Yep, that sailed over my head. In my defence, maybe because it has little to do with the story. No one was upset because of his name. If anything, the name should have turned all those PC liberals off, right? There was nothing fake about the story itself.
For the record, this is how he got the name:
In the spirit of reciprocity, here’s a story of real damage to human existence. To be honest, I don’t know how to answer it, but I do know it’s a complex matter that can’t be fixed with just one solution, like shooting all the predators.
It’s impossible to comment on individual cases without knowing all the facts. How hard did the owner try to discourage coyotes, etc., etc.
On the face of it, that could be legitimate. I assume that dogs didn’t suddenly get a bad rep, though, and that no one started shooting them on sight.
Here’s one of my stories, for what it’s worth. A rich friend of my family’s used to raise race horses on a small farm. When he finally got the right combination of sire and mare to produce what he hoped would be his star race horse, he could hardly wait for it to be born. That colt was the reason he got into the business. When it was born, it was at night. He woke up to find it torn to shreds by some local farm dogs that would get together and roam the area as a pack.
There are similar arguments made here in the US for hunting - since we’ve eliminated deer predators in many areas deer have become a plague. Why not let hunters pay to do the work?
Note that that argument only applies to animals that are not seriously endangered, although for some animals that are endangered globally local populations may have too many individuals for the area to support them.
In some places yes, in some places no.
In some places a portion of hunting fees are distributed to local populations. Where this occurs the locals start to see the animals as assets rather than pests. However, even where this happens the amount the locals get is only a portion of the overall money coming in, quite a bit will go to landowners, conservation costs like ranger salaries, anti-poaching security (which may be composed of locals hired for the purpose, in which case that’s another way for the locals to profit off this), and government taxes and fees.
It’s sort of analogous to how Sherpas benefit from Mt. Everest climbing - yes, locals who work as guides or support staff profit (and no small risk to themselves) and some of the money goes to local needs, but various officials and the government keep a big chunk of it, too. Yes, there are benefits, but there are risks and problems, too.
In some places the locals get nothing. They might even be forcibly removed from areas they’ve lived in for centuries in order to leave more room for game and the owners of the land to profit from game. Needless to say, such actions lead to resentment.
Where endangered animals are locally plentiful enough to exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat culling might still need to occur. Whether or not that culling should involve trophy hunting is, as you note, debatable. An excess of elephants, for example, can be enormously damaging to the landscape and hungry elephants will invade and take what they need from human villages if there is food for them there. You can’t expect human beings to sit idly by while a herd of elephants knocks down their homes, eat their food, and maim/kill humans who get in the way or try to stop them. You can’t expect people to stand by when lions snatch children or even adults and there’s a long history of hunters being hired to eliminate problem animals.
From what I’ve read about the situation, in some places trophy hunting is very carefully managed, animal populations are healthier and poaching is down, and local folks profit from the activity as well as getting meat for their families. In other places, it’s used as an excuse to strip animals from the landscape and populations crash. In reality, the results are very uneven.
Game meat should be cooked until well done. That takes care of most of the parasite and pathogen problem.
First, they hold a really big feast/party. Seriously, that practice goes back forever - a big windfall of meat means everyone eats themselves silly. A village of 100 people can eat a LOT of meat. That right there can take care of a half ton of meat in a day or two of dedicated consumption.
Then… there are numerous means of preserving meat, like drying, smoking, jerking, and salting. These were developed as a means of storing excess windfall from big game.
Or it can be brought down by a predator, or pack of predators, that won’t be concerned with the animal being dead before they start eating it - what did it do to deserve that fate?
Death is seldom merciful for wild animals. The notion of a “clean kill” is a human invention.
thelurkinghorror said the kill was instant, not me. You’re supporting my rebuttal, just so you know.
Animals kill animals to survive. I’d kill them, too, if my survival depended on it, and I might not be too concerned about how they died. That has nothing to do with taking the life of a living, breathing creature for ego gratification.
Coyotes make a good example in this discussion because they don’t prey on humans, and attacks on humans are extremely rare … however, lions do prey on humans and regularly attack and eat these local villagers … {Cite - Smithsonian Magazine - June 5th, 2015}
So, if I might re-phrase my original claim with heaping doses of emotional blackmail:
Anyway, back to coyotes, I agree with Esox lucius that just shooting a coyote allows a coyote cub to survive and thus does nothing to curb the populations … but then again, shooting a coyote does no harm either, so Trophy Hunting where coyotes thrive is perfectly fine … if you’re good enough, because getting to within 120 yards of one is not easy; if a kid manages to get that close, get a shot off AND nail the bastard … I can see where the proud mother would post a picture for all her friends to be envious about … no matter how gruesome the results may be …
Mountain lions are really scary looking, but attacks on humans is also rare in the wild … usually a case of mistaken identity so one only need to look large to chase the mountain lion off …
“Ego gratification” isn’t why most people go out and hunt … at least around here there’s social pressure to eat what you kill … you should try an elk steak before you condemn the practice …
Whoa… venison and other similar meats should be medium-rare to medium. Freezing will kill anything there, too. There are not many human-transmissible pathogens, as long as you aren’t leaving it out in the sun. Some people like well-done meat, but most chefs aren’t among them.
Bear and wild boar* should be cooked thoroughly, due to trichinosis risk.
*Even the FDA says that domestic pork is 100% parasite free, so the now no longer recommend overcooking it. Treat like beef.
I’ve had elk roast. It was a bit dry for my liking but that could have been the way it was cooked.
You keep insinuating that I’m a delicate snowflake or something. I mentioned that I shot lots of small animals when I was in my teens, but I guess that doesn’t give me enough credibility. I could bore you with plenty more about my animal-killing days, but instead I’ll direct you to this ex-big game hunter who renounced it. Did that instantly turn him into a naive pansy?
Believe it or not, it’s possible to be repulsed by killing animals for dubious reasons and still scoff at safe spaces and healing crystals.
If you’re against hunting for ego gratification, you might want to stop defending the guy who shot Cecil the lion. He didn’t go half way around the world because he was hungry. He isn’t much of a bowman, either, no doubt because he’s one o’ them city slickers himself. Cecil’s blood trail had to be tracked for eleven hours (or 40 hours–accounts differ) before he was finally dispatched for good. So much for a quick, ethical kill. I’d like to think that hunters would be ashamed for making an animal suffer needlessly like that, but not Walter Palmer. He posed with the lifeless carcass like he had conquered Genghis Khan. Sure, if Genghis Khan had been lured into an ambush with no defences and made to suffer for hours or days. I’d also like to think that other hunters would condemn him, at the very least for giving them a bad name, rather than circling the wagons around him just because.
For the record, I am opposed to the wanton killing of mice and bumblebees for ego gratification or any other no-good reason.
