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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
) 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.