to thank him for everything he's done for us as hunters. A couple of years of reading his posts and realizing that although he might come off a certain way some of the time, his heart and dedication worked to the benefit of us all.
Take the blinders off and learn to see that we're all in this together, whether you agree with certain types of hunting or not. Jumping on the bandwagon to "ban trophy hunting" is a really good way to shoot yourself in the foot as a hunter. No pun intended.
Thanks to you Aaron, outstanding post.
While I'm in agreement with your post for the most part, you have to accept that a lot of the efforts put forth by most Trophy Hunters is self serving rather than a desire for better conservation. I've heard more than one lament from guys who got plenty annoyed when someone from another camp shoots one of 'their' bucks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GW11
Interesting rebuttal to those who don't agree with controlled Trophy Hunting;
If you have a few minutes....this is worth listening to, a balanced look at the issue..Quote:
But sometimes, a worthy cause will have an impact with the best of intentions and end up having unforeseen consequences.
For example, when Botswana banned commercial lion hunting in the early ’00s, no one could have guessed that more lions would end up being killed than before.
Cattle farmers would allow hunters to come onto their land and hunt lions, for a hefty fee. But when the ban was enacted, these lions were then classified as nuisance animals, as they were threatening the cattle, and farmers would have to go destroy the animal themselves to protect their herd.
So now, lions were still dying and there was no extra money coming into the country. To make matters worse, lions from the neighbouring nature reserve were trying to take over the recently “vacated” lion territory on the farm lands, and they too were shot by the farmers. (Search TEDx Talks on YouTube for a more in depth look at this topic.)
For people on both sides of the fence — pro and anti-hunters — I doubt this was the desired outcome. Trophy hunting is not the black and white issue celebrity activists make it out to be.
http://www.wetaskiwintimes.com/2015/...trophy-hunting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiyQvm9d4tM
While I believe, if you review the scientific literature out there, that there is yet no definitive answer on the subject, I found this article to be seemingly well balanced and persuasive for the pro trophy hunting side. Have a gander, it makes some interesting points.
I can't figure out how to post a link so look up.
Killing in the name of conservation. Can trophy hunting help save Africa's wild.
By Johnathon S. Adams
RFB, very well thought out and articulated report by someone who obviously has a deep knowledge of the subject. Enjoyed the read. As long as there are scientists there will be continuing arguments in regards to trophy hunting as a viable means of conservation. I would however look at the results in RSA where late 60's number were about a half million head of game and today the count is 25 million and growing according to PHASA and the government. I can personally attest that the drive from Port Elizabeth to Grahamstown in the East Cape of RSA will make your head swivel as you stare into the veldt looking at all the game. Wasn't like that years ago. These things however unscientific have to be a good indicator just as driving down the 401 here nowadays means lots of turkey viewing, that wasn't the case 25 years ago. Hunters dollars here at home or in Africa are undeniably having an impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMG Canada
This is a fairly safe generalization to make. It's when one tries to claim that there are X hunters' dollars making Y impacts.
Our own MNR is a perfect example of an organization that takes significant monies from hunters in terms of testing, authorization cards and various licenses. Those funds are supposed be be dumped back into supporting the nature and heritage activities we love.
However, we all know that the MNR has been thoroughly dismantled and very little of our monies is going to wildlife or wild habitat protection and conservation. Our COs have been rumoured to not follow up on reports because their trucks are out of fuel.
Having volunteered with an organization that funded and organized the drilling of clean water wells throughout much of northern Africa, i know that corruption is the norm for essentially the entire continent. I have serious doubts that much, if any, trophy hunter funds are finding their way to conservation efforts.
Written by a non-hunter who "gets it".
http://conservationmagazine.org/2014...-conservation/
And another almost 500 page study
7. Conclusion
Trophy hunting is a major industry in parts of Africa, creating
incentives for wildlife conservation over vast areas which
otherwise might be used for alternative and less conservation
friendly land uses. The trophy hunting industry is increasing
in size in southern Africa and Tanzania, and the scope for the
industry play a role in conservation should increase accordingly.
Presently, however, the conservation role of hunting is
limited by a series of problems. Several of these problems
are common to multiple countries, and some (such as failure
to allocate sufficient benefits to communities, leakage of income
and corruption) also affect the photographic ecotourism
industry (
Christie and Crompton, 2001; Walpole and
Thouless, 2005). Developing solutions should thus be a key
priority for conservationists, and success would confer
large-scale benefits for conservation.
http://www.africanwildlifeconservati...gnificance.pdf
RFB. I can tell you from experience that you are wrong. Money collected from "big Game Trophy Hunting" in Africa does directly aid in conservation.
As well there is not a single piece of the animal harvested in Africa that goes to waste. Without the trophy hunting and the funds that it produces there would be no animals to hunt in Africa. eg. Kenya. Hunting is banned and the poachers have all but eradicated all the animals.
Get your facts straight.
Todays news at noon was interesting along this line,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearhunter
"In Kenya , 400 elephant tusks were confiscated from poachers these were destined for Thailand, also another 500 confiscated in the Congo ".
That's a total of 900 elephants killed by poachers that the neither countries nor the inhabitants benefitted from these illegal kills, only the poachers would have benefitted had they not been confiscated. The tusks shown , were not of any trophy quality , there were many that appeared to be only 2 to 3 feet long , such a waste as some of them would have been from cows which produce the young.
Kenya at one time, Nairobi was pretty well the center of operations for Big Game Trophy Hunting from which all the Large well known outfitters and PH's [Harry Selby] worked out of.
Now because of their Gov.'s shutting down all big game hunting , they do not have the money coming in that Trophy Hunting provided, a lot of people are out of work , also people are not getting any of the meat , as it is left to rot by the poachers and the poaching is rampant .
So who and what are the losers? the game as it is disappearing needlessly and the country and it's inhabitants.
Something to think about for all the " Nay Sayers " that have so much to say against " Trophy Hunting"
I leave for Namibia 2 weeks today for a plains game hunt. The intention is to hunt a mixture of trophy and cull animals. After the hunt, I'm going to Etosha National park to shoot the Big 5 with my camera.
The outfit employs local guides, skinners, trackers, cooks, gardeners, cleaning staff and a person for laundry service.
No, I won't be flying my meat home like I have from numerous hunts elsewhere in Canada because I'm not allowed to. But this is academic. No meat goes to waste. A small portion of the meat is consumed during the trip and the rest is portioned out to the staff.
I recently went to a charity function that supported the less fortunate where wild game meat was served. Yes, all proper approvals were obtained from the Ministry. Are the hunters who donated the meat really all that different from people who go to Africa to hunt? Is it only acceptable to be an Ontario meat hunter, if you don't share the meat with anyone?
Hunters should use some common sense before posting pictures on the Internet of their harvests. When they don't, people come out of from under rocks and start passing judgment on which legally harvested game meat is and is not acceptable for others to consume or share. That leaves a poor taste in my mouth.
I'm sure it's been said already somewhere in 9 pages, but her side of the story was that the giraffe was dying anyways and the local villagers took the meat... I'm good with what she did!