Hunting - yes or no?

[Pieter1]

Ah yes!

Hunter vs Hunter

The ultimate hunt?

Whatsa bet this won’t be as popular hunting bambi, apparently man biltong is not so nice

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ctvfzjRhn0g Not sure if it mises the mark. But it’s a lekker song.

[J∆kk∆ls]

Here is a pic, taken back in the day when I was working on a farm. A combination of Khudu Bilton and springbok wors. 

 

 

 

 

[SwissVan]

[Vetplant]

This is the point I made earlier.

 

Seems that we are obliged to pick a side and then fight relentlessly for that side, regardless of rational discussion. Its lazy. I don't like certain hunters, that means I automatically hate all hunters. I don't like Trump, that must mean I am Libtard.

 

Putting those opposing a part of your argument in the same box as those who oppose your argument in its entirety is lazy!

Seriously people, Group Dynamics at play.

 

Once an "us" and "them" are created the natural inclination to fight is let loose. It's not lazy, it is how we survived all these millenia, can't just switch it off.

 

Once you are part of my "us" I am probably going to to see more similarities between us two than I would otherwise, conversely if you are part of my "them" then I will see more things that make you different to me.

 

It really takes massive commitment to fight those urges. So I am inclined to say the only time that a whole country will unite is if there is a big enough outside threat that will seem dangerous enough to grab all of our attention and we pull together en mass. But until then, we will fight over the smallest things because it is who we are.

 

I derailed, back to the bokkies...

[Fruity]

Seriously people, Group Dynamics at play.

 

Once an "us" and "them" are created the natural inclination to fight is let loose. It's not lazy, it is how we survived all these millenia, can't just switch it off.

 

Once you are part of my "us" I am probably going to to see more similarities between us two than I would otherwise, conversely if you are part of my "them" then I will see more things that make you different to me.

 

It really takes massive commitment to fight those urges. So I am inclined to say the only time that a whole country will unite is if there is a big enough outside threat that will seem dangerous enough to grab all of our attention and we pull together en mass. But until then, we will fight over the smallest things because it is who we are.

 

I derailed, back to the bokkies...

Bokkies as in goatee's or bokkies as in loved ones? haha.

[Fruity]

[madbradd]

In the 'for hunting' camp. Have been hunting, but never shot at an animal before. Absolutely loved the walk in nature with the guys who were shooting.

 

The farm we were on had to get rid of their lions because they were in a commercial farming area. There were always issues with "your lions ate my sheep" with the neighbouring farmers. Made things difficult. So without the natural predators they need to cull. And the numbers they were talking about needing to cull were substantial.

 

Regarding the trophy hunting, if there are too many lion/elephants, why not sell a hunt and benefit? I'm not talking canned hunting, I'm talking about legitimate overpopulation of a species which can quickly upset the balance thereby putting alot more animals at risk.

 

Then a question to someone in the know, the "live sale" of game as opposed to hunting.... what is that game normally used for? How often does it land up on another farm to be hunted? And if it does happen often, why not just sell the hunt instead of the animal?

[Matchstix]

Not US of A but France...... Wild Boar...

Obelix!? Is that you??

[Matchstix]

The Western Cape also have this problem and it is getting worse. In parts of the winelands as well as up the west coast, they are very common . They cause quite a bit of damage so some crops. Parts of the Welvanpas mountain bike route near Wellington was built by basically following the trails the pigs made.

 

They are not a different species or a hybrid, but simply domestic pigs that went feral. What is interesting from a biological point, is that of all domesticated animals, they revert back to the wild state the easiest. Not only do they go wild quickly, but within a generation or two they also change physically. They are leaner (obviously) and they develop bigger tusks. Soon they resemble the wild boars of Europe, especially the younger ones.

I know of someone that for extra income hunts wild pigs on farms where they destroy vegan and vegetarian food.

Incredibly smart if you miss you won't see them again.

Uses a night vision outfit

[Matchstix]

That video would be quite a bit more entertaining if the elephants trampled the hunters.... I wouldn't feel too bad for the hunters either.

There was a case about a year or 2 ago when a a PH hunter got killed by an elephant.

But cheering it on is the same as cheering when someone working on a oil drill gets killed.

[Matchstix]

Personally I categorise fishing the same as hunting, whether you're hunting for food or pleasure - just do it with minimal suffering for the animal. That is all. I don't like it, but understand it's gonna be done anyway.

 

Is it ok to hunt for a trophy wife though?

 

I'll show myself out.

Do you have a big enough gun . . . Or wallet

[Shebeen]

I no longer get involved in debates for or against because I have come to terms with my own ethics and morality and am happy to let others do and believe as they choose, as long as it respects mine and allow me the freedom to live my way, of course, without harming theirs.

 

But I will tell you just one of the things that we did:

 

We took a piece of land (with help of a few friends) that was strictly a sheep and angora farm. The black backed jackal and lynx were just about exterminated. Small game like duiker and steenbok were very scarce. Hares and tortoise were scarce. We renovated a dilapidated old house, totally off the grid, and we stocked Springbok and Gemsbok. It was without these for over a 100 years.

 

The vegetation slowly recovered. It is now 15 years later and we regularly see jackal, lynx and even recently found brown hyeina spoor. Duiker and steenbok are plentiful. Vaal rhebok and klipspringer re-appeared from somewhere. The place withstand droughts much better than in the past. We have 1 red data plant on our land, many other scarce succulents are now protected there. Most of this happened without us doing anything, other than to allow a small patch of land to contribute to a larger biodiversity.

 

What pays for all this? Sprinkbok, Gemsbok and the peace you can find there!

I can totally relate to this with an anecdotal story.

 

A few years ago I was riding in the veld on a sheep farm close to this. It amazed me how 'dead' the land is, most likely due to the constant sheep grazing. I remember seeing a dead tortoise that had just shriveled in the sun. Where were the scavengers and goggas that were supposed to complete the food chain? The answer is almost certainly there in our chops.

[Shebeen]

Like many here I'm not a hunter, but eat meat.I realise that this is a totally compromised position to even enter the debate. I hope all the anti hunters are able to get a balanced view of the role it plays both ecologically and economically.

 

I went to this Ted talk. This was before the whole braai master thing kicked off so I don't think this documentary ever saw light of day. BUT if you're conflicted about what your position is on meat and where it comes from this is a very good eye opener.

 

[Odinson]

I think straight off the bat that, considering most of the responses on this thread, that very few people take time to fundamentally understand the question. Does hunting contribute to conversation? 

 

The first question that should be answered is what is understood by ‘conservation’ and why there is a claimed need for conservation. The second question is what is understood by hunting and whether it promotes, harms or has no impact on species conservation. 

 

In general, wildlife conservation is the practice of protecting wild plant and animal species and their habitat. Conservation can be either be in situ (protecting endemic species in their natural habitat) or ex situ (maintenance and breeding of endangered plants and animals controlled conditions such as zoo, gardens, nurseries). It is also important to keep in mind that there are conservation-reliant species of fauna and flora. These require constant conservation, as without it extinction is a certainty. 

 

Now, the question as to why species conservation is necessary, the answer is virtually always the same: human intervention in natural environments. We are the primary cause of why other animals need to be protected.  

 

Within the context of this discussion, hunting is related to in situ conservation. The types of hunting that are relevant here are either trophy hunting or culling. Thus, does trophy hunting or culling promote, harm or have no impact on species conservation? The answer to that question is, unfortunately, that it can both promote and harm species conservation. Reading the available literature, it’s clear that this type of question is very region specific and that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of hard science/data available. There is a whole lot of pro- and against anecdote dressed up a scientific analyses, but they’re easy to spot and even easier to dismiss than a pro-dietary cholesterol study funded by the American Egg Board. 

 

The strongest argument that the pro-hunting group rely on is that their payments for hunts provide the financial means to support conservation efforts in a specific area. This would typically include anti-poaching efforts, supporting local communities, infrastructure, etc. However, there are a number of issues associated with trophy hunting: 1) ethics (see below) 2) failure to involve local communities and 3) biological constraints, including poor quota establishment, overhunting, predator removal, etc. 

 

It is common for the benefits of hunting to be exaggerated. This makes sense, as there is a vested interest for these parties to ensure the survival of this sport.

 

In pondering this question, I keep on coming back to humanity’s dysfunctional and abusive relationship with our fellow earthlings. We move into natural ecosystems, create artificial borders, put up game fencing and then have to start playing god, because we’ve disrupted the natural ecosystem. A Limpopo ranch breeding antelope for hunts or a canned lion facility in the North West does sweet blue fokol for conservation. I can’t believe that hunting could ever be a sustainable form of conservation. Unless we square our concepts of property rights to better align with natural ecosystems and allow nature to self-regulate, we’ll continue to lose species at current rates. 

 

This is such a complex issue, because that is how WE’VE made it. It’s saddening that the interests of those that will suffer most, the non-human animals, is being put last. 

[Patchelicious]

 

I think straight off the bat that, considering most of the responses on this thread, that very few people take time to fundamentally understand the question. Does hunting contribute to conversation? 

 

The first question that should be answered is what is understood by ‘conservation’ and why there is a claimed need for conservation. The second question is what is understood by hunting and whether it promotes, harms or has no impact on species conservation. 

 

In general, wildlife conservation is the practice of protecting wild plant and animal species and their habitat. Conservation can be either be in situ (protecting endemic species in their natural habitat) or ex situ (maintenance and breeding of endangered plants and animals controlled conditions such as zoo, gardens, nurseries). It is also important to keep in mind that there are conservation-reliant species of fauna and flora. These require constant conservation, as without it extinction is a certainty. 

 

Now, the question as to why species conservation is necessary, the answer is virtually always the same: human intervention in natural environments. We are the primary cause of why other animals need to be protected.  

 

Within the context of this discussion, hunting is related to in situ conservation. The types of hunting that are relevant here are either trophy hunting or culling. Thus, does trophy hunting or culling promote, harm or have no impact on species conservation? The answer to that question is, unfortunately, that it can both promote and harm species conservation. Reading the available literature, it’s clear that this type of question is very region specific and that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of hard science/data available. There is a whole lot of pro- and against anecdote dressed up a scientific analyses, but they’re easy to spot and even easier to dismiss than a pro-dietary cholesterol study funded by the American Egg Board. 

 

The strongest argument that the pro-hunting group rely on is that their payments for hunts provide the financial means to support conservation efforts in a specific area. This would typically include anti-poaching efforts, supporting local communities, infrastructure, etc. However, there are a number of issues associated with trophy hunting: 1) ethics (see below) 2) failure to involve local communities and 3) biological constraints, including poor quota establishment, overhunting, predator removal, etc. 

 

It is common for the benefits of hunting to be exaggerated. This makes sense, as there is a vested interest for these parties to ensure the survival of this sport.

 

In pondering this question, I keep on coming back to humanity’s dysfunctional and abusive relationship with our fellow earthlings. We move into natural ecosystems, create artificial borders, put up game fencing and then have to start playing god, because we’ve disrupted the natural ecosystem. A Limpopo ranch breeding antelope for hunts or a canned lion facility in the North West does sweet blue fokol for conservation. I can’t believe that hunting could ever be a sustainable form of conservation. Unless we square our concepts of property rights to better align with natural ecosystems and allow nature to self-regulate, we’ll continue to lose species at current rates. 

 

This is such a complex issue, because that is how WE’VE made it. It’s saddening that the interests of those that will suffer most, the non-human animals, is being put last. 

 

 

It is unfortunate that you would probably have lost many "pro hunters" with such an eloquent and well put post.

[madbradd]

 

I think straight off the bat that, considering most of the responses on this thread, that very few people take time to fundamentally understand the question. Does hunting contribute to conversation? 

 

The first question that should be answered is what is understood by ‘conservation’ and why there is a claimed need for conservation. The second question is what is understood by hunting and whether it promotes, harms or has no impact on species conservation. 

 

In general, wildlife conservation is the practice of protecting wild plant and animal species and their habitat. Conservation can be either be in situ (protecting endemic species in their natural habitat) or ex situ (maintenance and breeding of endangered plants and animals controlled conditions such as zoo, gardens, nurseries). It is also important to keep in mind that there are conservation-reliant species of fauna and flora. These require constant conservation, as without it extinction is a certainty. 

 

Now, the question as to why species conservation is necessary, the answer is virtually always the same: human intervention in natural environments. We are the primary cause of why other animals need to be protected.  

 

Within the context of this discussion, hunting is related to in situ conservation. The types of hunting that are relevant here are either trophy hunting or culling. Thus, does trophy hunting or culling promote, harm or have no impact on species conservation? The answer to that question is, unfortunately, that it can both promote and harm species conservation. Reading the available literature, it’s clear that this type of question is very region specific and that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of hard science/data available. There is a whole lot of pro- and against anecdote dressed up a scientific analyses, but they’re easy to spot and even easier to dismiss than a pro-dietary cholesterol study funded by the American Egg Board. 

 

The strongest argument that the pro-hunting group rely on is that their payments for hunts provide the financial means to support conservation efforts in a specific area. This would typically include anti-poaching efforts, supporting local communities, infrastructure, etc. However, there are a number of issues associated with trophy hunting: 1) ethics (see below) 2) failure to involve local communities and 3) biological constraints, including poor quota establishment, overhunting, predator removal, etc. 

 

It is common for the benefits of hunting to be exaggerated. This makes sense, as there is a vested interest for these parties to ensure the survival of this sport.

 

In pondering this question, I keep on coming back to humanity’s dysfunctional and abusive relationship with our fellow earthlings. We move into natural ecosystems, create artificial borders, put up game fencing and then have to start playing god, because we’ve disrupted the natural ecosystem. A Limpopo ranch breeding antelope for hunts or a canned lion facility in the North West does sweet blue fokol for conservation. I can’t believe that hunting could ever be a sustainable form of conservation. Unless we square our concepts of property rights to better align with natural ecosystems and allow nature to self-regulate, we’ll continue to lose species at current rates. 

 

This is such a complex issue, because that is how WE’VE made it. It’s saddening that the interests of those that will suffer most, the non-human animals, is being put last. 

 

 

That's the nail on the head. Too many people for the planet, and the collective mindset that the planet is ours to treat the way we want. As a result of our actions, conservation is a necessity to keep many species going. Unfortunately, the only way that conservation can continue is if there is funding (the ethics of this is a different debate). The reality is that you get many more people who will pay USD10k + costs to hunt a buffalo/elephant/lion and have the opportunity to kill it, than you will get people to go for a walk in the bush for 10 days (again, the ethics of this is a different debate). Further to that, if there are too many of a particular species for the area (and no buyers for the live animal), why not sell the hunt instead of having to kill the animal for no return?

 

In today's age where humans are effectively the predators which are becoming (or have become) an out of control population, when do we take measures to regulate our own population? Makes you wonder if Thanos is actually the good guy....