# Backlash over hunt



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 19, 2013)

First of all, I hope this isn't out of bounds for this board - if it is, please accept my apology and lock.

Linky-dinky.

So this gal goes on a legal safari in South Africa - spending many thousands of dollars that will go toward conservation practices and actually protecting the animals she was hunting - and now the South African people are petitioning for her to be banned from ever entering the country again.

I'm gonna step outside of my standard 'don't say a lot so as to not lead the discussion' philosophy for a moment to say this: These people have no idea what it is they're talking about.  Money from hunting goes toward conservation efforts - including anti poaching initiatives.  The meat is donated to locals and eaten.  In poor areas people poach because the demand for parts of these animals is high and they can then make money to pay for food for their families.  What hunting here does is give those same locals with wilderness expertise paying jobs as trackers, cooks, whatever - well paying and well tipped jobs.  This money means they don't need to illegally kill animals or illegally kill endangered animals.  In short, this woman they're decrying has likely done far more for the animals they profess to love than any of them have.  They're just too ignorant and stoopid to understand it.

Hunters spend money and that money is used to protect the environment and the animals in it.  Most people who whine about the practice have donated exactly $0 to do the same.  You tell me who's more concerned about animal welfare.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

You know, she could go on the same safari, spend the same money, but just take pics. It would conserve a bit more than hunting.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2013)

All you say is fine.. if you're hunting something that isn't already vulnerable or endangered.  Once you are talking about hunting endangered species, the money you bring in probably does not offset the damage you do to the species in hunting.  

For example - there are probably about 20 Siberian tigers left in all of China.  Even if you pay a million dollars a head, you don't help save the species by killing them.  The math just doesn't work that way. There is no amount of money that will offset the loss to the species' genetic pool.

If you're really interested in conservation of endangered species, you go on safari with a *camera*, not a rifle.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 19, 2013)

goldomark said:


> You know, she could go on the same safari, spend the same money, but just take pics. It would conserve a bit more than hunting.




Except that picture safaris don't cost the same amount, don't employ the same amount of native people, don't sendnearly as much money to the national conservancy agencies, provide no meat for the hungry villagers and therefore do not offer the same incentives actual hunts do.



Umbran said:


> All you say is fine.. if you're hunting something that isn't already vulnerable or endangered.  Once you are talking about hunting endangered species, the money you bring in probably does not offset the damage you do to the species in hunting.
> 
> For example - there are probably about 20 Siberian tigers left in all of China.  Even if you pay a million dollars a head, you don't help save the species by killing them.  The math just doesn't work that way. There is no amount of money that will offset the loss to the species' genetic pool.
> 
> If you're really interested in conservation of endangered species, you go on safari with a *camera*, not a rifle.




Lions are not endangered.  They are classified as 'vulnerable' which means that they will end up on the endangered list unless the circumstances that have made them vulnerable change.  Those circumstances are habitat loss and poaching.  Hunting actually alleviates poaching for the reasons I've already explained.  Habitat loss is a little more complex and, in reality, makes the case for a smaller number of animals.  While it may be nice to have 3 billion lions roaming the African plains and hills, well, there just isn't enough room for them.  

Additionally, Kruger National Park is in South Africa and it's purpose is to protect species that need protection.  Safari money, in part, pays for the park and those who patrol it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Except that picture safaris don't cost the same amount, don't employ the same amount of native people, don't sendnearly as much money to the national conservancy agencies, provide no meat for the hungry villagers and therefore do not offer the same incentives actual hunts do.



My god, it is has if they need whitey to save them.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 19, 2013)

goldomark said:


> My god, it is has if they need whitey to save them.




Nope.  They just need money and this provides a source that doesn't involve selling rhino horns to the Chinese.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 19, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Hunters spend money and that money is used to protect the environment and the animals in it.  Most people who whine about the practice have donated exactly $0 to do the same.  You tell me who's more concerned about animal welfare.




I know plenty of people who oppose hunting and donate money to preserve wildlife. 

I don't know, i have trouble sympathizing with people who want to go to other peoples' countries and hunt their wild life, then act surprised when there is a reaction.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 19, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I know plenty of people who oppose hunting and donate money to preserve wildlife.
> 
> I don't know, i have trouble sympathizing with people who want to go to other peoples' countries and hunt their wild life, then act surprised when there is a reaction.




Why shouldn't she be surprised?  The country facilitated her hunt.  Without the laws South Africa has in place regarding her hunt she wouldn't have been able to do it.  The people employed by the agency she used for her safari took her money, the villagers took the meat and the gov't gladly accepted her license fees.  So yeah, why _shouldn't _she be surprised that now they're pretending none of that happened and that she's some sort of globe trotting murderer?  They played a pretty big part, you know.

Srsly, what do you think?  Do you think you can just hop a plane over to Africa with a rifle and shoot whatever the hell you want or something?  Safaris are heavily regulated.  Do you know why?  Hunting money does a lot for these countries so they make sure that hunters can come back again and again.  They're _wanted_.  They're economically _needed_.  To pretend otherwise is absurd.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Except that picture safaris don't cost the same amount, don't employ the same amount of native people, don't sendnearly as much money to the national conservancy agencies, provide no meat for the hungry villagers and therefore do not offer the same incentives actual hunts do.




The food needs of villagers can be handled in far more economical and sustainable ways.  They likely need a steady stream of lentils far more than they need an occasional dead lion carcass.

What is charged for safaris and how that money is doled out is, of course, out of our hands.  But my understanding of the biological needs is that the animals would be better served by higher priced or more photo safaris than by hunting.



> Lions are not endangered.




Yes, and I noted, "if you're hunting something that isn't already vulnerable or endangered."  So, that's covered.  



> Those circumstances are habitat loss and poaching. Hunting actually alleviates poaching for the reasons I've already explained.




I would have to see a pretty solid economic breakdown to accept that assertion.  My prior understanding is that hunting safaris may be intended or claimed to have the effects you claim, but the reality is that they are not effective enough in providing protection to justify the losses.  Hunting safaris simply don't pull their own weight.  

Note that I'm not against hunting in general.  In most of North America, deer are by no means endangered, and frequently overcrowd because they lack predators.  By all means, hunt them for sport.  But vulnerable and endangered species need solutions that don't include killing the very thing you intend to preserve.



> Habitat loss is a little more complex and, in reality, makes the case for a smaller number of animals.  While it may be nice to have 3 billion lions roaming the African plains and hills, well, there just isn't enough room for them.




By that logic, we solve the problem by simply removing *all* the habitat, and reduce the population to zero!  Problem solved!  

If the goal is to preserve the species, and the problem in doing that is habitat loss, the solution is not reduction in numbers, but in reversing the habitat loss.  You may need to do some population management in the short term if overcrowding occurs, but unless *everywhere* is overcrowded, relocation is a better response than hunting.



> Safari money, in part, pays for the park and those who patrol it.




Well, let's find a way to increase the volume on the less damaging eco-tourism safaris, rather than kill species that are in trouble!


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Except that picture safaris don't cost the same amount, don't employ the same amount of native people, don't sendnearly as much money to the national conservancy agencies, provide no meat for the hungry villagers and therefore do not offer the same incentives actual hunts do.




The food needs of villagers can be handled in far more economical and sustainable ways.  They likely need a steady stream of lentils far more than they need an occasional dead lion carcass.

What is charged for safaris and how that money is doled out is, of course, out of our hands.  But my understanding of the biological needs is that the animals would be better served by higher priced or more photo safaris than by hunting.



> Lions are not endangered.




Yes, and I noted, "if you're hunting something that isn't already vulnerable or endangered."  So, that's covered.  



> Those circumstances are habitat loss and poaching. Hunting actually alleviates poaching for the reasons I've already explained.




I would have to see a pretty solid economic breakdown to accept that assertion.  My prior understanding is that hunting safaris may be intended or claimed to have the effects you claim, but the reality is that they are not effective enough in providing protection to justify the losses.  Hunting safaris simply don't pull their own weight.  

Note that I'm not against hunting in general.  In most of North America, deer are by no means endangered, and frequently overcrowd because they lack predators.  By all means, hunt them for sport.  But vulnerable and endangered species need solutions that don't include killing the very thing you intend to preserve.



> Habitat loss is a little more complex and, in reality, makes the case for a smaller number of animals.  While it may be nice to have 3 billion lions roaming the African plains and hills, well, there just isn't enough room for them.




By that logic, we solve the problem by simply removing *all* the habitat, and reduce the population to zero!  Problem solved!  

If the goal is to preserve the species, and the problem in doing that is habitat loss, the solution is not reduction in numbers, but in reversing the habitat loss.  You may need to do some population management in the short term if overcrowding occurs, but unless *everywhere* is overcrowded, relocation is a better response than hunting.



> Safari money, in part, pays for the park and those who patrol it.




Well, let's find a way to increase the volume on the less damaging eco-tourism safaris, rather than kill species that are in trouble!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 19, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Why shouldn't she be surprised?  The country facilitated her hunt.  Without the laws South Africa has in place regarding her hunt she wouldn't have been able to do it.  The people employed by the agency she used for her safari took her money, the villagers took the meat and the gov't gladly accepted her license fees.  So yeah, why _shouldn't _she be surprised that now they're pretending none of that happened and that she's some sort of globe trotting murderer?  They played a pretty big part, you know.



Because it is isn't her country. She is a guest, and obviously there is public sentiment there enough to oppose this sort of thing. 



> Srsly, what do you think?  Do you think you can just hop a plane over to Africa with a rifle and shoot whatever the hell you want or something?  Safaris are heavily regulated.  Do you know why?  Hunting money does a lot for these countries so they make sure that hunters can come back again and again.  They're _wanted_.  They're economically _needed_.  To pretend otherwise is absurd.



I never suggested anything about what safari hunting is or isn't. Clearly some people there want that kind of business coming in, but equally clear some people there don't want it. This is for them to decide. not us, and not her. Look if you want to hunt, if she wants to hunt, people don't have to support it or exalt you for it. I am not saying hunting is bad or wrong, but there is a sense of entitlement here like she should get an award or something.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Nope.  They just need money and this provides a source that doesn't involve selling rhino horns to the Chinese.



Sure, jump to an extreme, that makes you more right.

They can decide how they want their resources to be exploited. Conserve more and receive less money if that is what they want. I'm not of the colonialist or paternalist mind set and think I know what is good for them.


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 20, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Because it is isn't her country. She is a guest, and obviously there is public sentiment there enough to oppose this sort of thing.




She is a guest....

So perhaps the citizens should be more annoyed at the people who invited the guest rather than the guest herself.  It doesn't matter if she's stopped or not if the inviter just finds other guests to invite.


----------



## Libramarian (Nov 20, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> You tell me who's more concerned about animal welfare.




Well that would still be the conservationists. Hunters do more for animal welfare, but in an accidental, uncaring way.

That's what capitalism does, basically. It gets people to help other people without requiring that they care about them.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 20, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> She is a guest....
> 
> So perhaps the citizens should be more annoyed at the people who invited the guest rather than the guest herself.  It doesn't matter if she's stopped or not if the inviter just finds other guests to invite.




I'd think they would be mad at both her and those who invited her.


----------



## jasper (Nov 20, 2013)

increase the volume on the less damaging eco-tourism safaris, rather than kill species that are in trouble! 

hmmmm PSST for a reasonable fee, I have a couple of free roaming red necked relatives; you could hunt. Be warned they occasionally shoot back.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 21, 2013)

While we are arguing about this the black rhino has been declared extinct. I am not anti hunting especially in places where it helps keep the prey healthy. But this kind of thing encourages the killing of these animals that may not be declared endangered but are really close.  As others have said she could accomplished the same thing by shooting pictures of lions. Just because she was invited does not mean that this country is doing all that it can to protect its wildlife. The only reason the trade on exotic parrots from South America slowed was because it became illegal to import them to the countries that were buying them for the pet trade. It was not the countries in South America that wanted the ban many felt it was going to punish the poor who captured them.  

One big way to stop pouching make it very hard to sell the items to the counties that have the money to buy them.


----------



## Abraxas (Nov 21, 2013)

Libramarian said:


> Well that would still be the conservationists. Hunters do more for animal welfare, but in an accidental, uncaring way.



I strongly disagree. Some hunters - not all, and I would say only a minority - are uncaring. 

We also have conservationists that are uncaring about how their actions impact people and communities.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 21, 2013)

Umbran said:


> The food needs of villagers can be handled in far more economical and sustainable ways.  They likely need a steady stream of lentils far more than they need an occasional dead lion carcass.




If that were the case then there would be a different solution in place, no?  They _don't _have enough food which is _why _they turn to poaching for either food or money to buy food.  



> What is charged for safaris and how that money is doled out is, of course, out of our hands.  But my understanding of the biological needs is that the animals would be better served by higher priced or more photo safaris than by hunting.




In most cases this just isn't true.  And how, exactly, do you propose you increase the amount of photo safaris - especially if you raise the price?  People will pay for what they want to pay for.  That's something you can't change.



> I would have to see a pretty solid economic breakdown to accept that assertion.  My prior understanding is that hunting safaris may be intended or claimed to have the effects you claim, but the reality is that they are not effective enough in providing protection to justify the losses.  Hunting safaris simply don't pull their own weight.




Here's some things I think are rather important to understand: Most safaris are not safaris that involve taking the Big 5.  The reason is that it's _incredibly _expensive to kill a lion, leopard, elephant or rhino and the numbers that are allowed to be taken are incredibly small.  Quite simply, not terribly many are killed because not many are allowed to be killed.

The only member of the Big 5 that's killed in any number is the Cape Buffalo and there are quite a few of those running around.  The rest?  It's not common.

Very often leopards, lions and even elephants that are harvested are what are considered 'problem animals'.  They kill livestock, people or both and the villagers ask the PH to take care of the problem.  The animal is killed, used and money is made.

Elephants are also regaining sufficient population in their areas or their environment is being depleted at a sufficient rate thatnumbers really _are _too high for sustainability in those specific places.  It's important to keep in mind that while Area X may have 5 elephants barely holding on, Area Y may have 5 too many to maintain a healthy heard.  Males are also the only animals harvested unless a female becomes a problem animal.

Rhino are, in some places, open for hunting even though their population is pretty small.  The reason here is money - but not why you'd assume.  The only animals that are allowed to be taken are old males who are past breeding age.  These animals offer nothing to perpetuate the species and, in fact, are a danger to it now that the numbers are what they are.  They are typically very aggressive and can kill people or other rhino if they're in the mood.  Additionally, as they're no longer suitable for breeding, they use resources that rhino capable of breeding have a need for.  

So yeah, the picture is bigger than a lot of people seem to understand.  Again, if you think it's as easy as booking a flight and a safari to go and kill a lion, try it.  Tell me how many mortgages it'll take for you to get it done if you can even book a hunt to do it.  

This is obviously an unfortunate situation all its own - only the rich can do it.  However, I much prefer someone doing something than people whining about it and doing nothing.



> Note that I'm not against hunting in general.  In most of North America, deer are by no means endangered, and frequently overcrowd because they lack predators.  By all means, hunt them for sport.  But vulnerable and endangered species need solutions that don't include killing the very thing you intend to preserve.




If you support hunting to curb overpopulation than you support hunting lion.  Again, the regions where this is legal and permitted have more than enough lion - which is why the hunts are allowed at all.  The enemy is habitat destruction.  A lot has been done in that regard already and we need to manage populations with that in mind ... kind of what the gov'ts over there are trying to do.

By the way, I hunt deer to make sure there's always deer.  Money for tags, ammo and other stuff I buy goes to the Pittman-Robertson fund and money from that fund is used to do things like reserve land so that it cannot be developed.  In fact, hunting is basically the reason there are so many deer today.  There's plenty of evidence that shows that conservation programs paid for by hunters and that include hunting as a population control measure have aided in the restoration of many species in America.  Deer, turkey and even elk.  Thanks to hunting, elk have been returned to PA and KY - so successfully that they've opened limited seasons to hunt them.  Hunting isn't just about killing things or even killing them to make sure there aren't too many.  There's a lot more to it.



> By that logic, we solve the problem by simply removing *all* the habitat, and reduce the population to zero!  Problem solved!




Sure ... I mean, if you wanna take it to a pointless extreme.  Look, we have the habitat we have and we have the number of animals living in that habitat that we do.  Management dictates we keep a certain number of animals that habitat size determines is possible to keep.  It's math.  

We can cry over spilt milk all we like but that doesn't change what must be done.  Obviously we need more habitat but that's not something we currently have.  The animals alive today can't wait for a tomorrow that may never come.  We deal with reality, not ideal situations.



> If the goal is to preserve the species, and the problem in doing that is habitat loss, the solution is not reduction in numbers, but in reversing the habitat loss.  You may need to do some population management in the short term if overcrowding occurs, but unless *everywhere* is overcrowded, relocation is a better response than hunting.




Sure, you could relocate.  Thing is, nobody over there wants to pay for it.  It's been done in America and it's worked, too (far too well as far as wolves are concerned, as a matter of fact), but it's time consuming and resource/expertise heavy.  If you don't have enough money to staff anti-poaching units despite donations and money from safaris, etc, well, you don't have enough money to start relocating animals.

Again, we deal with reality and not ideal situations.



> Well, let's find a way to increase the volume on the less damaging eco-tourism safaris, rather than kill species that are in trouble!




That's an option and one I'd personally be totally fine with.  Despite how I may have presented myself, I have no desire to ever kill a lion, leopard, elephant or rhino.  Hell, I don't wanna even kill a bear.  Not my style - too much respect for the predators,  I guess.  The thing is, we can't wait for a tomorrow that may never come.  In the meantime, this is the best we have and it'd be insane to stop the only thing we have going to help.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 21, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Because it is isn't her country. She is a guest, and obviously there is public sentiment there enough to oppose this sort of thing.




She's a guest and allowed to do what she was because of the laws that country has in place.  As she was there legally and was legally allowed to do what she did, I can't really see a reason why she wouldn't be surprised by what some said about it.  They live there - it's on them what goes down in their country, not her.



> I never suggested anything about what safari hunting is or isn't. Clearly some people there want that kind of business coming in, but equally clear some people there don't want it. This is for them to decide. not us, and not her. Look if you want to hunt, if she wants to hunt, people don't have to support it or exalt you for it. I am not saying hunting is bad or wrong, but there is a sense of entitlement here like she should get an award or something.




All I'm saying is that a lot of people commenting on this don't have the first clue as to what really happened or what hunting is.  I never said she should be given an award, what I'm saying is that if you want to criticize I think you'd better know all the angles before you open your mouth.  It's not nearly as simple as 'some foreigner shot a lion'.



goldomark said:


> Sure, jump to an extreme, that makes you more right.
> 
> They can decide how they want their resources to be exploited. Conserve more and receive less money if that is what they want. I'm not of the colonialist or paternalist mind set and think I know what is good for them.




I never said they couldn't decide.  Hell, they _have _decided and they still make decisions to this very moment.  It's not on me or SCI - it's on the individual gov'ts.  For example, a major safari destination was the Okavongo Delta for a long time.  Recently the gov't decided to suspend hunting there.  Looks to me like they're perfectly capable of making the decisions they deem best.  

I'm talking about what actually happens and why some do offer safaris.  It's of major economic and environmental benefit.  What's more dangerous to wildlife: A hunter's bullet or a developer's excavator?  Well, if you allow hunting and you open it to anyone who wants to come and pay you make land valuable _as undeveloped land_.  The concessions safari companies own are measured in hundreds of _miles _in size.  That's a lot of habitat that's been protected, wouldn't you say?  And you can thank safari dollars for that, too.



Libramarian said:


> Well that would still be the conservationists. Hunters do more for animal welfare, but in an accidental, uncaring way.




Hunters are conservationists.  And what do you mean 'uncaring'?  Have you ever seen an animal that's starved to death?  I hunt to help prevent that from happening.  When deer, for example, run unchecked (cuz our forbears unrelentingly destroyed their natural predators aside from us) they don't just hurt themselves, they also eat all of the food that other animals eat.  What, exactly, do you think hunting is?  Uncaring.  Yeah.  



> That's what capitalism does, basically. It gets people to help other people without requiring that they care about them.




All you're doing is demonstrating your ignorance.  Hunters care.  That's why they (for the most part - exceptions everywhere, yadda yadda) hunt.

What do you do for wildlife, if I may ask?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 21, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> What's more dangerous to wildlife: A hunter's bullet or a developer's excavator?



Shouldn't the question be "what is best for wild life"?

A photo safari might bring in less money per capita, but it being less expensive means more people can afford it, thus counter balancing the big hunter dollars.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 21, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Shouldn't the question be "what is best for wild life"?




Of course.  Currently that answer is one you don't like.    Srsly, you can't see the good in safaris even considering how much land and therefore wildlife they're responsible for protecting?



> A photo safari might bring in less money per capita, but it being less expensive means more people can afford it, thus counter balancing the big hunter dollars.




Great.  Now you've only got one problem: Not enough people do it.  If you don't generate the same money you won't be able to own the same amount of land.  

And that's something that we don't have now.  What do we do for now?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 21, 2013)

This thread is getting way too political.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 21, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Of course. Currently that answer is one you don't like.  Srsly, you can't see the good in safaris even considering how much land and therefore wildlife they're responsible for protecting?



It is not about what I like or dislike, it is that hunting is not the only option. But I am not bias toward hunting. 



> Great. Now you've only got one problem: Not enough people do it. If you don't generate the same money you won't be able to own the same amount of land.
> 
> And that's something that we don't have now. What do we do for now?



Did you read what I wrote?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 21, 2013)

I think the relevant concern is about hunting in general; this is simply a very visible example.

At one point in history, humans were hunter gatherers who were dependent on the flesh of animals for food. This is no longer the case (for most of us anyway). Recreational hunting is something very different. Over time, we've also developed a variety of moral structures that define violence as morally wrong, and we've developed a great deal of knowledge about animals, most of it leading us to conclude that sentient nonhuman creatures are a lot more human than we give them credit for.

Conversely, hunting remains a tradition.

The present issue is simply a collision between modern society and its roots, of the sort that happens all the time and in many ways. Most behaviors that any of us think of as being morally wrong are perfectly fine given another time or another social context. To some of us, killing an animal for sport is barbaric. To others, it's normal.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 21, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> She's a guest and allowed to do what she was because of the laws that country has in place.  As she was there legally and was legally allowed to do what she did, I can't really see a reason why she wouldn't be surprised by what some said about it.  They live there - it's on them what goes down in their country, not her.
> 
> 
> 
> All I'm saying is that a lot of people commenting on this don't have the first clue as to what really happened or what hunting is.  I never said she should be given an award, what I'm saying is that if you want to criticize I think you'd better know all the angles before you open your mouth.  It's not nearly as simple as 'some foreigner shot a lion'sk?




Just to be clear here, i wasn't being critical of her. I was responding to the OP, basically saying I dont understand the OP's outrage. She may well have been invited or whatever, but the point is if the locals decide they don't like her there shooting wildlife, that's their choice (even if the government or tourist office said it was okay). This is a local issue, in a country that isn't mine, your's or this woman's. If they arrested her or something, then sure I'd share the outrage, but when you go into another country, you ought to have a grasp of the internal political cultural issues. So it isn't that I am critical if her at all (I know nothing about safari and have no strong opinion on it one way or the other) but I am not moved by the woman's story at all.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 21, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> If that were the case then there would be a different solution in place, no?




Goodness, no!  The existence of a better solution by no means guarantees the implementation of that solution.  Humans are not machines that automatically take optimal choices.



> In most cases this just isn't true.




So you say.  My understanding is different.  I'm not trying not change your mind on the matter.  If you want to change mine, you'll need to provide evidence, not assertions.  If you don't care about changing my mind, then we can agree to disagree, and the matter ends there.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 22, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> We also have conservationists that are uncaring about how their actions impact people and communities.




BINGO!


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 22, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> This thread is getting way too political.




Then report it.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 22, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> To some of us, killing an animal for sport is barbaric. To others, it's normal.




Very, very few hunters kill for sport.
98% of the people I know what hunt do so for the meat.

You seem to be implying that hunting is nothing more than killing for sport.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 22, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Very, very few hunters kill for sport.
> 98% of the people I know what hunt do so for the meat.
> 
> You seem to be implying that hunting is nothing more than killing for sport.



In the example provided in the OP, it pretty clearly is.

That being said, the sport and food are not mutually exclusive. Even if a person is consuming the animal's remains, they still went through a lot of effort to acquire them, in a society where hunting is neither a necessary of even efficient means of feeding oneself (I'm assuming you don't live in the Amazon or rural Mongolia or anything). And it's also likely that they enjoyed the process; hunters commonly refer to themselves as outdoorsmen, and consider the hunting a recreational hobby, not a means of sustenance.

Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd put it as "non sustenance hunting" or something. The point is, it's optional now, where it really wasn't for early hominids.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 22, 2013)

Optional?
Perhaps... perhaps not.
At any rate, that is just your opinion.

Some people do not buy meat, they hunt it, or supplement their bought food with meat they have hunted.
To arbitraily declare hunting as "optional" is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 22, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Then report it.




I don't like reporting people these days. I would much prefer to state my opinion that it is veering too far into the political for my taste. Don't have any interest in guns, hunting or the politics surrounding them.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 22, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't like reporting people these days. I would much prefer to state my opinion that it is veering too far into the political for my taste. Don't have any interest in guns, hunting or the politics surrounding them.



*shrug*
What good is stating your opinion on the thread do? If you are so uninterested, why bother posting at all?
Some people could/would consider your post as baiting... or at the very least disruption and/or off-topic.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 22, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Optional?
> Perhaps... perhaps not.
> At any rate, that is just your opinion.
> 
> ...



Do those people not have other options? Would they die of starvation without the products of their hunting? I think there are very few people for whom this is the case. If we're talking about people who live in the first world where there are grocery stores and food banks and space for farming (and where hunting equipment and licenses are expensive and restricted), it's hard to imagine hunting being a significant food source, certainly not one that renders the other options irrelevant.

If there are other viable options for acquiring food, then it is optional to do so in this particular way. That's not an opinion. What could possibly be misleading about that? I don't understand what you're getting at.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 22, 2013)

Perhaps they don't want to eat store bought meat, for a variety of legitimate reasons.
Would you force them to do that instead of hunting their own?
What about folks what can't afford to buy meat? Would you tell them they couldn't trap or hunt?
What about people what simply want to be self-reliant? Would you tell them they can't be, and must buy meat from a regulated source?

I don't understand why you hate hunting.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 23, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Perhaps they don't want to eat store bought meat, for a variety of legitimate reasons.



Sure, a variety of debatably legitimate reasons that might encourage them to select the option of hunting. No one's holding a gun to their head and making them do it, so to speak.



> Would you force them to do that instead of hunting their own?
> What about folks what can't afford to buy meat? Would you tell them they couldn't trap or hunt?



I'd suggest they eat vegetarian. In general, it's cheaper and healthier. However, I'm skeptical that hunting is a cost-effective means of food acquisition for most people. I doubt that many people are forced to hunt animals for food out of need.


> What about people what simply want to be self-reliant? Would you tell them they can't be, and must buy meat from a regulated source?



Again, that's them making a choice, one which they don't have to make. And I would again suggest that the meat aspect is completely unnecessary. And even if they did want to be self-sufficient and eat meat, it would likely be more efficient for them to raise their own livestock than hunt.

There are many people who live with very little money or who live very independently, but do not hunt.



> I don't understand why you hate hunting.



Probably because I'm a pacifist and I see nonviolence as a moral imperative, regardless of who the target of the violence is.

There's probably a case to be made for why a person might _choose_ to acquire food by hunting, but I see no case to be made that it is anything other than optional in the twenty-first century. I don't understand what you're arguing for. I'm not saying that people can't do it, merely that they don't have to if they don't want to.


----------



## Abraxas (Nov 23, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'd suggest they eat vegetarian. In general, it's cheaper and healthier. However, I'm skeptical that hunting is a cost-effective means of food acquisition for most people. I doubt that many people are forced to hunt animals for food out of need.



The ability to have the variety of foods necessary for a healthy vegetarian diet on a large scale is part of the reason wildlife habitat is being destroyed. As for need - what part of the world are you talking about?



Ahnehnois said:


> Again, that's them making a choice, one which they don't have to make. And I would again suggest that the meat aspect is completely unnecessary. And even if they did want to be self-sufficient and eat meat, it would likely be more efficient for them to raise their own livestock than hunt.



This is only true if the person has sufficient land.



Ahnehnois said:


> There are many people who live with very little money or who live very independently, but do not hunt.



And many of them do hunt.



Ahnehnois said:


> There's probably a case to be made for why a person might _choose_ to acquire food by hunting, but I see no case to be made that it is anything other than optional in the twenty-first century. I don't understand what you're arguing for. I'm not saying that people can't do it, merely that they don't have to if they don't want to.



There was a period of time, while living in Michigan's upper peninsula, where hunting and fishing were a significant and necessary means of supporting myself. The choice was between having enough to eat and not having enough to eat. In poorer, rural areas it really may not be a choice.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Nov 23, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> The choice was between having enough to eat and not having enough to eat. In poorer, rural areas it really may not be a choice.



I'm not excluding that possibility. However, the number of people in situations like that is pretty small. Most people in the Western world live in urban or suburban areas where there isn't much to hunt.

In general, agriculture is a much more efficient means of producing food, and between the low prices of food and the availability of government subsidies it takes a very specific and unusual set of circumstances for someone to be excluded from our agriculturally-based food supply against their will.

And of course, it's true that if someone wants to produce their own food, it takes money and a lot of work, but hunting also requires that one have access to (if not own) land where something exists to hunt, and requires a significant amount of effort, skill, and resources to do on a regular basis (permits, weapons, equipment and facilities to store and prepare the meat). It's hardly the path of least resistance. For the people I know who do, it, it's quite an expensive and impractical indulgence, something they do as a hobby. I can't apply a blanket statement to say that the same is true for _every single individual_ as there are likely some exceptions, but I feel comfortable in saying that the typical hunter in the United States would not starve without his hunting license.

And keep in mind that the article the OP referenced wasn't exactly about someone in poverty trying to feed themselves.



> The ability to have the variety of foods necessary for a healthy vegetarian diet on a large scale is part of the reason wildlife habitat is being destroyed.



I'm not sure where that comes from. As far as I know, the net food production in the world is already well in excess of need, it just isn't distributed equally. Also, a great deal of habitat destruction is for animal agriculture. I doubt very much that this is the case; animal sources of food are inherently a less efficient use of land in terms of usable food per acre per year, simply because animals are farther down the food chain. Again, there are rare exceptions, but it's not as if hunting is a low-impact, high-yield means of food acquisition.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 23, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> *shrug*
> What good is stating your opinion on the thread do? If you are so uninterested, why bother posting at all?
> Some people could/would consider your post as baiting... or at the very least disruption and/or off-topic.




I think it is fair for me to point out that this thread, as well as some others, have become overly political in my opinion. The board has a long standing no politics policy, and i was pointing out to the posters that this may have crossed that line.  But no trying to bait anyone or disrupt. I think there is room to discuss the original topic without getting into a broader debate about libertarianism, vegetarianism, guns, etc. However, if you feel I was baiting, certainly feel free to report me.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 23, 2013)

People needing to hunt or not to feed themselves is political now?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 23, 2013)

goldomark said:


> People needing to hunt or not to feed themselves is political now?




Debating whether hunting is morally right or wrong, whether meat eating is morally right or wrong, etc is what veers into the area of religion/politics that has generally been off limits in the past at en world (atleast that has been my impression). I am just pointing it out so people at least know they may be crossing a line (whether they are or are not is not my call), you guys can talk about what you want to.


----------



## Abraxas (Nov 23, 2013)

National Academy of Science - unless how we produce crops changes (more intensification instead of extensification) by 2050 it is predicted we will have to clear another ~1 billion ha of land.

The high yields we currently benefit from rely on modified crops, chemical fertilizers & pesticides, and a bunch of machinery that consumes a lot of oil. These also damage habitat.

The point of my response was that it's not so cut and dried as you try to make it seem.
As for the people you know, well I know different people and it isn't as expensive or impractical as you think.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 23, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Debating whether hunting is morally right or wrong, whether meat eating is morally right or wrong, etc is what veers into the area of religion/politics that has generally been off limits in the past at en world (atleast that has been my impression). I am just pointing it out so people at least know they may be crossing a line (whether they are or are not is not my call), you guys can talk about what you want to.



Philosophy is off limit now? 

I think you're making this stuff up to get the thread closed for some reason.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 23, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Philosophy is off limit now?
> 
> I think you're making this stuff up to get the thread closed for some reason.




If i was trying to get the thread closed, then i would report it. But i am not. Perhaps i am incorrect. Maybe politics are not off limits. But if they are, debate about whether hunting and eating meat are ethical, certainly seem like political topics to me.

i dont think philosophy is strictly off limits as long as it isn't overly political. I mentioned some things about ethics in the walking dead forum that were not political. 

Sorry if i upset you with my posts, that wasnt my intention.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 23, 2013)

I just do not see the politics you see. But if you find it upseting, there is no need to check out the thread. Those of us who aren't upset still can participate.


----------



## jasper (Nov 25, 2013)

*hunting expensive ha ha*

I have to laugh. My boss has spend less on bow hunting, and regular hunting in a season than I spend on gaming supplies. The worst is he would not share any deer he shot.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 25, 2013)

Tell your boss that his hunting is not necessary and that he should buy his food in the store. 
And tell him Bedrockgames said so.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 25, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Tell your boss that his hunting is not necessary and that he should buy his food in the store.
> And tell him Bedrockgames said so.




I am not re-entering the discussion. But I just wish to clarify I was not the one arguing people should buy food in stores instead of hunt.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 25, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not re-entering the discussion.



FAIL!


Bedrockgames said:


> But I just wish to clarify I was not the one arguing people should buy food in stores instead of hunt.



And I want to clarify that you were the one saying that hunting is unnecessary.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 25, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> And I want to clarify that you were the one saying that hunting is unnecessary.




Please don't put words in my mouth.  Never commented on the necessity of hunting. As I said, I am not re-entering the discussion, but I do feel the need to clarify when someone misrepresents my position.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 25, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> And I want to clarify that you were the one saying that hunting is unnecessary.





If the guy wants to check out of the conversation, just let it happen.  Leave him out of it form this point forth.  Thanks.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 26, 2013)

Umbran said:


> If the guy wants to check out of the conversation, just let it happen.  Leave him out of it form this point forth.  Thanks.




But he didn't check out of the conversation.
It's true.
He posted _after_ he said he "checked out".
How is it "checking out" when one continues to post?


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 26, 2013)

But I must apologize to Bedrockgames.
I had him mixed up with this character...Ahnehnois.



Bedrockgames did not say that hunting was unnecessary, Ahnehnois did.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 26, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> But he didn't check out of the conversation.
> It's true.
> He posted _after_ he said he "checked out".
> How is it "checking out" when one continues to post?




Really, what is the purpose of debating this? I stepped in strictly to clarify my position because you misrepresented it (otherwise I wouldn't have posted again). But if you think I didn't live up to my post that I was done with the discussion, no skin off my back. My posting was contingent on your posting about me.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 26, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Really, what is the purpose of debating this?





Um, dude, he apologized several hours ago.  He made a mistake.  He then was a little aggressive in pursuing it, yeah, but it was just a mistake.

Can we let this drop now, please?


----------



## Herschel (Nov 26, 2013)

As a long-time hunter and a conservationist I'll drop my two pence in: 

The only way to conserve an animal population in dwindling numbers is to not kill them for sport. In fact "sport hunting" is not a sport at all but just a portion of humanity's sick obsession with the power to kill things. That there are people who only want to cash in on this is also sick. The only way to end it is to take the money out of it as human greed is the driving factor. That means not only not offering it, but not doing it when it's offered. 

That's a far cry from going in to overpopulated areas of white tails or whatever and culling the herd in reasonable numbers. Eat what you kill, kill what you eat. Donating is okay IF you know those in need will consume it. Wasting and abusing our planet's resources is an abhorent practice. Working with the environment is good. 

Yeah, Africa, the Middle East and the subcontinent have issues, including megaslums. In many Central African Nations around 90% of the urban populations live in slums as other nations capitalize on cheap labor and goods. A few zebra carcasses aren't going to help enough to matter nor is employing a few taxidermists.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 3, 2013)

I've unfortunately been away far too long to respond to anything specific, IMO.  All I can say is that it seems quite a few people don't know what hunting actually _is_.  This is not surprising, of course.  Typically the loudest opinions against something come from those with the least understanding of the topic.

People don't need to hunt for food in most places, no.  They _do _need to hunt, though, to keep wildlife numbers from exploding past sustainable levels.  Our ancestors removed most natural predators (other than us) so we fill in the gap.  We've tried reintroducing these predator species and have found that we don't really know what we're doing.

Anyone who thinks hunting is something that should be banned because of its violent aspects had best be a vegan - and a real one - or STFU.  Srsly.  And even if you _are _a vegan I can tell you how much animal blood is on your hands anyway.  The reason I feel this way is that if you eat meat you are responsible for violent death.  You are also responsible in many cases for deplorable living conditions and harsh treatment.  Hunters, at least, look their food in the eye before it dies.

There's more but whatever.

EDIT: Forgot one:

Hunting is expensive.  Well, it sure can be.  Resident tags don't often cost a lot but you need more than a tag, a loincloth and a sharp stick to hunt these days.  Bows and guns cost hundreds to thousands of dollars.  You need arrows and ammo, too.  Hunting clothes can be several hundred dollars for _one _piece.  I was just hunting yesterday and my kit included a $450 gun topped by a $300 scope, a $250 range finder, a $50 backpack, a $300 parka, a $300 set of bibs, a $100 set of goose down and some other stuff.  It ain't a cheap hobby.

That said, it's also totally not at all what I was talking about.  Piling in the pickup (mine, used, was $12,000) and heading to the family friend's farm is a wholly different venture from globetrotting to hunt.  An either sex deer tag cost me $24.  To hunt a Greater Kudu in South Africa you're looking at over _two thousand _dollars.  And that's not considering the plane ticket, lodging, guide fees, etc.  Many animals in Africa and even the US cost five figures to hunt.  Cheap?  Nope.  At least not for me.


----------



## Janx (Dec 3, 2013)

Late to the party as always...

I do agree with ZB's point from page one or so that the girl who followed the process to go hunting and was authorized and welcomed to do so should not be treated harshly on completion of the hunt by the very people who actively enabled her to do so.

Whether her hunt was a good idea or not, that's bull crap behavior on their part.

Especially because those guys are decrying her from one side of their mouth while probably issuing words of welcome to the next hunter to show up at their door.

It wouldn't be that hard for them to say, "after careful consideration, we've decided to not allow hunting anymore as we pursue a different strategy for the conservation of our rare animals"


As to the sanctity or value of hunting as its own activity, that largely depends on the hunter.

Some hunters hunt for food.  Others hunt purely for the trophy and don't care about what happens to the rest of the animal.  My buddy owns a deer farm and now hunting preserve.  I get a pretty good sense of the kind of customers he gets.

Sadly, those latter folks are quite willing to spend a crapload of money just to get a head.  Whereas the more practical hunters aren't spending nearly as much to get the job done.


----------

