Straight Dope Message Board

[Rucksinator]

This is one of those stories that everybody seems to immediately pick a side on, so it's hard to get the Straight Dope, so I came here.

Here is one story that is relatively balanced: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fema...190008986.html

Similar to how human hair grays over time, the coat of some dominant male giraffes darkens from a mustard-and-white color to black, according to Julian Fennessy, Ph.D., co-founder of the organization Giraffe Conservation Foundation, however, supporting research is needed. “The giraffe in the photo is of the South African species Giraffa giraffa, which are not rare— they’re increasing in the wild,” Fennessy tells Yahoo Lifestyle. “Legal hunting of giraffe is not a reason for their decline, despite the moral and ethical side of it which is a different story.”

This Fox News article has a bit more info: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/07...k-outrage.html

Many people are saying that this is a rare, endangered species. She says this giraffe is only "rare" in the sense that it was old.

The giraffe I hunted was the South African sub-species of giraffe. The numbers of this sub-species is actually increasing due, in part, to hunters and conservation efforts paid for in large part by big game hunting. The breed is not rare in any way other than it was very old. Giraffes get darker with age,” said Talley, in an email to Fox News.

She points out that the giraffe she killed was 18, too old to breed, and had killed three younger bulls who were able to breed, causing the herd’s population to decrease. Now, with the older giraffe dead, the younger bulls are able to continue to breed and can increase the population.

She claims that this allowed her to provide 2,000 pounds of meat to the local natives.
Other people claim that the locals don't eat giraffe.
Logic claims that the locals could have killed and eaten the giraffe if they wanted to.


So, what's the straight dope? Is she an entitled c-word that is wiping out a species for sport? Or a conservationist who is helping the species while feeding the natives?
Or does the truth actually lie somewhere in the middle, as usually is the case?

[Lamoral]

I've always thought that trophy hunting is made out to be a bigger problem than it actually is. People get outraged about it online, but I feel like it's mostly just to jump on a bandwagon of outrage, more than actually knowing or caring about conservation. Most of these same people have absolutely no idea what the big issues affecting conservation today are; they probably aren't aware of the off-the-charts overfishing by China and Japan, the fact that the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Cod are being fished almost to extinction; they don't actually know which species are endangered and which aren't.

They basically see pictures like the picture of that woman with the giraffe, and equate it with poaching. They are two completely different things.

Personally I don't really understand why someone would want to kill a giraffe. But animals kill each other in the wild all the time. Nature is a vicious and brutal world of predators and prey; animals in the wild often meet horrific fates at the hands of other animals, under far less humane circumstances than a gunshot.

If it's not an endangered animal, it seems to me that people are basically getting upset at its killing because it looks more beautiful than other animals. And I understand why people feel this way; humans form really strong emotional attachments to things that are visually striking. Charismatic megafauna is a thing that exists.

Meanwhile there are vast numbers of fish that are being overfished in horrifically unsustainable ways, are truly in danger of extinction, and nobody really gives a damn.

[HurricaneDitka]

I'd encourage you to watch this TED Talk: https://youtu.be/GiyQvm9d4tM

[snfaulkner]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I'd encourage you to watch this TED Talk: https://youtu.be/GiyQvm9d4tM

Do you mind giving the bullet points to those of us without the time, access, or patience to sit through a Ted talk? Please and thank you.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by snfaulkner

Do you mind giving the bullet points to those of us without the time, access, or patience to sit through a Ted talk? Please and thank you.

Dumbass liberals who don't know the first fucking thing about conservation fuck it up royally because of their feels.

[snfaulkner]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Dumbass liberals who don't know the first fucking thing about conservation fuck it up royally because of their feels.

Ok, while that was indeed succinct, it's not exactly what was hoping for.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by snfaulkner

Ok, while that was indeed succinct, it's not exactly what was hoping for.

Sorry, I'm annoyed at what I foresee as a repeat of the "Cecil the Lion" drama. Here's the Straight Dope, at least as I see it:

Commercial sport hunting is good for endangered species in Africa, by both bringing in immense amounts of revenue to the local (often impoverished) area, but also by providing the locals reasons (in the form of big bucks from Western hunters' permit fees and vacation plans) to not kill off the animals that, without that financial incentive, are often perceived as a nuisance / pest and exterminated.

The TED talk is about a young animal-rights enthusiast. He recounts the story of one of the animal-rights' movements' big wins: they managed to convince Botswana to ban the commercial hunting of lions. The end result was that a bunch more lions got shot, by locals who were protecting their cattle, than the trophy hunters ever killed. It was an epic fail, because they went with their emotions rather than logically thinking through the situation.

[kambuckta]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Dumbass liberals who don't know the first fucking thing about conservation fuck it up royally because of their feels.

That's hilarious.

Funny how my most rabidly right-wing coworker who calls for extermination of all those evil Moooslem brownie peeps is also a member of PETA here in Australia. So maybe you might want to re-define 'liberal' in your astute analysis there HD.

[Novelty Bobble]

I am massively conflicted by all of this.

As human beings I think people who take active pleasure in the killing of such creatures are beneath contempt.

However.......

There is certainly a need to maintain healthy breeding stocks of endangered animals and sometimes the only viable option is to kill it. That may be due to illness, age, rogue tendencies, inbreeding etc. I get that. What I cannot accept is the visceral pleasure some people get by doing it.

"but what's the difference?" you say. "the animal, unfortunately, must be killed and the hunter paying $100k to do it is putting money into conservation".

I don't know. It feels fundamentally wrong to me. I distrust their motivations. I suspect they don't actually care about conservation but they do want a giraffe's head on their wall. Their justifications and motivation seem ugly and depressing to me. What they do boils down simply to wanting to kill an animal. "Conservation" seems like window-dressing and post-hoc rationalisation.

Plus it could drive perverse incentives as well. One can almost "farm" the animals and wheel in the shooters to take their pick. That will result in more animals as they have commercial value but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

So I have no answers and not even a coherent moral position. I watched an excellent BBC documentary recently that showed all sides pretty dispassionately, (not available at the moment). The hunters did not come off very well at all and the slow death of the elephant, shooting of a lion and sight of a grown man crying with joy at his killing of it haunts me still.

It is a good debate, it is right to have it but I suspect there will be ugly choices to make.

[Roderick Femm]

nm, duplicate

[Roderick Femm]

So this hunting-of-necessity would be a lot less disagreeable to the Novelty Bobbles of the world if it didn't look so unpleasant. She shouldn't have posed in front of the killed animal and she definitely shouldn't take a trophy home.

For myself, I don't care about her motivations for the purposes of the debate. The killing either was or wasn't necessary or desirable for some well-defined reasons. I can't see that it changes the situation any if the killing were done by some grim professional who hates having to do it, or by someone who pays to do it for sport.

That said, I don't think I would want to count her among my friends (as if there were any danger of that). The killing of large game* for sport is distasteful to me. That doesn't make it wrong.

*So is fishing for sport. It always seems that watching a fish flopping around on the deck of a boat is about the same as watching an animal thrashing in the water trying not to drown, but then fish aren't cute and maybe all that thrashing is not accompanied by terror and pain.

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Roderick Femm

So this hunting-of-necessity would be a lot less disagreeable to the Novelty Bobbles of the world if it didn't look so unpleasant. She shouldn't have posed in front of the killed animal and she definitely shouldn't take a trophy home.

yeah, it's such a wishy-washy position of mine and not entirely rational, I admit that. It is a gut reaction as much as anything and as such, seeing as it does involve the death of a sentient creature, I owe it to myself to try and understand my own stance.

For myself, I don't care about her motivations for the purposes of the debate. The killing either was or wasn't necessary or desirable for some well-defined reasons. I can't see that it changes the situation any if the killing were done by some grim professional who hates having to do it, or by someone who pays to do it for sport.

look at it dispassionately.....I agree. Either way an animal ends up dead that unfortunately has to die.

But, try this one on for size. As a young lad I used to work next to an abattoir and the slaughtermen were highly skilled and neutral about their work. They took great care to kill without distress or suffering and never revelled in the blood and gore at all.
Now, suppose someone slipped them a chunk of cash to work alongside them for a day because they actually enjoyed the killing and dismembering of the animals. Let's assume they were suitably skilled so no animal welfare issues are at stake. Let's also assume that at the end of the day they collect up a pile of the heads and have a smiling photo taken with them.

No additional animals have died or suffered.....where is the harm? but I expect we would all feel very uneasy about it.

That said, I don't think I would want to count her among my friends (as if there were any danger of that). The killing of large game* for sport is distasteful to me. That doesn't make it wrong.

It doesn't make the act wrong but I think there is room to question the motivations of those that would carry it out. Does giving agency to those people with such motivations make it more or less acceptable? I don't have an answer.

*So is fishing for sport. It always seems that watching a fish flopping around on the deck of a boat is about the same as watching an animal thrashing in the water trying not to drown, but then fish aren't cute and maybe all that thrashing is not accompanied by terror and pain.

I have fished and have taken fish to eat in the past. Not any more. My moral stance on this has shifted. However when I did take fish (trout) my mentor impressed on me the need to kill quickly and without suffering, any unnecessary pissing-about was severely frowned upon. The pleasure of the day was being in nature and locating and stalking the fish. Hooking it was secondary, landing it and returning it quickly and safely was expected and the actual killing of an occasional fish was not a cause for celebration. I feel that those involved in the hunting we are discussing would feel the day was incomplete without an animal dead at their own hands. That's the problematic attitude that I find hard to square with the conservational need to kill an animal now again.

[senoy]

Well-regulated hunting and even trophy hunting is typically a good thing for the reasons elucidated above. The reality is that almost no wild animals 'die at 90 in their sleep' They typically die of starvation, disease or violence. Some species are so well adapted to be eaten that they never achieve even close to their maximum lifespan (Looking at you rabbits. ) A well-regulated hunt can actually ease the suffering of disease and starvation in overpopulated populations. Even in stable populations, they can bring in revenue without impacting the population as a whole. The key of course is well-regulated. In the US, there are constantly biologists looking at game herd sizes and deciding what is or is not acceptable harvest. This means that environmentalists still have an important role to play in the hunting debate. With revenue involved, there is always the chance of corruption. If Botswana has a drought and the herd sizes collapse, is the state willing to give up the revenue in order to not harass a stressed herd? Hopefully, but third parties should still be examining those ecosystems and verifying that decisions take the long term health of the ecosystem into account. They should also serve as an audit on where exactly those game fees are going and who is making the money on them. US States are generally fairly good about making sure hunting and fishing dollars spent go back into the resource. My state spends considerable sums purchasing land for public hunting and recreation that is coming out of hunters' and fishermens' pockets. Is the same thing happening in African countries? It might be, but having a third party looking at that is a good thing.

In this particular case, I would say that a very limited hunt is sustainable. I looked up the trophy fees (basically the permits to take game) and they are only 3500 USD. I think that's low. My guess is that the game lodges who are likely pulling in 15-20 thousand for the hunt are pressuring the government to keep the prices low so they can keep their prices high. The population is only 31,500, so while hardly on the verge of collapse, giraffes are a slow-breeding animal and I personally would think that hunting should be kept low and fees should be high. Their population is roughly half that of the population of moose in New England and they reproduce twice as slowly. The New England herd has a sustainable harvest of 1500-2000 moose a year, so just as a complete off the top of my head estimate, I would guess a few hundred predominantly males harvested would be sustainable and might actually have negligible impact on the population. Like I said though, you need biologists actually looking at the data and determining what is best for the herd.

[Dinsdale]

I appreciate the (mostly) reasonable discussion so far. To the extent culling is a necessary wildlife management practice, I'm glad the countries involved are making coin for it and (hopefully) directing income back to conservation.

But I don't have much positive to say about someone who gets joy from killing a giraffe. I'm ignorant as to the skill needed to shoot something that large and - as far as I can tell, not a danger to humans. And I have nothing positive to say about the values of someone who (did I interpret the words/images incorrectly?) thanks a g/God for this type of killing.

My impression that a large percentage of trophy hunters tend to occupy a portion of the political spectrum which considerably differ from mine. But I DO recognize that hunting and fishing licenses/advocacy groups are responsible for considerable conservation achievements.

[Quartz]

Try thinking of it as 'commercialised livestock management', just like hunting deer or shooting grouse in the Highlands.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

She claims that this allowed her to provide 2,000 pounds of meat to the local natives.
Other people claim that the locals don't eat giraffe.
Logic claims that the locals could have killed and eaten the giraffe if they wanted to.

Is the meat actually going to locals and/or the needy? If so, that's in the plus column.

I'm sure some local people don't eat giraffe. Heck, Americans are pretty particular in their food choices, with many never eating any meat other than pork, beef, chicken, and turkey. But there are plenty of others who eat venison, goat, and even more "exotic" meats. I'm guessing that the meat of a wild giraffe is "gamy" and for an old bull needs long cooking to be edible, but "bush meat" is sold and eaten in Africa so someone is out there killing wildlife and someone else is purchasing it, presumably to eat.

And sure, the locals could have hunted the giraffe... but while some Great White Hunter is paying big bucks for the privilege and doing the actual work of tromping about in the hot African sun the locals can be doing something else - tending crops, caring for domestic animals, getting an education, raising kids... If said GWH also gives away the meat wow, free meat! And your local economy gets a boost. Win/win for the locals.

I mean, Americans could butcher their own meat instead of lollygagging doing "office work", but everyone seems OK with them paying someone else to do that work.

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

So, what's the straight dope? Is she an entitled c-word that is wiping out a species for sport? Or a conservationist who is helping the species while feeding the natives?
Or does the truth actually lie somewhere in the middle, as usually is the case?

In the middle.

Yes, there are some asshole hunters. Doesn't matter if they're going after Big Game in Africa or hunting squirrels in their own back yard. There are "sustenance" hunters that are sloppy, cruel, careless, and even hazardous. There are trophy hunters that are actually concerned with the ethics of what they do. A lot of it comes down to the actual person/people involved.

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I am massively conflicted by all of this.

As human beings I think people who take active pleasure in the killing of such creatures are beneath contempt.

However.......

There is certainly a need to maintain healthy breeding stocks of endangered animals and sometimes the only viable option is to kill it. That may be due to illness, age, rogue tendencies, inbreeding etc. I get that. What I cannot accept is the visceral pleasure some people get by doing it.

There is plenty of evidence that our ancestors were hunting game before we could even be properly called "human". Heck, chimpanzees have been known to hunt other critters and eat them. Hunting is a perfectly normal human activity and thus it's not at all surprising that humans can take some pleasure in a successful hunt.

On the other hand, sadism is not required or desired.

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I don't know. It feels fundamentally wrong to me. I distrust their motivations. I suspect they don't actually care about conservation but they do want a giraffe's head on their wall. Their justifications and motivation seem ugly and depressing to me. What they do boils down simply to wanting to kill an animal. "Conservation" seems like window-dressing and post-hoc rationalisation.

If the deal is "you can only kill Big Game Animals if you follow these rules that promote the health of the species populations and local humans" I'm not sure I'm seeing a problem. Hunting just for the trophy is not something that appeals to me personally, but then, I have no interest in climbing Mount Everest, either, which is another controversial activity that the locals charge big bucks for foreigners to do. Having BGH legal with a structure in place reduces abuses and maximizes benefits... if the controls are actually effective. Corruption is a significant problem in some places.

Most BGH's have learned the lessons of the past - if you want to maintain the existence of BGA's you have to have controlled hunting and also preserve habitat. By giving those BGA's and their habitats economic worth they're making it worthwhile for the locals to give a damn and reduce poaching.

It can work. Of course, you have humans involved so sometimes it doesn't.

Plus it could drive perverse incentives as well. One can almost "farm" the animals and wheel in the shooters to take their pick. That will result in more animals as they have commercial value but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I suspect that is actually more of a problem in the US and other so-called First World countries than in Africa. And "farming" and "canned hunts" are an issue in the US.

But yes, one approach is for local conservation officers to designate which animals are acceptable targets and which are not. I don't have a problem with that. I don't see it as much different than saying "does and fawns are off limits" or limiting "doe licenses" for deer, or not permitting hunting females with young, and so forth.

There is a long history of BGH's being hired by the locals to deal with problematic animals, like lions or tigers that have developed a habit of hunting human beings. That's another example of specific targeting.

Designating which animals are permissible to hunt and which are not is part of managing hunting.

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

So I have no answers and not even a coherent moral position. I watched an excellent BBC documentary recently that showed all sides pretty dispassionately, (not available at the moment). The hunters did not come off very well at all and the slow death of the elephant, shooting of a lion and sight of a grown man crying with joy at his killing of it haunts me still.

It is a good debate, it is right to have it but I suspect there will be ugly choices to make.

The meat on your dinner table involves some ugly choices. Killing and butchering animals is not a particularly pleasant process even when done in a humane manner. The difference is that most people don't see what goes into producing baby back ribs or sirloin.

I am advocate for quick, merciful killing of ANY animal that is being dispatched, for any reason. That is not always possible, unfortunately, as it is an imperfect world, but it is the proper ideal in my opinion. Death by a well-placed bullet (or two) is a lot quicker and less ugly than the fate that awaits many wild animals left to natural death by predators, injury, thirst, hunger, or disease.

Originally Posted by Roderick Femm

So this hunting-of-necessity would be a lot less disagreeable to the Novelty Bobbles of the world if it didn't look so unpleasant. She shouldn't have posed in front of the killed animal and she definitely shouldn't take a trophy home.

Why not?

As I said, trophies don't appeal to me personally but if the rest of the hunt is conducted legally and ethically (which, admittedly, are debatable terms) I don't have an issue with photos and trophies. I'd prefer the animal be eaten and if other parts like hides can be utilized even better. After that, I don't care if the hunter wants a photo or a stuffed head to mount on the wall.

Bragging on social media does open her up to criticism and backlash. I would recommend people NOT post their trophy photos on social media, at least not in areas open to the general public unless the person wants to deal with the social criticism.

Originally Posted by Roderick Femm

*So is fishing for sport. It always seems that watching a fish flopping around on the deck of a boat is about the same as watching an animal thrashing in the water trying not to drown, but then fish aren't cute and maybe all that thrashing is not accompanied by terror and pain.

Yeah, I'm in the "if you're going to kill and eat it kill it quick" camp.

Personally, I'm really opposed to the "catch and release" style of fishing. WTF, people? Injuring the fish just for your pleasure? If you aren't going to eat it don't catch it. Seriously.

But really, there's a disconnect in the modern world between where meat comes from and how it gets to the table. Fish are getting particularly problematic, and people just don't care. We'd probably on average do a lot better if we chose the meat we eat with more care, only ate meat from sustainable populations, and ate less of it regardless of where it ultimately comes from.

[senoy]

As for motivations and getting joy, my guess is that it simply boils down to whether you were raised rural or urban. I don't want to say that life is less precious in the country, but it is perhaps viewed differently. An example might be that if a groundhog is burrowing under your porch, my inclination is to shoot it. Groundhogs are plentiful and I'd rather my foundations not collapse. I know that for some people, the idea of shooting an animal causes some sort of visceral reaction and they'd rather pay someone to trap it and pretend that it's being taken to some reserve somewhere. I don't have that reaction. If mice get in the pantry, you kill them. If rats are in your hen house, you kill them. It's just what you do. I don't get a thrill out of doing it, but neither do I particularly fret about it. I would liken it to the same basic emotion as swatting a mosquito.

For the joy of hunting (and it should be noted, that I am not someone that ever really enjoyed hunting. I love fishing, but find hunting to be a bit boring. I haven't hunted in 15+ years and I don't even have a gun in my house anymore. I own a couple, but keep them at my FIL's so the kids aren't tempted to play with them.) I think that the joy is firstly from figuring out the biology. Hunting isn't just going into the woods and stumbling upon a deer and shooting it. It's about game lanes, habitat, feed plots, time of day and animal behavior. You're learning more and more and your skills are improving every time you go out. I think there's an appeal from knowing things and developing skills others don't have. I think there is an element of gamesmanship in it as well. Animals presumably don't want to be killed and they have spent a good portion of their life learning how to survive. You're matching wits with that animal and sometimes winning and sometimes losing. That provides a bit of positive emotion. There's also a competition between people. You have bragging rights that you figured out a particular animal that your friends couldn't. There's also the anticipation. You can spend days jumping between stands or blinds trying to figure out behaviours and when it finally comes together and clicks, you get a real rush. Your heart beat raises, you get hyper-alert and hyper-focused at the same time. By nature of the activity, you're forcing yourself to keep those emotions and reactions in check, which only heightens the pleasure sensations. It's a very pleasant moment. When you have been sitting around forever waiting for a single moment, when that moment arrives, it's an enjoyable time. Of course, the sensation that pretty much everyone understands is simply being in nature. I think we all get that just being in the wild is a pleasant thing. Hunters typically experience it at a heightened level (or I did anyway.) They are hyper-alert. Things that on a hike go unnoticed take on much more import. You're watching for movement and listening for cracked branches. You'll listen for changes in the background noise that might indicate that a person is spooking animals. You listen for animal calls and pay attention to wind direction. You're much more involved in nature and part of it, rather than just an observer. I preferred hunting on the ground and actually stalking game and it makes you very aware of your movements and you become much more deliberate in your actions. You're constantly creating a feedback loop on how you're being perceived and balancing speed of movement with stealth. Anyway, there's a possible description of why people like hunting other than the obvious that game meat is frequently quite delicious.

[Lamoral]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I have fished and have taken fish to eat in the past. Not any more. My moral stance on this has shifted. However when I did take fish (trout) my mentor impressed on me the need to kill quickly and without suffering, any unnecessary pissing-about was severely frowned upon. The pleasure of the day was being in nature and locating and stalking the fish. Hooking it was secondary, landing it and returning it quickly and safely was expected and the actual killing of an occasional fish was not a cause for celebration.

As a lifelong angler, whether it's fly fishing, deep-sea fishing for huge saltwater gamefish, or just fighting bluegills on ultralight tackle in a pond, my reasoning for compartmentalizing the suffering of fish is very simple: fish eat each other alive every minute of every day for millions of years. The purpose of fish is to eat other fish and be eaten by other fish. Yeah, I've hooked mahi-mahi and tuna and snapper, stuck them with a gaff, and hauled them thrashing and bleeding onto the deck. I've also reeled in half of a fish after the other half was bitten off by a shark. The life of fish is a brutal world whether or not any human is involved. I'm just participating in an already-existing ecosystem, and my participation in it is only the tiniest addition to an ongoing battle of life and death between the fish themselves. The day I stop fishing will be the day I am too old to move my arms.

I'm also a major conservationist and regular financial supporter of conservation organizations that fight against the overfishing, pollution, and general desecration of the ocean - as are most of the serious anglers that I know.

One fish suffering in pain is not the problem. The problem is callous humans desecrating the ecosystem, depleting the fish stocks, and forgetting that the sea is a fragile place despite its vast size.

The same logic can be applied to hunting.

[bump]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

It feels fundamentally wrong to me.

That's the real gist of why people are opposed to it. It's the same reason people get all worked up over people eating horse meat or dog meat, even though there are long traditions in different parts of the world of people doing just those things.

I tend to think of trophy hunting, and in general, the idea of killing things simply and only for the fun of it to be barbaric. However, if it's done in conjunction with something a bit more noble- say... reducing pest species, or as part of a larger conservation effort, or even if it's just because it's challenging and for eating, then I'm ok with it.

I say that last part as a fisherman(mostly inshore saltwater); 85% is the experience, 10% is the catching, and 5% is the eating. For species that are having trouble, catch-and-release is just fine, but I don't see a reason for people not to catch and eat say... panfish, since they're super-common in most lakes and rivers, even if it's not strictly necessary for food purposes.

But for me, ultimately the real defining thing is what sort of ecological impact it has; shooting big game can be done in a responsible way, if its done in conjunction with conservation efforts and/or game management efforts.

But just going out and shooting a lion with no consideration for anything other than you want a lion's head mounted on your wall? That's all sorts of fucked up.

[Go_Arachnid_Laser]

Ah. Not the actress.

Of course, Reddit would be all over this if it was Valkyrie.

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

The meat on your dinner table involves some ugly choices. Killing and butchering animals is not a particularly pleasant process even when done in a humane manner. The difference is that most people don't see what goes into producing baby back ribs or sirloin.

I am advocate for quick, merciful killing of ANY animal that is being dispatched, for any reason. That is not always possible, unfortunately, as it is an imperfect world, but it is the proper ideal in my opinion. Death by a well-placed bullet (or two) is a lot quicker and less ugly than the fate that awaits many wild animals left to natural death by predators, injury, thirst, hunger, or disease.

I agree completely with both your points here.

I count myself lucky to have seen the sharp end of animal husbandry. I've seen the same animals born in the spring meadows, grown on the high Pennine moors, brought down to market, sold, killed and butchered and been there at every stage.

I think if you are going to eat meat it does no harm to have a appreciation of what that means and that it is possible to raise animals for meat in a humane and respectful manner.

I should clarify that I'm not necessarily anti-hunting. It forms part of the natural order of things and it is a crucial part of conservation and humane animal management.

No, I suspect that I am more anti-arsehole-hunter and regarding the guy who shot the Lion on the documentary I'd be better disposed to him if he wept at the necessity of killing such a creature rather than in joy at what he'd "accomplished".

Anyhow, on a less depressing note can I just say how pleasing it is to take part in such well balanced and respectful debate. Differences of opinion and yet no hint of it descending into a slanging match. Something of a rarity these days.

[Just Asking Questions]

Originally Posted by senoy

As for motivations and getting joy, my guess is that it simply boils down to whether you were raised rural or urban.

I'd guess your sample size is too small.

I grew up about as rural as you can get, and I find hunting big game to be very distasteful. I find hunting deer to be distasteful, however many I have killed with my car (it was mutual - they pretty much killed my cars, too.)

I have killed small pest animals on the farm. And, right now we are waging war with roof rats. We have dispatched about 10. I find no joy in it. I regret the necessity of killing them. I wish I didn't have to. But you can't catch and release rats.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

This is one of those stories that everybody seems to immediately pick a side on, so it's hard to get the Straight Dope, so I came here.




So, what's the straight dope? Is she an entitled c-word that is wiping out a species for sport? Or a conservationist who is helping the species while feeding the natives?
Or does the truth actually lie somewhere in the middle, as usually is the case?

I dont see the debate here, this is more of a rant. If you want a debate about trophy hunting, all well and good, but then there's no need to publicly shame a private person over this.

Trophy hunting pays for game conservation measures. And it can be strictly controlled.

It's poaching that is the problem, not trophy hunting.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Dinsdale

I appreciate the (mostly) reasonable discussion so far. To the extent culling is a necessary wildlife management practice, I'm glad the countries involved are making coin for it and (hopefully) directing income back to conservation.



My impression that a large percentage of trophy hunters tend to occupy a portion of the political spectrum which considerably differ from mine. But I DO recognize that hunting and fishing licenses/advocacy groups are responsible for considerable conservation achievements.

Without those trophy hunters and their deep pockets, game conservation would be mostly gone in some nations/areas, allowing widespread uncontrolled poaching.

[senoy]

Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions

I'd guess your sample size is too small.

I grew up about as rural as you can get, and I find hunting big game to be very distasteful. I find hunting deer to be distasteful, however many I have killed with my car (it was mutual - they pretty much killed my cars, too.)

I have killed small pest animals on the farm. And, right now we are waging war with roof rats. We have dispatched about 10. I find no joy in it. I regret the necessity of killing them. I wish I didn't have to. But you can't catch and release rats.

For the record, I find no joy in killing rats either. I just don't find it viscerally unnerving. It's just something that has to be done like mowing the lawn or repairing the porch.

I think my point might be better made in that typically I find that urban and suburban people are much more squeamish about such things, so the idea of finding joy in hunting is overpowered by the idea of killing something. I typically find that rural people don't have that same negative emotions toward killing things, so they are able to find more joy in the action.

I personally don't get much out of hunting these days. Our season coincides with Thanksgiving, so I usually just prefer to spend the time with my family. I'd rather not freeze my butt off for a week waiting for something to walk by. The only thing I really miss is the meat. I've become a deer meat hoarder and when I get a few pounds parcel it out over the course of the year instead of eating it for every meal. It's a bit depressing to have so little and every now and again, I'll think about heading out, but my desire for sleeping in a warm bed with my wife always overcomes my desire for deer meat.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I don't know. It feels fundamentally wrong to me. .....

To be fair, HurricaneDitka did address this in post #5

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

To be fair, HurricaneDitka did address this in post #5

I wasn't directing those comments towards any particular poster, but yes, from where I sit it appears that most of the opposition to hunting is driven by emotional reactions and ignorance rather than logic and facts.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I dont see the debate here, this is more of a rant. If you want a debate about trophy hunting, all well and good, but then there's no need to publicly shame a private person over this.....

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Ricky Gervais called her a "spoilt c--t" and other celebrities echoed his opinion. I myself was neither ranting nor publicly shaming her.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Ricky Gervais called her a "spoilt c--t" and other celebrities echoed his opinion. I myself was neither ranting nor publicly shaming her.

I dont see the point about bring her up at all.

why?

Look, sure, there is a solid great debate about trophy hunting.

But if all you're talking about is her, than that's a rant.

[Rucksinator]

Because she was at the center of the news story that prompted this question. Because this question was specifically about this case (and tangentially related to other cases similar to it.) Because I wanted people who searched for a thread about this story (as I did before I made this post) to be able to find this thread and not make a duplicate thread that the mods would later have to merge.

Is there some reason that you think that her anonymity should be protected? Because it's too late for that. Her name is out there and firmly attached to this story.

[Patx2]

Just poppin in to say, it never ceases to amaze me how off topic this shit gets and somehow, someway it always gets twisted into a liberal/conservative shitting match. You go dopers, you go.

[asterion]

Assuming the proper permits, wildlife conservation, and other rules were followed so that it was a legal taking and not poaching, I have no real issue with big game and trophy hunting. That does appear to be the facts in this case. I would expect an older giraffe to not taste particularly good, but I don't see much of a difference between killing a targeted older giraffe and killing the biggest specimen you can find of a legal game animal in the United States because you want a deer or elk or moose (for example) with the biggest rack possible. Many people think little of paying many times more than a resident for an out-of-state permit for a chance to maybe take an animal, so the cost spent to get the permit and fly to Africa isn't a convincing argument for me. Generally, some of the cost of the permit gets returned to a state conservation fund which can, among other things, result in the acquisition of more public land that I--having never hunted in my life--can still go onto for my own recreation. I assume the same is true for the sale of expensive permits for carefully-controlled big game hunting.

Frankly, the people who go out onto BLM land and dump their garbage or set up a shooting range and can't be bothered to pick up their targets and brass when done infuriate me far more. But I won't get a lot of outrage agreeing with me from complete strangers with pictures on Facebook and Twitter of an old couch, refrigerator, and tires dumped in the New Mexico desert.

[thelurkinghorror]

Outrage over pretty young white female African hunters is motivated by sexism. The Cecil guy was an outlier, but nobody cares if an old fat guy shoots a giraffe.

As for hunting in general, the 5 main models are the North American, African, European, Aus/NZ, and restrictive. The North American model is absolutely beneficial for animal populations. 60 to 90 percent of the funding for animals and habitat is from hunting and fishing licenses, as well as firearms, ammo, and archery purchases. The Australian model is mostly involved in loosely restricted hunting of invasive species. I have personal issues with the European and African models, but particularly the latter can be done well and beneficial in a stable country with a good management system.

[yendis]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Try thinking of it as 'commercialised livestock management', just like hunting deer or shooting grouse in the Highlands.

Exactly.

First, because its pissing me off, why the hell can't these articles say where this happened. After way to much clicking I've found it is South Africa but then I can't tell if it was on a private or government reserve. Africa's fucking huge, the actual location would have been nice.

Second, the only way any locals are hunting giraffes for food is if they pay the stupid amounts of money for the privilege. There are no wild Giraffes just roaming around South Africa, they are in reserves. And the owners of those reserves in turn own the animals. And if the owners sell the animals to hunters then that's their right. This goes for National or Provincial parks too.

It doesn't appear to have been a canned hunt, it was just a giraffe, and the money she spent boosted the local economy. I'm not seeing a problem.

[bump]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

Outrage over pretty young white female African hunters is motivated by sexism. The Cecil guy was an outlier, but nobody cares if an old fat guy shoots a giraffe.

As for hunting in general, the 5 main models are the North American, African, European, Aus/NZ, and restrictive. The North American model is absolutely beneficial for animal populations. 60 to 90 percent of the funding for animals and habitat is from hunting and fishing licenses, as well as firearms, ammo, and archery purchases. The Australian model is mostly involved in loosely restricted hunting of invasive species. I have personal issues with the European and African models, but particularly the latter can be done well and beneficial in a stable country with a good management system.

There's also the Texas model, which is the N. American model, but with an exception for feral hogs, where if you have a hunting license, they pretty much encourage you to kill feral hogs by any means you possibly can.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

As for hunting in general, the 5 main models are the North American, African, European, Aus/NZ, and restrictive.

If you have time and inclination, I'd be interested in a concise description of those 5 models and how they are similar/different from each other.

[steronz]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Dumbass liberals who don't know the first fucking thing about conservation fuck it up royally because of their feels.

It's possible to understand that pumping money into conservation is a good thing, and also feel that people willing to pump money into conservation for the chance to kill a rare animal are gross.

I can't think of any other job where we allow rich amateurs to buy their way in as a hobby.

Like, amputations need to happen, but I think we all sleep easy knowing that surgeons who perform them are professionals doing it because it needs to be done, not because they get some sick pleasure out of doing it. If rich people could fly to rural India, donate a ton of money to medical facilities there, and be allowed to perform amputations because they just really enjoyed cutting human limbs off... how would you feel about it? It'd undoubtedly be a good thing for the local population, but it's also fucking disgusting.

Likewise, trophy hunting is disgusting. The fact that it's a working option for animal conservation is a regrettable failure of society. I can't see any other way to look at it.

[senoy]

Originally Posted by steronz

It's possible to understand that pumping money into conservation is a good thing, and also feel that people willing to pump money into conservation for the chance to kill a rare animal are gross.

I can't think of any other job where we allow rich amateurs to buy their way in as a hobby.

Like, amputations need to happen, but I think we all sleep easy knowing that surgeons who perform them are professionals doing it because it needs to be done, not because they get some sick pleasure out of doing it. If rich people could fly to rural India, donate a ton of money to medical facilities there, and be allowed to perform amputations because they just really enjoyed cutting human limbs off... how would you feel about it? It'd undoubtedly be a good thing for the local population, but it's also fucking disgusting.

Likewise, trophy hunting is disgusting. The fact that it's a working option for animal conservation is a regrettable failure of society. I can't see any other way to look at it.

Or you could look at it as a tremendous success. If we use your surgeon analogy, imagine if there were a class of people who just absolutely enjoyed performing surgery, spent a lot of their time and money on learning how to do it correctly and then paid their patients to perform surgery on them with a portion of those proceeds going toward disease prevention. I guess you could look at it as a societal failure, or you could see it as win-win.

After all, that's essentially what Medecins sans Frontieres is. A group of doctors who (hopefully) enjoy helping the world and invest a lot of their time and resources into it. Maybe they get a thrill out of removing tumors from people and maybe they don't, I don't particularly care either way, I'm just glad they are doing it. If I discovered tomorrow that MSF surgeons were all part of some club where they sit around and discuss their most difficult cases with mixtures of pride and bragadoccio, I think I would honestly say, "Good on you. It's good to enjoy what you do. Thanks for your help." For all I care, they could keep a collection of all of the appendixes that they have removed for display providing they aren't exploiting people for their appendix and followed all laws and got proper consent. I'd think they were weird, but I wouldn't call them a function of a failing society. We're all a little weird and they wouldn't be the first people to do it. If they're making the world a better place at their own expense, then I don't care if they have display cabinets of human organs. If they are exploiting people to get them, then we have a problem, just like we'd have a problem if these trophy hunters were poaching or over-harvesting. But if it's legal, doesn't harm the population and preserves the species and wild land, then I fail to see exactly what the issue is. Just that it's icky to some other people? To that I say that some people think tofu is icky, doesn't mean we should start banning veganism.

[steronz]

Originally Posted by senoy

After all, that's essentially what Medecins sans Frontieres is. A group of doctors who (hopefully) enjoy helping the world and invest a lot of their time and resources into it.

First of all, the fact that Doctors without Borders is a thing is absolutely indicative of a failure of society, so there's that. It's great that they volunteer and all, but it's pretty pathetic that we need them to in the first place.

Secondly, there's absolutely a difference between someone who goes into OB/GYN because he wants to help women and get paid while doing it, and someone who does it because he gets sexual pleasure from looking at vaginas all day. So yeah, the motivation matters, and yeah, it's because some motivations are "icky." I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Scylla]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I am massively conflicted by all of this.

As human beings I think people who take active pleasure in the killing of such creatures are beneath contempt.

However.......

There is certainly a need to maintain healthy breeding stocks of endangered animals and sometimes the only viable option is to kill it. That may be due to illness, age, rogue tendencies, inbreeding etc. I get that. What I cannot accept is the visceral pleasure some people get by doing it.

I’d like to address this. I moved to a farm in the country, and embraced hunting for about 10 years, or so, really enjoyed it and got a lot out of it. Then I had daughters and gave it up and literally got hardcore into dollhouses instead. Go figure.

The pleasure of hunting for me, was being in the outdoors, and the process and the application of skill, and such. Additionally, I know that my existence depends on the suffering of other lives. Every time I walk, I kill bugs and microbes. The meat that I buy at the grocery store comes from living creatures. Lots of products come from living creatures, etc.

By hunting and killing and butchering and eating my own meat, I was involved in the process from start to finish. The deer I killed had a much better life than the cows or chickens I bought at the supermarket. The meat was much healthier, and truly “organic.” It was good and satisfying to go through the process from start to finish and do it myself, in much the same way that it is satisfying to build a dollhouse with my daughters from scratch as opposed to just buying one at the toy store. The feeling was the same, and I geothermal the same pleasure out of it that I get from my vegetable garden today.

So, I think it’s a good thing, and I’m pretty sure that it was like that for most of my fellow deer hunters, and the cost of the license leads to good conservation.

Now that being said are there people who just take a perverse pleasure in killing things? I’m sure there are. Re some of them hunters? I’m sure they are. I never encountered anything like that, though.

There is another thing. I moved to the farm straight from NYC.

I learned quickly that nature does not share our sensibilities with regard to suffering and death. The farm itself was like a celebration of death. Hawks swooping down and eviscerating bunnies. Foxes mingling chickens and leaving behind a scene out of Friday the 13th. Every spring baby birds falling out of trees and splatting onto the ground like raindrops. I was literally surrounded by constant murder and suffering. Welcome to nature.

The big epiphany is that that is the norm, not the exception, and I am a part of it. It seems that modern society seems to hide from this and pretend that it’s not the case, and we get unrealistic ideas of what life means and what suffering is.

Hunting made me more accepting of suffering and death, and put front and center that my existence causes both, and it forced me to be more realistic about it, appreciate it, and be more judicious about inflicting it needlessly.

I personally have no desire to go killing a giraffe in Africa, but I don’t have a problem with somebody who does, especially when it is done ethically and responsibly and with conservation in mind, as this hunt appears to have gone down.

[Scylla]

The other thing is that I think we rape the world , destroy fisheries, destroy the environment etc, not because we are bd, or evil. We just want the stuff and we pay somebody to go and get it for us. We are not face to face with the consequences of our needs and wants and rampant consumerism.

Go out in the woods nd harvest a deer and you are face to face with it. It made me a Little bit more appreciative and careful concerning the environment, and my impact upon it.

[Buck Godot]

I don't have too much of an opinion over all regarding the hunting. I will leave that up to the environmentalists to sort out whether separating trigger happy Americans from their cash in exchange for a chance blast away at the local fauna is good or bad for the conservation of the species, but using the excuse of feeding the hungry village irks me.

It doesn irk me because I have anything against some hungry villagers dining on giraffe, but because it seems to fit into the tired old stereotype of Great White bwana comes to save backward African natives with his magic boomstick. All thing being equal the natives could probably kill their own giraffe. But all things aren't equal because they can't afford the however many thousands of dollars a permit costs. And the reason that permit is required is that otherwise those hungry native villagers probably would go out and hunt giraffe in unsustainable numbers. Which brings us back to the point that if the hunter really wanted to provide meat for the village they would have been much better off using the money they spend on the hunt to buy cows and goats to give to the village.

So if you want to pay the big bucks to kill a giraffe, don't pretend that you are doing so purely for humanitarian reasons. You are doing it because you enjoy killing stuff. That you don't have anything better to do with the 2000 pounds of dead giraffe than let the locals have it, is a secondary consideration at best.

[bump]

I'm reminded of the time that a friend and I went to a boxing match at a bar in college. We were both aficionados of the sport, having grown up somewhat exposed to it- in my case, my grandfather was a Golden Gloves lightweight boxer in the 1930s, and had taught me how as I grew up, and we would watch and critique fights together, and appreciate the skill, strategy and toughness involved. My buddy's background was more as an amateur boxer himself. So we went to the bar to watch this boxing match assuming that the other fans would be like us.

Nope, 99% of them were there to see one guy beat the shit out of the other. They were bitching when it was in my mind, a good boxing match. When it turned into a beat-down, they got louder and more emphatic, even though the match was essentially done and all that was happening is that the losing guy was getting pounded senseless. I could entirely have seen this crowd cheering on gladiators, or baiting bears, or whatever other horrible, bloody event they were watching... for the sheer violence and savagery of it. I was stunned, to say the least.

For me, and probably others in the thread, sport hunters more similar in mindset to my buddy and I with respect to boxing are not the problem here. If someone feels like hunting some animal is a true test of his hunting abilities, and the killing is just the normal outcome of the process, that's one thing.

It's the hunters who literally get a visceral thrill out of killing things that unnerve me. I don't understand that, and find it to be disturbing and to a great extent, reprehensible. And I do feel like trophy hunts to that crowd are somehow wrong. Not because the animal's killed, but because of the motivation of the hunters.

[thelurkinghorror]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

If you have time and inclination, I'd be interested in a concise description of those 5 models and how they are similar/different from each other.

Broadly, I'm sure there are exceptions or things I am unaware of:

North American model - I don't know as much about Canada, but I understand there are more similarities than differences (their public lands are called crown lands, and are treated slightly differently). Has mostly been wildly successful, there are more whitetail deer now than any time in history, including before European contact. Hunters and anglers pay tons of money to do the work of conservation, and the state governments carefully monitor population levels and habitat using that money. Poaching still occurs, but compliance is overall high and consequences of breaking the law are high.
There are two (three, thanks bump) sub-categories in the US. In the west (roughly Montana down to New Mexico, and everything west of that, including Alaska. Not sure how the Dakotas work), there is tons of public land, and big game and turkey is mostly a lottery system, you pay for a chance at actually getting a tag. In the east you often need permission to hunt land or own it yourself, and in some cases they will give tags to anyone who asks because deer populations are very high (other species might have restrictions). Texas has unprotected pigs as mentioned, but they also have private high-fence game preserves, often with imported African game. For these, the process is similar to Africa (and $$$).

Africa, which is mostly the southern part of the continent. People pay high dollars to hunt in most cases. The benefits to the local economy can be great, but it also depends on government stability and level of corruption - Namibia probably gets more benefit than Zimbabwe. In many cases the animals are "wild" - they are surrounded by fences that they can't cross, albeit the areas are very large. In some cases (like with rhinos) they tell you which one you can hunt, and hopefully carefully monitored. In other cases it's sort of an a la carte menu (Impala? That's $2000. Wildebeest? $6000).
The local people make sometimes less than 1000x the cost of a hunt in a year, so they don't hunt. Poaching occurs if the costs for doing so are low and the reward high, and this cases an order of magnitude more damage than any number of managed legal hunters do. They are sometimes criticized for being pure trophy hunters who don't even eat the meat, but as I understand it you can't take the meat to the US - concerns about parasites etc. So it's usually donated to the local people, and parts are enjoyed while there.

European model - maybe I should say parts of Europe, I think the Nordic countries might be more free than the UK. Game is privatized: landowners have a right to animals on the land (and IIRC their meat), so back in the day the king had exclusive right. Now it's often seen as an upper class thing (pheasant and quail hunters with $2000 shotguns and tweed. Fox hunting!) Robin Hood is now known for stealing physical property from the rich, but he was also a poacher. Market hunting destroyed American animals like buffalo, so now it's illegal to sell game meat. All venison you get in US restaurants are farmed, usually red deer from Australia or NZ, or possibly US farmed whitetail. In Europe, this may not be the case.
It seems to have a larger emphasis on hunting as a sport than as a means to get meat (that you happen to enjoy).

Australia and NZ have tons of feral animals. Pigs, deer, goats, etc. NZ has zero predators and Australia only has dingoes, who aren't the apex predators as much as wolves are. The imported animals threaten native fauna and flora. So native animals still have protections, but ferals are fair game, with limited or no protections. The environmental solution is to kill 'em.

And some places might disallow it completely, but of course there's an exception if you're well heeled.

I hope I didn't make any mistakes. I'm not a lifetime hunter and haven't done a whole lot of big game. I think the North American model is the best one that's been tried (AusNZ is fine but out of necessity). I have my own issues with the ethics of some of these other types of hunts, but I think abandoning hunts completely is the wrong solution. It's not easy to wrap your head around the concept that hunting can be good for the population if you're not acquainted to it. But you have to give the majority of hunters some credit - they don't want to kill the last animal, but want to preserve it for future generations. There are of course asshole exceptions, but they are a minority. I wish Ted Nugent wasn't the most prominent hunter (of mostly non-wild fenced in animals), there are better representatives.

[Lamoral]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

European model - maybe I should say parts of Europe, I think the Nordic countries might be more free than the UK. Game is privatized: landowners have a right to animals on the land (and IIRC their meat), so back in the day the king had exclusive right. Now it's often seen as an upper class thing (pheasant and quail hunters with $2000 shotguns and tweed. Fox hunting!) Robin Hood is now known for stealing physical property from the rich, but he was also a poacher.

Upland game bird hunting in America is still seemingly the most 'sporting' - i.e. 'to the manor born' - form of hunting. It's not like you need to be wealthy to do it, but in the main, it is a sporting pursuit similar to fly fishing. These pursuits seem to overlap more than other types of hunting and angling, and indeed they demand a similar set of skills.

The upland bird magazines are beautiful to behold, outstanding photography, layout, content etc, even the ads are beautiful - it's a well-financed sport. And I know a number of friends who have invested staggering amounts of money and time into training the dogs that they use for it.

[thelurkinghorror]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

Upland game bird hunting in America is still seemingly the most 'sporting' - i.e. 'to the manor born' - form of hunting. It's not like you need to be wealthy to do it, but in the main, it is a sporting pursuit similar to fly fishing. These pursuits seem to overlap more than other types of hunting and angling, and indeed they demand a similar set of skills.

The upland bird magazines are beautiful to behold, outstanding photography, layout, content etc, even the ads are beautiful - it's a well-financed sport. And I know a number of friends who have invested staggering amounts of money and time into training the dogs that they use for it.

To some extent, sure. It's by far the cheapest method of hunting. You only need a regular hunting license here (and in previous years, a license + $10 stamp). Duck requires a federal duck stamp plus more expensive lead-free ammo. Most people I know aren't using fancy over/unders that uplanders did in the past but cheap pump shotguns.

I guess like fly fishing, it's a high effort/low yield activity (as in fly fishermen tend to be catch and release). Chukar hunting is among the one of the more difficult things I've done and rarely successful but it beats the gym.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

I don't know as much about Canada, but I understand there are more similarities than differences (their public lands are called crown lands, and are treated slightly differently). Has mostly been wildly successful, there are more whitetail deer now than any time in history, including before European contact.

I killed one of those once.

Does it matter if my "gun" was a Dodge Caravan?

[thelurkinghorror]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I killed one of those once.

Does it matter if my "gun" was a Dodge Caravan?

One of the biggest proponents of lower deer populations are auto insurers.

BTW, I can't read the title of this thread without thinking of Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie fighting draugr.

[DoctorJ]

Does this really even count as "hunting"? That term seems to imply that something is difficult to track down and kill. Giraffes are 3000-pound goats with 15 foot necks that live in flat, sparsely-wooded areas. You don't hunt a giraffe so much as you go to where giraffes are and shoot one. As long as you can handle a big enough rifle and hit the broad side of a barn with it, you probably have all the requisite skill. (Well, that and writing a big check.) And I'm supposed to be impressed?

[thelurkinghorror]

Originally Posted by DoctorJ

Does this really even count as "hunting"? That term seems to imply that something is difficult to track down and kill. Giraffes are 3000-pound goats with 15 foot necks that live in flat, sparsely-wooded areas. You don't hunt a giraffe so much as you go to where giraffes are and shoot one. As long as you can handle a big enough rifle and hit the broad side of a barn with it, you probably have all the requisite skill. (Well, that and writing a big check.) And I'm supposed to be impressed?

They're apparently one of the harder antelope type creatures to hunt. Their height gives them more visual scan and they can lie down pretty flat when resting.

Geoffrey the Giraffe proved easy to kill, RIP.