Is sport hunting for trophy cows and chickens a thing now?
Hey, maybe that’s not a bad idea. If you really have to kill something, go to the local stockyards.
“Originally Posted by** 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.”
*
No, that was one article about one animal in one area. My other cites show that it helps considerably.
@ DrDeth,
The subject is hunting for so-called sport. One step at a time.
All I’m saying is that shooting an innocent, defenceless animal for a thrill is immoral, especially from the animal’s point of view. If it’s necessary to allow people to exercise their domineering tendencies on them, so be it, for now at least. But let’s call it for what it is. When a hunter has his victim in the crosshairs, he isn’t thinking, “Oh boy, I’m managing this population.”
Do you know if shooting that coyote was necessary, or was it done for a lark?
By the way, this city slicker worked on his uncle’s farm in his younger days. He had cattle and pigs, and although there were plenty of coyotes around–I saw several during my time there–there wasn’t a single incident involving them. Not once was one shot, nor was there ever an effort to go out and shoot them. I never heard any mention of them as a threat from my uncle or his neighbours. They were a non-entity as far as their farming and ranching operations were concerned.
What is this real and meaningful damage that coyotes inflict on human existence? My uncle’s existence wasn’t affected one bit.
I’ll start with a variety of citations:
The pro-agribusiness take: “Coyote most adaptable predator; threatens livestock and pets” - Southwest Farm Press - May 10th, 2010,
An objective scientific take: “Rise of the coyote: The new top dog” - Nature - May 16th, 2012 - (Note this is a ‘News Feature’ and not a peer-reviewed scientific paper), and
The pro-animal rights take: “Why Killing Coyotes Doesn’t Work” - The Humane Society of the US - no date …
I apologize for that last cite as being pretty thin on specifics, however you seem a person well versed in negative aspects of hunting so I didn’t bother chasing down a citation that says what you already know … and I agree there’s much that can be done on the rancher side to minimize predation losses, in exchange for what are already thin margins …
If coyotes are rare around your uncle’s ranch, then of course hunting them to extinction is a very bad idea … but there’s communities in Eastern Oregon where coyotes come through every night by the dozens hunting deer and more than happy to snag a cat or dog … and this all starts with too many deer and humans clearing the forests for crop lands …
What the hunters take are just going to starve to death anyway … do you think a slow wasting death is more humane than the quick bullet? … and we need to be careful about fake news coming out of Africa … why on Earth would anyone believe Zimbabweans would have a “beloved lion” named after Cecil Rhodes? …
ETA: Do you consider black rats as “innocent and defenseless animals”? … just curious …
I guess I don’t get the trophy hunting mentality. You proved your superiority over the (unarmed) animal by shooting it with a rifle as it walked around? WOW you are so tough!
If their argument is that they are contributing financially to the area, then take the money you’re spending on plane fare, hotels and licenses and just contribute it to the preserves directly.
In many cases the coyotes were there first. I find it a disingenuous argument that human move into wildlife’s area then blame the wildlife for being there thus providing the rationale for killing them.
It’s pretty clear that you have **some **objection to hunting in general and not just specifically trophy hunting so that’s fine. I do want to say that I find your username funny in this thread. Esox lucius - the species name for Northern Pike. Some fishermen fish for food, some do catch and release (another debate - the latter group is undoubtedly causing the death of animals). But in some places, you are required to kill pike even if you otherwise C&R, even if you don’t want to. For example, here’s California’s regulations. Behead immediately.
Actually, it was two articles, but OK. I did read the articles you cited.
If hunts were carefully and ethically supervised (which the Conservation article you cite assumes is the case) in all African countries that attract trophy hunters; if the game culled are those individuals who need to be culled, as opposed to the animals trophy hunters tend to prize most; if governments were not corrupt; if they ensured all revenue generated by hunting fees went to conservation and communities; and if those governments also took steps to reduce or eliminate poaching (which trophy hunting doesn’t, as it turns out, reduce much), I’d fine with trophy hunting.
But the conclusions in the articles you cite are not undisputed:
First, to correct a misconception you have, coyotes aren’t rare around here. I said there are plenty of them.
No need to apologize for the last link. Thanks for providing them, and especially for balancing the views. That doesn’t happen often here. I’m actually more impressed with coyotes now. Wily coyote, indeed. Looney Tunes really got it wrong.
I don’t see from those links that damage from coyotes is nearly as bad as you let on. If it is bad in localized areas, I still don’t get the reflexive “let’s shoot 'em” reaction, as if there’s no other way to stop them. I’m glad to see you agree that ranchers could do more to minimize their losses. And like I said before, I’m not against killing an animal if it’s absolutely necessary (same goes for humans, for that matter). I’m liberal, not stupid.
A few other takeaways…
I have a couple of personal stories involving dogs attacking farm animals, as opposed to zero by coyotes, that I won’t bore you with. Should we start shooting farm dogs on sight?
I assume they also help control populations of vermin like mice, rats, gophers, and raccoons. I saw a coyote catch a mole once, quite intelligently. I was impressed.
Killing predators to get rid of them looks like a game of whack-a-mole.
Self-explanatory.
It didn’t surprise me. I seem to recall that it was the locals who worked for a park or game preserve who named him. Zoo workers do that, too. It tends to happen when you spend a lot of time with animals and start to see them as individuals with unique personalities. Quite a difference from scoping them briefly from a distance with the intention of killing them. You’ll never see them as they really are like that.
Maybe we need to be more careful about what we label as fake news.
I’m kind of flattered that you bothered to look it up.
They’re aggressive fish that hide in the weeds to ambush their prey, and grow pretty big. They could easily be called “the lurking horror”, too.
Who knows, we could be brothers from another mother. Watch your head.
Cattle are large compared to coyotes. A poultry farm near me closed in recently, in significant part because predation by coyotes made it no longer viable. It will be replaced by houses.
I have a friend whose childhood dog was shot by a nearby farmer, because the dog got onto the farmer’s land, where it was hassling his sheep.
True, corruption in Africa is endemic. But still, even those articles agree that* some* money gets down to the tribe level, and that does disuade tribe members from poaching to an extent. Your cites agree that poaching is by far the greatest threat- and if there is no reason at all for the villagers to protect wild animals, and several reaons to kill them ($ from poaching, food from poaching and getting rid of wild animals that are “pests” to them). “…poaching remains the gravest threat to animals like lions, rhinoceroses and leopards,…” "The animals’ numbers have plunged from around 10 million 100 years ago to around 400,000 today, largely because of poaching and habitat loss. "
If there is no funds from Trophy hunting, poaching will kill the wild animals hundreds of times faster than trophy hunting ever could- and there’s no control at all on what animals are poached.
Also note that those are Op-ed articles, (and note the Washing Post hides behind a paywall, thus is useless) here’s a scientific article:
"*. In some cases, trophy
hunting forms an important component of Community-Based Conservation/Community-Based
Natural Resource Management, which aim to devolve responsibility for the sustainable use and
management of wildlife resources from distant bureaucracies to more local levels.
Understanding the context within which trophy hunting occurs is critical to understanding its
potential to benefit conservation. In many parts of the world, much wildlife exists outside of
protected areas. Wildlife shares landscapes with people, and typically competes for space and
environmental resources with other forms of economically productive land uses, such as
agriculture and pastoralism, upon which the livelihoods of local people depend. Wildlife can
impose serious costs on local people, including physical harm, damaging crops, and competing
with livestock for forage. Where wildlife provides few benefits to local people and/or imposes
substantial costs, it is often killed (legally or illegally) for food, various commercially valuable
wildlife products, or as problem animals, and its habitats are degraded or lost to other forms of
land use. In some circumstances trophy hunting can address this problem by effectively making
wildlife more valuable than, and/or complementary to, other forms of land use. It can return
benefits to local people (preferably through effective co-management), encouraging their support
for wildlife, and motivating investment at community, private, and government levels for
research, monitoring, habitat protection, and enforcement against illegal use (see Annex 1 for
examples). Trophy hunting, if well managed, is often a higher value, lower impact land use than
alternatives such as agriculture or tourism. "
*
You would confine humans to a couple hundred square miles in present-day Angola? … is this only about the animals or do you find offensive also the clearing of the entire State of Indiana of her native forestlands? … (see below) …
I’ve seen both sides to this debate … but it is a human tragedy when coyotes get into the pens and kill all the lambs, eat a few of them and leave the remaining 50 or 60 to the vultures … but I guess we have to let the carrion-eaters have their way too … (see below) …
Cecil Rhodes … right … this is like people in Atlanta, GA naming their “beloved middle school” after William Tecumseh Sherman … or Jews world-wide naming their “beloved hyena” after Yasser Arafat … do you see the disconnect between locals naming a lion after a particularly reviled human and any fond fuzzy feelings towards that lion …
This is lawful here … any dog chasing livestock can be shot dead on the spot … if anything the dog-owner gets cited for “failure to control” …
=====
As promised, the below referenced above:
No one claiming black rats are “innocent and defenseless” … must be New Speak for “cute and adorable” then … c’mon, someone has to defend the mice crapping in your silverware drawer … who’s going to advocate leaving huge piles of dead things for the condors? …
Where do we transport these critters and not create an ecological disaster? …
I don’t have a subscription to the Washington Post but was able to read the article; I assumed it wasn’t inaccessible. Nevertheless, neither the Atlantic nor the New York Times article is an op-ed piece, though it may be tempting to think of them that way if they’re contrary to your views.
Notice, however, the caveat phrases in the IUCN article…“In some cases…can return benefits…if well managed.” It’s those conditions that frequently aren’t met and that form the basis for my objections to the current state of trophy hunting in many African countries.
As for the argument that the small economic benefit–where it happens at all–is sufficient to reduce poaching even a little, Nature says the number of black rhinos killed by poachers in 2015 is the highest ever despite a slight reduction in South Africa because Namibia and Zimbabwe have seen record levels of poaching. Clearly the $75 a month given to 1 of 7 Namibians isn’t sufficient.
I’d be interested in your evidence that poaching would be significantly higher were it not for the hunts. Again, I’m quite willing to be persuaded, but I need evidence.
After you access the WP a few times, it yeilds a paywall.
Yes, we dont really know, do we? Some experts think it does. So, what to do? Stop it and see poaching return in record numbers and then after whole populations are wiped out- then say *Ooops? *:dubious:
The animals killed for Trophy hunts are few and at least well recorded. Perhaps, due to corruption, the income is not trickling down as expected and the results arent as hoped for. Sure. Maybe, I will give you that. But what is the alternative? Poaching is the problem, not Trophy hunting, the issue with Trophy hunting is moral.
I get frustrated with the Washington Post for that very reason. I’ve looked into subscribing, but it’s pricey.
The fact is, though, that poaching already IS at record numbers, as the Nature article attests. You think they’d be even higher were it not for hunting, and perhaps that’s true, but big game hunting certainly hasn’t made the sort of impact on poaching its supporters hoped for, not in terms of poaching nor in terms of economic benefits nor in terms of the benefits to the wildlife itself. If those problems are fixed, you’ll see more support of the practice because it will, in fact, be more moral.
I actually, for whatever reason, knew the species name. It just sounds cool, like a centurion? I don’t make a habit of memorizing fish names, and can only really recall 4 (Salmo trutta, and Oncorhynchus mykiss and clarki, though I had to double check the spelling of that genus!)
It really depends. Among the countries that are a big draw for foreign hunters, Zimbabwe and Kenya have high corruption. South Africa is somewhat medium-low though; not great but in the same area as Italy. Granted, Botswana banned hunting 2 years ago but still had a program before and they are among the least corrupt countries on earth.
Open Private Browsing/Incognito mode/etc. This should reset the paywall counter in most cases.
That’s a bit too much like stealing, so i prefer to mock the WP and not use them instead. 