Does trophy hunting get a bad rap?

[watchwolf49]

@Esox_Lucius

Or shoot the dog owner for not keeping his dog safe with coyotes around.</sarcasm> Why does he bear no responsibility in the death of his dog?

Do mean keeping a working dog inside unless he goes out with you on a lead? … how is the dog to protect your livestock from coyotes? …

I don’t know about bighorn sheep, but that massive elk antler rack came with a mess of delicious meat … I think we should stay focused on animals humans don’t normally eat, things that aren’t on the menu …

<nitpick> Oregon issued 85 bighorn sheep tags this year … looks to be the same next year … </nitpick>

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but hunters usually try to hit the game in the throat, get the jugular vein and bleed them out quick …

[septimus]

@thelurkinghorror

Plus Ricky Gervais is a hack so anything that gets his goat is a plus.

I spent decades without every hearing whines like this, except perhaps as teenage joking. But now I often see such whines on the Yahoo blogs and even SDMB.
Is this the quality of adult discourse in today’s U.S.A.?

[watchwolf49]

@septimus

I spent decades without every hearing whines like this, except perhaps as teenage joking. But now I often see such whines on the Yahoo blogs and even SDMB.
Is this the quality of adult discourse in today’s U.S.A.?

Now you’ve done it … you done did hurt someone’s feelings … we’re not getting any further until you apologize …

[Esox_Lucius]

@thelurkinghorror

It is the second fastest and most foolproof method of doing so, aside from the heart. To suggest that they should instead aim for the head demonstrates a lack of understanding of the physics involved in a long range shot, nor the anatomy of a given species. You want to approach this from an emotional argument, fine. But that’s never good for policy.

By the way, why are you assuming that people don’t eat bighorn sheep?

We’re talking at cross purposes here. I know that revenue from hunting goes to wildlife management, and that hunters mostly eat their kills. A friend of mine who hunted deer and elk until a few years ago used to give me sausage and the odd cut of meat. I get all that, so remarks about emotion and assuming that hunters don’t eat their kill are way off base.

The point I’m making has nothing to do with any of that. Whether a “sport” hunter leaves the carcass to rot or eats the whole thing including the asshole, he has killed a living creature that was just living its life without threatening anyone. It’s the grossest abuse of power over a helpless victim. We don’t stand for that with other humans, but because animals aren’t human, it’s somehow okay. Well, they aren’t as different as you’d think, and as I thought until recently. They have a certain level of intelligence, they have individual personalities with their own likes and dislikes, and they make emotional connections within their group. A death by any cause sends ripples through the group. Sound familiar? If a doe dies, its fawn can run around in a panic for days calling out for its mother. The difference is in degree, not in kind. That’s why I say that putting bullets in their helpless and defenceless bodies for basically shits and giggles is immoral.

[Esox_Lucius]

@watchwolf49

Do mean keeping a working dog inside unless he goes out with you on a lead? … how is the dog to protect your livestock from coyotes? …

I’m not going over every possible scenario. I was just responding to your default position of knee-jerk vigilantism without considering that the owner could be at fault.

Jeez, is there any problem in America that can be solved without automatically going for a gun?

[nelliebly]

Trophy hunting income goes to local villagers? Not so fast. According to this National Geographic article on trophy hunting and elephants…

Rural councils in Zimbabwe are notoriously underfunded and almost always have nothing in their coffers to support the communities in their districts. For example, revenue from sport hunting in the Chiredzi Rural District (where the hunter shot that big bull elephant) was negligible, according to a 2014 end-of-year report.While a portion of the hunting fees foreigners pay (which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars) is earmarked for community projects such as CAMPFIRE, Emmanuel Fundira, Chairman of Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe, told CBS News in October that rural councils get “nothing.” In most cases, he said, corrupt government officials take the money.

CAMPFIRE CEO Phindile Ncube told CBS News that his rural district, Hwange, made more than $158,000 in hunting fees during the past year. He claimed that the money is goes to infrastructure and food programs for local communities.

But when CBS interviewed local villagers, they said they haven’t received a cent from the council.

Note: CAMPFIRE is Zimbabwe’s Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources.

Things are better in Namibia. Of the $70 million big game trophy hunting brings in, one in seven Namibians gets $75 a month.

[puzzlegal]

I would expect less of Zimbabwe in terms of distribution of hunting fees. The rest of the Zimbabwean economy is broken, why not that part, too.

[Filbert]

@Barkis_is_Willin

Doesn’t really matter what the hunter wants, it’s what the ranger will let him or her do. One of my grandfather’s friends was a big game hunter. He made at least a half dozen trips to Africa and usually bought a license to hunt a few different species on each trip. It was not uncommon for him to drop 5 figures on a license for, say, a lion only to find out when he got there that even if one walked up to the barrel of his gun, he was strictly prohibited from shooting it. And when he did get his lion, he was told which one specifically he could take. I assume it was an old, maybe even sick one.

‘Africa’ varies a lot. I would fully expect that in somewhere like SA, but in places where a tip/bribe from a hunter can be more than the average annual wage? There’s plenty of stories about less well regulated places.

I’m highly sceptical about most of the arguments for the supposed benefits of hunting. It’s easy to claim that hunting reserves are reserves, so the benefits outweigh the damage ecologically, but there is no incentive to actually maintain a balanced ecosystem in a ‘hunting reserve’, there’s just incentive to increase the population of the species that you can sell hunting permits for. Does the manager of a ‘hunting reserve’ give a crap that the land is used as a staging post for a bird migration, if they’re not allowed to shoot the birds?

[watchwolf49]

@Esox_Lucius

I’m not going over every possible scenario. I was just responding to your default position of knee-jerk vigilantism without considering that the owner could be at fault.

I was just responding to your default position of knee-jerk environmentalism without considering that the corrupted eco-system could be at fault … there’s supposed to be wolves everyplace eating the deer … kill all the wolves and now the deer population explodes … so humans have taken it upon themselves to manage the populations through controlled hunts … hardly a “knee-jerk” reaction since this methodology has been in use for a very long time … it’s people with guns who keep the woods safe from over-browsing …

@Esox_Lucius

Jeez, is there any problem in America that can be solved without automatically going for a gun?

Of course … just the threat of going for the gun is usually enough … allowing women to carry handguns in their purses would be enough to dial back the sexual harassment problems …

[Esox_Lucius]

@watchwolf49

I was just responding to your default position of knee-jerk environmentalism without considering that the corrupted eco-system could be at fault…

That’s your misreading. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, as you implied, whether it’s guns or it’s live-trapping and relocating. That’s my position, if you care to continue this.

[Urbanredneck]

I dont think trophy hunting is anywhere worse than the dozens of tourist buses who ramble thru the areas constantly or the airplanes, helicopters, and hot air balloons flying overhead.

[DrDeth]

@Esox_Lucius

Whether a “sport” hunter leaves the carcass to rot or eats the whole thing including the asshole, he has killed a living creature that was just living its life without threatening anyone. It’s the grossest abuse of power over a helpless victim. We don’t stand for that with other humans, but because animals aren’t human, it’s somehow okay. .

Every day we slaughter millions of animals for food.

[Ulfreida]

@watchwolf49

The local pack of coyotes eats your dog, you’re not going to care that someone goes out and shoots them …

Actually, if you could manage to look at the big picture, something at which humans have never excelled, you might care.

If trophy hunters actually hunted like real predators, I would feel a lot differently about them.

Real predators: hunt the weak, slow, old, sick, and small. Only kill what they need to live. Eat everything except what serves to feed scavengers. Are an integral part of the maintenance of the ecological web.

Disgusting sicko trophy hunters: hunt the best, biggest, wisest leaders. Destroy the integrity of the group. Disrupt the ecological web. Kill entirely for the ego gratification of killing something big. Don’t eat any of it. Waste huge resources of climate-killing petroleum to fly out there.

Agree they should be out there with a knife only. But should also be naked.

[Ulfreida]

@Urbanredneck

I dont think trophy hunting is anywhere worse than the dozens of tourist buses who ramble thru the areas constantly or the airplanes, helicopters, and hot air balloons flying overhead.

Actually it is.

[Ulfreida]

@DrDeth

Every day we slaughter millions of animals for food.

Abundant domestic animals, not endangered wild animals. There is a chasm between these.

[Ulfreida]

@thelurkinghorror

Military snipers don’t go for head shots. This is because it is a small target. Furthermore, sheep have very thick skulls. Male sheep crack their heads together with the force of a car crash or something, and they do it multiple times per day in the breeding season. In other words, it is incredibly irresponsible to “go for head shots.” But if you want to believe that hunters are moustache-twirling villains from your armchair, feel free.

Also, bighorn sheep are considered lifetime hunts. A hunter who gets a tag has been applying annually for about 20 years straight. Once they get a tag, they can expect to not live long enough to get another chance. In a given year, there are only a few dozen sheep tags per state, calculated by an incredibly strictly managed program. The sheep population is fine, but it takes a strongly managed program, and the method of paying for that involves hunting fees. That does include the rich dude who wants to drop $100,000 plus on an auction tag, which in at least some states (Arizona for sure I think) 100% goes directly to sheep.

All that is probably because Bighorns are endemic to a wealthy western country, not an impoverished African one.

[DrDeth]

@Ulfreida

Abundant domestic animals, not endangered wild animals. There is a chasm between these.

How many trophy hunts are of endangered animals?

Bighorn sheep- not endangered in the least.

The African Bush elephant is not “endangered” it is “Vulnerable” depending on area.

Same with the African lion & leopard.

The cape buffalo is not endangered in the least. Quite common.

The southern white rhinoceros is “near threatened”.

[watchwolf49]

@Esox_Lucius

That’s your misreading. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, as you implied, whether it’s guns or it’s live-trapping and relocating. That’s my position, if you care to continue this.

Sure, in some places and with some species, an active hunting program is effective in managing populations … in other places and other species it’s not … so why denigrate the hunters for what the wildlife biologists say is a good and healthy thing for the population as a whole …

I used coyotes as an example because these critters tend to varmint-ism … they concentrate around human farms and habitations for the easy and abundant food supply and inflict real and meaningful damage to human existence …

I’m reminded of the only laundromat in a small Eastern Oregon town … the owners have a bulletin board for locals to post pictures of family events … Miilie’s wedding photos, Davy’s home run during the State semi-finals, Janet’s blue ribbon at the county fair … over to the side is a photo of this poor coyote with his head split wide open with brains splatter everywhere and the caption “Henry at 120 yds” … I just think that’s a great juxtaposition to what city-slickers think of wildlife …

[nelliebly]

So trophy hunting doesn’t help support the local population in any significant way. There’s some dispute as to how much it does for conservation in general. And it doesn’t do the kind of culling that’s needed.

And now let’s throw this in there:

Trophy hunting expert Peter LaFontaine, who works as a campaigns officer for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW),says

trophy hunting is controversial for the way some believe it repeats systems of colonialism.

“When the government tells a local man in Chad that he can’t hunt but then allows a rich, white hunter from Texas to hunt, it’s a really terrible message to send,” he said. “It’s colonialistic and sends mixed signals to locals who see hunting is OK when a rich, white guy does it but not OK when a local does it.”

[Lamoral]

“When the government tells a local man in Chad that he can’t hunt but then allows a rich, white hunter from Texas to hunt, it’s a really terrible message to send,” he said. “It’s colonialistic and sends mixed signals to locals who see hunting is OK when a rich, white guy does it but not OK when a local does it.”

So basically what it boils down to is, the animals are for sale. By the government. Presumably if the local man from Chad could afford to pay the fee to kill one of them, he could do so, but the average man in Chad cannot afford that.