Hunting - yes or no?

[Gen]

We build fences, screw with nature, and then need to kill animals to bring balance as a result of the imbalance we have directly created?

Yip.

[leeubok]

You are again putting words in my mouth. I’m not sure I called anybody names. I did say that the arguments of hunting as an industry doesn’t speak to the people who get boners from killing animals though.

 

Edit: Perhaps that was a tangent that I should not have started. And to be clear, no I do not put ALL hunters in the same group. You should know that I hate absolutes. 

 

So more to your point.

 

Like I said, arguments can be made that support hunting, but I am sure that there are alternatives that will have both pro's and cons.

 

The danger that we have here is that I suppose those that this will go down the line of all identity polices there days, and that it will "pro hunter" will dispute all alternatives, and those oppose hunting will see the alternatives as the only solution. 

 

Couldn't we also say that the need to cull and conserve is a need created by ourselves too?

Did you not say you can call hunters whatever you like? I'm sure you didn't mean you were going to give them flowery praises.. 

[leeubok]

Don't get what you are trying to achieve with this thread - you start of with a long essay on why you are convinced hunting is great and now you try to phrase it as a question weather hunting contribute to conservation when its already crystal clear on where you stand on this?

 

The whole hunting contribute to conservation is a paradox, it is because of hunting that conservation is needed in the first place. Now you want applause that money generated by hunting helps conservation. Well if the money don't go to conservation then hunters will just shoot out animals to extinction.

 

Obviously there needs to be some balance found wrt hunting and money from hunting helps to achieve that, but I think to applaud hunting as a savior for the conservation of animals is intellectually dishonest.

Yes. I put forward my arguments as to why I think hunting is at present essential for biodiversity conservation. I gave those who oppose hunting a chance to put forward their argument as to why the opposite is true. So far no-one has done that. 

 

In the past hunting did lead to massive population crashes yes. But we are not in the situation we are in today because of that. Human population growth has led us to where we are now. Because we need more and more space, biodiversity has less and less space left. This is why protected areas had to be established. And this is why I'm saying hunting farms are playing their part in conserving wildlife

[leeubok]

That raises the question, instead of hunting for conservation, could one take some of those canned lions and introduce them to areas where big buck numbers need to be kept down?

You'd then have to control the lion numbers. They breed very quickly..

[leeubok]

We build fences, screw with nature, and then need to kill animals to bring balance as a result of the imbalance we have directly created?

Well, yes. We have to. Do you think humans could live in harmony with wildlife? We have millions of poor people living in rural areas, no jobs, no food. There's a reason why there's no wildlife left in those areas. 

 

But yes you are right, the situation we (and wildlife) are in now were created by humans. All we can do now is make best with what we have left and conserve it to the best of our abilities. 

[leeubok]

Kruger is one huge zoo. A kinda well managed Zoo - but a zoo non the less.

 

It is only within the last 5 years they have closed most of the boreholes. The simple presence of the boreholes changed the entire system dynamics. The use of elephants to control stratification and hence bush encroachment coupled with fire means then entire system is managed. Yes natural process occur - but they are managed. Whether they are well managed is an entire other discussion.

Yes it is enclosed and compared to some other reserves elsewhere in Africa it is actually quite small. But it is the closest we have to a natural system. Those guys working there have a difficult job. Because there are millions of Oom Jannies who's been going to Kruger for 30+ years who think they know better how to manage the place. 

[Rouxenator]

I maybe over simplifying things here, but the one time I did go hunting and returned home with 3 springbokke we ended up eating all of the meat.

 

To me the hunting trip was just a way more social experience than going down to the butchery and buying the same. 

[Dirt De Vil]

In the name of conservation, what’s the difference?

 

I would expect that with conservation there would be a good measure of control and intelligence in the mix that takes herd sizes, inbreeding, head per hectare etc into account. Further, the marksmanship, caliber etc etc would be on par for the task on hand. Control on consumption of alcoholic drinks 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Dirt De Vil

[forkie]

We build fences, screw with nature, and then need to kill animals to bring balance as a result of the imbalance we have directly created?

all this so that the vegans can have their crops....

[Chris_]

Hunting - Yes

Hunting imo - tracking your prey for 6hrs and taking the shot downwind from 200m plus, taking your kill home for the pot or biltong, then having a beer as a toast.

Shooting - No

Shooting imo - killing a blesbok from 50 meters away with a elephant gun on the back of a bakkie on the midday break from lounging under the lapa while your bud holds your branna

 

You can see how this is the same thing right? 

 

Whether you're having your fun by stalking, or you're having fun off the back of a bakkie, either way the animal doesn't stand a chance, and its going to get killed, and chopped up on your plate.

 

The difference it seems is the money. Which may be more where the OP was going. 

 

The lazy hunter pays the farm to eat, drink, be merry and shoot. They create the need for farms with poor animal wellfare which are only growing them as a commodity to generate wealth. This is not conservation, this is preservation (of man).

 

You the active hunter, may have his own farm which is more sustainably run, and chooses to insert animals in such a way that there will be a small imbalance, which you then hunt. Maybe I'm being generous here. I see sustainable farming as a positive (if you're John Smith and you can't afford the land you own - maybe you don't need such a large piece? Sustainability, self sufficiency is key) Either way by removing yourself from the cycle of mass demand for meat supply, is where we can make an indirect conservation impact. The stats/facts on deforestation and environmental impact of raising cattle for food, and food to feed them, is undeniable. So maybe its not conservation of natural wild lands as we picture it, but I think is a more responsible way to live, and a more indirect way of conservation of the planet as a whole. 

[leeubok]

You can see how this is the same thing right? 

 

Whether you're having your fun by stalking, or you're having fun off the back of a bakkie, either way the animal doesn't stand a chance, and its going to get killed, and chopped up on your plate.

 

The difference it seems is the money. Which may be more where the OP was going. 

 

The lazy hunter pays the farm to eat, drink, be merry and shoot. They create the need for farms with poor animal wellfare which are only growing them as a commodity to generate wealth. This is not conservation, this is preservation (of man).

 

You the active hunter, may have his own farm which is more sustainably run, and chooses to insert animals in such a way that there will be a small imbalance, which you then hunt. Maybe I'm being generous here. I see sustainable farming as a positive (if you're John Smith and you can't afford the land you own - maybe you don't need such a large piece? Sustainability, self sufficiency is key) Either way by removing yourself from the cycle of mass demand for meat supply, is where we can make an indirect conservation impact. The stats/facts on deforestation and environmental impact of raising cattle for food, and food to feed them, is undeniable. So maybe its not conservation of natural wild lands as we picture it, but I think is a more responsible way to live, and a more indirect way of conservation of the planet as a whole. 

" Either way by removing yourself from the cycle of mass demand for meat supply, is where we can make an indirect conservation impact." - No. The opposite is true. You are taking away the value of those animals that are hunted. As I said in my OP, if it pays it stays. The days of conserving wildlife for the sake of conservation is gone, unfortunately.

 

Cattle farms can actually contribute to conservation, if managed properly. If there is no over grazing, you can still get the odd reedbuck, duiker, oribi, caracal etc on the farm. Plus all the smaller things we don't always think of. Birds nesting on the property - cranes, bustards etc.. Insect life.. 

[GaryP]

Hi. My opinion is that this is another one of those topics which, no matter what, is totally dependent on your own personal views and will have "valid" opinions both for and against. Further, no amount of discussion is likely to change anyone's point of view either. The only likely results are a bit of view sharing, some sparring and, after a while, we all go on with our lives regardless of what was written here.

 

Happy Friday!

[FrankG]

all this so that the vegans can have their crops....

Yeah we’re a selfish bunch, concerned about the environment, sustainability, animal welfare, our health etc.

 

Edit: apologies, getting off topic

Edited October 19, 2018 by FrankG

[Chris_]

" Either way by removing yourself from the cycle of mass demand for meat supply, is where we can make an indirect conservation impact." - No. The opposite is true. You are taking away the value of those animals that are hunted. As I said in my OP, if it pays it stays. The days of conserving wildlife for the sake of conservation is gone, unfortunately.

 

Cattle farms can actually contribute to conservation, if managed properly. If there is no over grazing, you can still get the odd reedbuck, duiker, oribi, caracal etc on the farm. Plus all the smaller things we don't always think of. Birds nesting on the property - cranes, bustards etc.. Insect life.. 

 

Yes, you conveniently snuck that in. Your friend Bob the farmer who farms in the midlands with his 'happy' cows, providing small 'artisanal' butcheries is probably doing a great job not cutting up the land. I agree. 'If managed properly' is key, hence my mention of sustainability.

 

But what about the guys providing meat to the rest of the world? The other 99% of our shops? Why are we cutting up the Amazon as an example? We keep mentioning biodiversity - thats a pretty important one. One reason is wood demand. One is cattle. One is soy production - and again 99% of that soy is not for vegans, its to feed the cattle being grown. We're destroying our most important lands to feed people meat.

 

So again, I maintain, by removing yourself from this cycle of demand, you are making a difference to the level of destruction to the earth.

[forkie]

serious question / comment. I have always found it quite weird that hunters get such negative press all the time, but fishermen never do. Generally speaking hunters, in some way or other, replace what they take - usually through the huge amounts of money they pay. Fishermen dont. they just take from the wild in, what i consider, a much more inhumane and cruel way. the oceans are currently in a terrible state but we still have this romantic view about fishing.

[forkie]

and dont get me started on the millions of hectares of wild land that is destroyed worldwide so that some fool can walk around after a little white ball.