Hunting - yes or no?

[Odinson]

Leeubok, not to be mean, you're taking a very reductionist approach to this topic you started, which is a bit odd. 

[HeyYou]

if everybody chose fish our oceans would be dead in no time. Commercial fishing takes from the wild and does not replace.

 

Our oceans are almost dead already!!

 

As far as I'm aware, not one commercial (and most recreational) fishery is sustainable.

 

I don't hunt, or fish and I've been in conservation 45 years.

 

I've yet to read, explore, any good arguments for either hunting or commercial fishing.

 

And yet, I eat meat, in moderation, as I suspect omnivores are meant to!!!

[J∆kk∆ls]

Our oceans are almost dead already!!

 

As far as I'm aware, not one commercial (and most recreational) fishery is sustainable.

 

I don't hunt, or fish and I've been in conservation 45 years.

 

I've yet to read, explore, any good arguments for either hunting or commercial fishing.

 

And yet, I eat meat, in moderation, as I suspect omnivores are meant to!!!

Water conservation has a huge part to play in my argument. How much water was needed for me to get my own meat vs buying meat that has gone through a rigorous commercial pipeline? 

 

Here are some stats that might shock some of you! (Directed at HubLand) 

[DJR]

..................

The fact is that we collectively do not know to what extent private game ranching contributes to biodiversity conservation. There is no data available. The same is true for agricultural land. No one knows the contribution of traditional agriculture to biodiversity conservation. I'm not being argumentative to push an agenda - that is the truth of the situation. Therefore, if you make a claim one way or the other, you're basing yourself on anecdote and personal experience...............

There is also such a thing as common wisdom. It makes little sense to spend time and money on a study to compare a piece of fynbos reserve with an adjacent grain field to determine which one is better for the environment and biodiversity. The answer is so obvious that it can safely be accepted as true (until proved otherwise?). If we want to argue reasonably, that is the kind of thing we should be able to agree on without having to quote chapter and verse.

 

So, if I tell you I know a little scrap of land near Paarl, that a farming family put aside as a reserve for the endangered geometric tortoise, 40 or more years ago, and I walk across it every once in a while, and I see the fynbos, the flowers and (not very often) a tortoise, and that there are hundreds more species than in the grain fields and the vineyards surrounding it on all sides, I don't think I need  to prove my anecdotal evidence with a study in order to make it valid or true. Common wisdom.

 

Of course, we can agree to ONLY argue proven facts, peer reviewed studies, but then we will also have to leave ALL emotion, morality and dogma out of it.

 

Little quote:

"The first reptile reserve in Africa, the J.N. Briers-Louw Nature Reserve was established in 1972 near Paarl to protect the geometric tortoise and its habitat." 

 

Perhaps that is a good example of how one man, or just one family, can make a difference. They didn't need a scientific paper, they knew something had to be done, they could, and they did something! Long before conservation was even a hot word. It cost them the money they could have made from growing crops there for so many years, but for that the world is a little bit richer!  

Edited October 25, 2018 by DJR

[deanbean]

There is also such a thing as common wisdom. It makes little sense to spend time and money on a study to compare a piece of fynbos reserve with an adjacent grain field to determine which one is better for the environment and biodiversity. The answer is so obvious that it can safely be accepted as true (until proved otherwise?). If we want to argue reasonably, that is the kind of thing we should be able to agree on without having to quote chapter and verse.

 

So, if I tell you I know a little scrap of land near Paarl, that a farming family put aside as a reserve for the endangered geometric tortoise, 30 or more years ago, and I walk across it every once in a while, and I see the fynbos, the flowers and (not very often) a tortoise, and that there are hundreds more species than in the grain fields and the vineyards surrounding it on all sides, I don't think I need to prove my anecdotal evidence with a study in order to make it valid or true. Common wisdom.

 

Of course, we can agree to ONLY argue proven facts, peer reviewed studies, but then we will also have to leave ALL emotion, morality and dogma out of it.

I've got a 40ha piece of forest that my grandfather set aside and fenced off in the late 50's as a preserve in the middle of our farm. Probably the main reason that we have so many wild animals on the farm.

 

edit No livestock permitted in there

Edited October 25, 2018 by deanbean

[Slowbee]

There is also such a thing as common wisdom. It makes little sense to spend time and money on a study to compare a piece of fynbos reserve with an adjacent grain field to determine which one is better for the environment and biodiversity. The answer is so obvious that it can safely be accepted as true (until proved otherwise?). If we want to argue reasonably, that is the kind of thing we should be able to agree on without having to quote chapter and verse.

 

So, if I tell you I know a little scrap of land near Paarl, that a farming family put aside as a reserve for the endangered geometric tortoise, 30 or more years ago, and I walk across it every once in a while, and I see the fynbos, the flowers and (not very often) a tortoise, and that there are hundreds more species than in the grain fields and the vineyards surrounding it on all sides, I don't think I need  to prove my anecdotal evidence with a study in order to make it valid or true. Common wisdom.

 

Of course, we can agree to ONLY argue proven facts, peer reviewed studies, but then we will also have to leave ALL emotion, morality and dogma out of it.

AND assume that the funding for peer review does not introduce any bias.

 

monoculture stands, are just that.

 

where are those videos of people using explosives to kill the RBQ's?

[HeyYou]

AND assume that the funding for peer review does not introduce any bias.

 

monoculture stands, are just that.

 

where are those videos of people using explosives to kill the RBQ's?

 

To set the record straight .....

It costs money to do the research, which someone has to pay. Sometimes the $ comes from dubious sources, with odious agendas.

It sometimes costs money to publish a paper, especially in a 'high impact' journal.

But, peer review is FREE. I have reviewed thousands of papers and never once have I received payment for a peer review.

Examining theses, attracts payment of sorts!!!! You won't become rich on it, it's seen more as a gratuity (a tip if you like). Depending on the University, you might be paid $150, even up to $250 for 2/3 weeks worth of work, generally done after normal working hours!!!!

[DJR]

B.t.w. Heyyou is not just an expert on classic steel bicycles........     

[forkie]

There is also such a thing as common wisdom. It makes little sense to spend time and money on a study to compare a piece of fynbos reserve with an adjacent grain field to determine which one is better for the environment and biodiversity. The answer is so obvious that it can safely be accepted as true (until proved otherwise?). If we want to argue reasonably, that is the kind of thing we should be able to agree on without having to quote chapter and verse.

 

So, if I tell you I know a little scrap of land near Paarl, that a farming family put aside as a reserve for the endangered geometric tortoise, 40 or more years ago, and I walk across it every once in a while, and I see the fynbos, the flowers and (not very often) a tortoise, and that there are hundreds more species than in the grain fields and the vineyards surrounding it on all sides, I don't think I need  to prove my anecdotal evidence with a study in order to make it valid or true. Common wisdom.

 

Of course, we can agree to ONLY argue proven facts, peer reviewed studies, but then we will also have to leave ALL emotion, morality and dogma out of it.

 

Little quote:

"The first reptile reserve in Africa, the J.N. Briers-Louw Nature Reserve was established in 1972 near Paarl to protect the geometric tortoise and its habitat." 

 

Perhaps that is a good example of how one man, or just one family, can make a difference. They didn't need a scientific paper, they knew something had to be done, they could, and they did something! Long before conservation was even a hot word. It cost them the money they could have made from growing crops there for so many years, but for that the world is a little bit richer!  

Delete this post now! there is absolutely no room for this kind of common sense in this argument

[SwissVan]

The unfortunate reality of the situation is we as humans "own" the land. And we always want a return from the land. Yes this is unfair on the planet and its wrong, but it is what it is. With this in mind, the biggest argument for hunting / game farms is that it is much less harmful to the general environment than planting crops or running cattle / sheep / goats. just look at the karoo how angoras have destroyed the natural vegetaion. So if hunting was banned and all these game farmers had to then do something else with their land we would lose huge amounts of natural faun and flora.

Hunters could mostly hunt with a camera, bragging rights or sense of achievement would be directly related to the size (or the lack of) of the zoom lens. Farmers could then start another income source developing and framing the pictures, maybe even 3D printing wall mountable trophies.....

[mazambaan]

Really heartening post from DJR and from someone who is or was "into" reptiles I understand that quite a few snakes with limited habitat in the W Cape and hence rare are threatened by fire and habitat destruction.

 

So too a focus on hunting can be detrimental to other species and biodiversity but better than mono culture of exotic species; sadly timber and sugar cane being examples.

[forkie]

Hunters could mostly hunt with a camera, bragging rights or sense of achievement would be directly related to the size (or the lack of) of the zoom lens. Farmers could then start another income source developing and framing the pictures, maybe even 3D printing wall mountable trophies.....

unfortunately if you print the photos and hang them for a week, they will not become biltong

[DJR]

Hunters could mostly hunt with a camera, bragging rights or sense of achievement would be directly related to the size (or the lack of) of the zoom lens. Farmers could then start another income source developing and framing the pictures, maybe even 3D printing wall mountable trophies.....

I know you have your tongue in cheek with this, but I do have many a roan, sable, lion, buffalo, elephant, leopard and cheetah trophy photograph. Many were stalked on foot, along the principles of fair-chase (300mm telephoto lens maximum  ), but I have to admit to shooting a few from a vehicle. 

[Odinson]

There is also such a thing as common wisdom. It makes little sense to spend time and money on a study to compare a piece of fynbos reserve with an adjacent grain field to determine which one is better for the environment and biodiversity. The answer is so obvious that it can safely be accepted as true (until proved otherwise?). If we want to argue reasonably, that is the kind of thing we should be able to agree on without having to quote chapter and verse.

 

So, if I tell you I know a little scrap of land near Paarl, that a farming family put aside as a reserve for the endangered geometric tortoise, 40 or more years ago, and I walk across it every once in a while, and I see the fynbos, the flowers and (not very often) a tortoise, and that there are hundreds more species than in the grain fields and the vineyards surrounding it on all sides, I don't think I need  to prove my anecdotal evidence with a study in order to make it valid or true. Common wisdom.

 

Of course, we can agree to ONLY argue proven facts, peer reviewed studies, but then we will also have to leave ALL emotion, morality and dogma out of it.

 

Little quote:

"The first reptile reserve in Africa, the J.N. Briers-Louw Nature Reserve was established in 1972 near Paarl to protect the geometric tortoise and its habitat." 

 

Perhaps that is a good example of how one man, or just one family, can make a difference. They didn't need a scientific paper, they knew something had to be done, they could, and they did something! Long before conservation was even a hot word. It cost them the money they could have made from growing crops there for so many years, but for that the world is a little bit richer!  

 

DJR, I'm not suspending common sense in this discussion. 

 

You seem to be on the same reductionist wavelength as leeubok, but I'll entertain it for a moment. Yes, I agree with you that a hypothetical 1000ha monocropped piece of land will have lower biodiversity than an adjacent 1000ha ranch. 

 

However, we're not discussing hypotheticals about biodiversity levels. The question is whether game ranches contribute to species biodiversity and conservation. Thus, will a private game ranch ensure that there is no loss of the fauna and flora biodiversity and ensure that the existing biodiversity is conserved? I've stated this numerous times, but ~45% of game ranches are mixed use, so the "I'm doing it for conservation" and "Hunters are conservationists" claims ring a bit hollow to me. 

 

Private game ranchers have clear commercial interests and they're not going to empty their pockets to protect plants and animals which have no economic value to them. "If it pays, it stays", right? Game ranchers are motivated by their bottom line. That's why so many dropped traditional agriculture the moment the Stock Theft Act gave them the means to commodify the wildlife on their property - they realised how lucrative it is, among other considerations.  Most farmers also do not have the knowledge, skills or resources to properly ensure conservation efforts. 

 

In the same way that I do not trust McDonalds to have public health in mind if they we're allowed to set our food pyramid, I simply do not trust game ranchers to act in the best interests of wildlife and entrusting them in ensuring that SA's rich biodiversity is conserved. 

[Goodbadugly]

DJR, I'm not suspending common sense in this discussion. 

 

You seem to be on the same reductionist wavelength Uncalled for namecalling.as leeubok, but I'll entertain it for a moment. Yes, I agree with you that a hypothetical 1000ha monocropped piece of land will have lower biodiversity than an adjacent 1000ha ranch. 

 

However, we're not discussing hypotheticals about biodiversity levels. The question is whether game ranches contribute to species biodiversity and conservation. Thus, will a private game ranch ensure that there is no loss of the fauna and flora biodiversity and ensure that the existing biodiversity is conserved? you ever involved in farming? I've stated this numerous times, but ~45% of game ranches are mixed use, so the "I'm doing it for conservation" and "Hunters are conservationists" claims ring a bit hollow to me. 

 

Private game ranchers have clear commercial interests and they're not going to empty their pockets to protect plants and animals which have no economic value to them. "If it pays, it stays", right? wrong Game ranchers are motivated by their bottom line. That's why so many dropped traditional agriculture the moment the Stock Theft Act gave them the means to commodify the wildlife on their property - they realised how lucrative it is, among other considerations.  Most farmers also do not have the knowledge, skills or resources to properly ensure conservation efforts. Wrong assumption.

 

In the same way that I do not trust McDonalds to have public health in mind if they we're allowed to set our food pyramid, I simply do not trust game ranchers to act in the best interests of wildlife and entrusting them in ensuring that SA's rich biodiversity is conserved. 

[Odinson]

 

DJR, I'm not suspending common sense in this discussion. 

 

You seem to be on the same reductionist wavelength Uncalled for namecalling.as leeubok, but I'll entertain it for a moment. Yes, I agree with you that a hypothetical 1000ha monocropped piece of land will have lower biodiversity than an adjacent 1000ha ranch. 

 

However, we're not discussing hypotheticals about biodiversity levels. The question is whether game ranches contribute to species biodiversity and conservation. Thus, will a private game ranch ensure that there is no loss of the fauna and flora biodiversity and ensure that the existing biodiversity is conserved? you ever involved in farming? I've stated this numerous times, but ~45% of game ranches are mixed use, so the "I'm doing it for conservation" and "Hunters are conservationists" claims ring a bit hollow to me. 

 

Private game ranchers have clear commercial interests and they're not going to empty their pockets to protect plants and animals which have no economic value to them. "If it pays, it stays", right? wrong Game ranchers are motivated by their bottom line. That's why so many dropped traditional agriculture the moment the Stock Theft Act gave them the means to commodify the wildlife on their property - they realised how lucrative it is, among other considerations.  Most farmers also do not have the knowledge, skills or resources to properly ensure conservation efforts. Wrong assumption.

 

In the same way that I do not trust McDonalds to have public health in mind if they we're allowed to set our food pyramid, I simply do not trust game ranchers to act in the best interests of wildlife and entrusting them in ensuring that SA's rich biodiversity is conserved. 

 

 

What I imagine you like when commenting on my post