I was interested to read in today’s The Age newspaper that the buffalo hunting season opened in the US yesterday:
The hunt will allow up to 50 of the Plains bison, often called buffalo in North America, to be killed in the three-month season that opens on November 15. A lottery for 24 permits drew nearly 6,200 applicants, including an unsuccessful Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.
Sixteen additional permits were reserved for native American tribal members, and 10 went to hunters who had drawn permits for a previous hunt that was cancelled.
Hunters typically eat any bison they kill and sometimes mount the head and horns.
… Facing nationally televised protests and tourist boycotts, the Montana legislature banned bison hunting in 1991.
Regulations forbid game officials from helping, and hunters are all required to attend classes on the rules of the hunt.
At the turn of the 20th century, only 23 bison survived in Yellowstone National Park. The herd now numbers around 4,900.
Which animals can be legally hunted in Australia? I know crocodile hunting is banned in the Northern Territory though 600 are culled every year. There is an annual quota for kangaroos.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Typical Yanks – bring them back from extinction to shoot them. Makes sense.
Fair enough if the hunters live like Indians pre-European during the hunt, and use bows and arrows on bare back horses. Let’s add some authenticity.
It does make sense. Hunters do a lot of practical conservation work, from habitat protection to feral animal destruction. The animals will die from something anyway, injury, predators or starvation. If humans have an incentive to maintain the wild population, then the whole ecosystem that supports the bison stands to benefit.
Phil, the pre European Indians didn’t have horses.
Yes stand corrected 450 years of horsemanship.
But even better to even up the odds – they could hunt on foot !
And of course they can die from lots of causes – but let’s not leave out old age – 20 years maybe. 40 in captivity?
I reckon that management of an animal that was an estimated 60–100 million during the end of the pre-Columbian era and then alternatively was almost extinct at the turn of the century, needs to cautious at least. How high is the genetic diversity – how vulnerable to a disease epizootic ? Maybe the current 350,000 animals is fair number and in places their numbers may need to be regulated to maintain range condition. But if we got down to 350,000 kangaroos left in the whole of Australia what would we be doing .. (probably a stupid question).
Greenies are fair game, definitley the ACTU should wear a target and I think anyone bagging Gough should get extra points.
If hunters have to go pre European I bags being the white guy, the one riding the Andalusian. That way I can get the girl and then getaway from them pesky varmits.
I understand that most people don’t like the thought of hunting, let alone actually being a hunter, but some people do enjoy the hunt. If you don’t enjoy it, fine, but why is it that hunting has now joined the list of morally repugnant pass times? Why do some people maintain the moral right to dictate the behaviour of others in this matter? Are all anti-huntering people vegans? No. Have you ever watched a killing chain in operation? Hunting, in my experience, is more humane if conducted properly.
Hunting should be conducted under conditions appropriate to the species being killed. Hunting native animals beyond sustainable yields is as intelligent as bacteria growing beyond the capacity of the agar plate. I prefer the “eat what you kill” model, but hunting feral pigs to waste is good land management. I don’t understand the argument that hunting is for savages and should be conducted using savages’ tools. I don’t think indigenous people deny themselves the use of high powered rifles. Why shouldn’t whiteys use the same tools? Because they’re white?
Not talking about hunting in general – just hunting Bison – a beast brought back from extinction. And so only 100 years ago we have been as intelligent as bacteria as you say. Bison were down to a handful. If you know what you’re doing – a high powered rifle is obviously a better way to do it – quick and “clean”. However if the operator of the “high powered rifle” is a goose – how many bad shots does the poor beast have to endure before the final blow or what other sundry wildlife cops it for fun. Why not bag a few Condor and Pumas while you’re about it ? Or how many Bison get taken ?
The hunting with traditional weapons simply gives the animal a more sporting chance – perhaps to be killed in a more drawn out stressful death – I guess you can’t win.
Lastly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bison_skull_pile%2C_ca1870.png
This is what we’re capable of.. the savages would never have done such a thing themselves. If we’re true “conservationists” we have much to learn.
P.S.
And Rog what would be your traditional weapon for hunting greenies and sundry left wingers? The nulla nulla or simply a solid length of 4 x 2. Or perhaps an Uzi.
If you keep being mean to lefty types we won’t serve you a chamomile tea at the next collective meeting. We may even pass a resolution banning you for a month. And if you keep being mean we’ll form a socialist utopia and seize you by the assets.
Phil, killing 50 out of 350,000 is hardly irresponsible management.
There’s a theory that stone age hunting drove mammoths and other megafauna to extinction, so maybe the Indians would have done the same eventually.
I see those “typical Yanks” are also suggesting opening up hunting of Grizzly bears.
Traditional weapon for hunting greenies and sundry left wingers? Facts.
The Blitzkrieg killing theory remains just that – a theory that has a problem. If the Clovis people exterminated the megafauna in the US 12000 years ago, then why did their contemparies in Asia and Africa not kill off the elephants in their regions? Because they could not. Nor could the Clovis people.
So another explanation needs to be considered.
Well why stop at Grizzly Bears – let’s have hunting tours to Iraq and Afghanistan – “Join the Army, See the World, Meet Interesting People – Then kill them.”
Seriously – I have to say that shooting an animal that’s only 0.5% of its orginal population size, that you’ve brought back from extinction only 100 years ago is weird.
OK Louis – how did they die then ?
Phil, what’s weird about an activity that supports conservation and management of a species in it’s natural habitat? It’s not a radical idea in conservation that a financial incentive improves the conservation effort, and hunting is one way of achieving this.
There will never be millions of bison roaming the prairies again unless there is massive reduction in human population. A bison population in the hundreds of thousands is quite viable and allows hunting to occur without endangering the species.
Presumably your comment about hunting tours in Iraq was meant to be a joke. Sorry Phil, but I found it offensive.
Louis, maybe there aren’t enough cliffs in Asia and Africa to stampede the elephants over? I’m just kidding, I don’t have an opinion, nor did I know there was any controversy about megafauna extinctions.
For start – Europeans are not part of it natural habitat – so that finishes the eco-argument.
Well sorry you found it offensive but I find blazing away at an animal brought back from extinction and still with a genetically small population – well unintelligent. What is it about humans and guns ? It’s simply thrill kill stuff to satiate their lust for trophies is it not – if they need to be culled to maintain resource condition let the rangers do it – why does it have to be a sport.
Does it feel good to take the life of such a great animal just for the sake of it – not for food, leather or fur. I feel it’s a negative signal.
The whole financial incentive issue is really b/s – it’s the USA. And I dare suggest the benefits from wildlife tourism would far outstrip the finances brought in from 50 hunters.
Let’s see would I be happy if I’ve shot a bison, a condor, a bear, an American Eagle, a moose, a tiger, a lion, an elephant (actually one African and one Asian) , a few zebra and wildebeests – maybe an armadillo and an aardvark too. And some seals, a walrus would be nice, and a gnu too. I’d like to shoot one of each – that would make me very happy. And I could dispatch a dolphin, a dugong and a turtle too. I would be a much better person for doing all this.
Phil
I think you’ll find that there is a lot of money in safari hunting and there is no reason why for example, there couldn’t be safari hunting for crocodiles in the NT as well as wildlife tourism. They are compatible.
I can’t put my finger on the reference, but Tanzania makes enough out of a few big game hunters to finance the running of its national parks.
And let me quote from Michael Archer, Dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales, and journalist Bob Beale, writing in their book ‘Going Native: Living in the Australian environment’:
“If the natural world is to have a future, we need to understand that the love of animals based on use and dependence has always led to a commitment to conserve.
Indigenous peoples who remain hunter-gatherers have a love and respect for animals, plants and ecosystems that most of us simply do not understand because they, unlike us, are still an indivisible part of the environments upon which they depend.”
See also my blog post here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000977.html .
The urge to hunt is the same for both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples (how an aboriginal driving a landcruiser and using a rifle is superior or more worthy than an american doing the same is beyond me).
Aborigines dont muck around either, the dugong may be endangered and protected by law but aborigines are still allowed to hunt them.
The urge to hunt by our politicians is perhaps also manifest in adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan (no disrespect to the diggers). Or the Muslims for that matter.
And I reckon aborginals should not allowed to be able to hunt dugongs unless they’re living a completely traditional existence. Do we have enough of the interesting creatures left. And are we now not all Australians? (And add sea turtles to that too).
Jen – on Africa – I knew you’d say this – but what’s the relativity in terms of safari dollars vis a vis people just wanting to look and not blaze away. Does a well heeled African game-hunter give a toss about conservation really – it’s a fine line sophistic argument – it’s more about getting the thrill of the stalk, getting the shot in and standing triumphant with the trophy. And shooting a big one of each with a sophisticated high-powered weapon with telescopic sight.
We’re all capable of it. We’ve all plays cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians. But it doesn’t mean therefore that it’s a sensible, moral and justifiable position.
Is there not a point more than money here. Essentially you’re willing to dispatch a wild animal just for kicks ?
And guys tell me this – do you actually enjoy shooting wildlife – does it make you happy?
Does it excite you?
Shoot film not wildlife ! Make love not war !
Although a rhino head would look good on my wall .. hmmmm..
So Phil, I guess this means you are anti-hunting?
Presumably you are also a vegan, or are you happy for others to kill animals on your behalf?
You seem to view hunting in a very one sided and negative way. Some of the comments you have made above are a bit intemperate. What, for instance, if the only people who became rangers were those who enjoyed hunting? Is it morally superior if the get paid by the taxpayer for hunting rather than pay their own money to do the same thing.
No I’m happy to dispatch animals humanely for consumption.
Rangers may not enjoy culling at all. I can’t imagine it’s a lot of fun shooting a herd of elephants for example. But of course it may need to be done to maintain range condition.
With most of this activity it’s simply fun to kill things – isn’t it. There’s no higher ecological purpose. It’s just fun to blow some ungulate’s brains out.
Many of the “sporting” hunters I know think it’s great fun to drive over a herd of feral pigs in the Landcruiser (repeatedly), see how many cockatoos you can splatter with your car on the way, if you’re driving a semi-trailer run over a few sheep for a lark (why stop!), wouldn’t see a snake without skidding on it, – most of the shots aren’t clean and it’s fun to wound animals and watch them run around for a while. Of course we could get into greater detail. Fun to hack wild donkeys up with an axe while they’re down and wounded. Paint your friends faces with the blood. Throw the entrails at each other for a joke. One cannot get enough gore. It’s bloody mayhem. And don’t forget to get the kids involved too. Or if you’re bored just put the dogs on them and let them rip something apart for a laugh.
There’s a lot of hunting with “ya mates” that’s not that flash.
The point here is that you’re advocating simply killing a wild animal because you can. Why ?
What for? Do you like doing these things? Does it excite you?
I would never condone those actions you mention, I hope you’re not suggesting I do?
Do you think people who have obtained a permit to hunt a bison would do the same things you have described?
There is a concept called ethical hunting, where the ideal is respect for the animal and the environment, including humanely killing the prey.
Because you know people who do not follow this practise does not mean it is acceptable by the hunting community or the general community. In fact, the acts of creulty you have described are illegal, and I doubt if they are widespread. If you know people who do this, I suggest you report their activities to the police or RSPCA.
I would respectfully point out that I’m NOT advocating killing wild animals just because I can.
This discussion started as a dialogue on the merits of hunting as part of a conservation effort. To suggest that hunters are all cruel, incompetent thrill killers, which your comments implied, is as unfair as suggesting all left wing greenies are barking moonbats.
Yes hunting is exciting. It’s not a black and white or on/off situation. If I shoot a roo for food, I enjoy the hunt. I enjoy it a lot more crawling into position from downwind, than I do using a spotlight off the back of a ute. The stalk is genuinely exciting, it makes your pulse race, whereas shooting from a vehicle is very utilitarian. This is all a bit primal, but I think that is part of the experience – we surround ourselves with trappings of a sophisticated civilisation, but close to the surface we are all just omnivorous animals like wild pigs. I have found being stalked by a saltwater crocodile similarly interesting. Just part of the food chain.
I don’t need you to agree with my experience, but if there are no conservation issues that compromise my decision to hunt, I really fail to see why someone has the right to sit in judgement upon me. I have no problem with someone not liking hunting, and I don’t argue that it is something everyone should try, or you’re somehow deficient if you don’t like a bit of blood. I just resent the judgement.
The comparison with military service is a step too far in my opinion. I’ve never served, but I am told that soldiers typically fire over the heads of their enemy until they suffer losses from their own ranks due to enemy action. Fear and revenge perhaps are significant components? Killing a human seems to be a very different and very traumatic experience. Military training has to try to overcome the resistance to killing humans, I have been told.
I was also one of those who appointed myself to sit in judgement upon the Vietnam vets, when I was younger and even more stupid than I am now. That judgement, made from a position of comprehensive ignorance, remains the most shameful thing I have ever done by a very large margin. I suggest you be a little careful how far you go down that path Phil. Your “with all due respect to the diggers” qualifier is hollow, at best.
From reading my father’s memoirs from WWII, (a conflict which would typically qualify as a “just war”) I believe that the border between serving your country and committing an horrendous war crime can be an extremely fine line indeed. It maybe just a question of luck and timing. War crimes are much easier to identify whilst flying your armchair than they are when you are flying a bomber, armed with a large number of heavy machine guns, low over several thousand rioting civilians. (My old man was the pilot on a reconnaissance flight. In the time it took them to turn around and come back to strafe the crowd, the crowd disappeared.) My father was following orders; use the machine guns to disperse rioting mobs. WWII was a lot more complex in the detail than it was in most of the history you read. Messy, just like Iraq. Rushing to judgement may leave you a lesser person in the end. Miltary service and hunting are unrelated.
Paul – yes I hear you. And I’m not suggesting those practices are yours. But I have to ask – why is it “sport” to shoot a wild animal for no reason other than sport?
Incidentally what does the law say about what I’ve listed – would you really be prosecuted?
As to whether poor hunting practices are widespread I’ll leave to the readers to recall their own past associations and private experiences. I would have to say bad stories are more common that you may think. To do anything about it you would have to “be there” with a video camera.
Do you think at the point of pulling the trigger that the hunter is thinking that he/she is doing a helpful job of conserving the species. Indeed it may indirectly do so but is it essential”. I respectfully submit that they are “enjoying” it.
Interestingly more modern fishing enthusiasts have concluded that they do indeed like the thrill of catching fish. But you can throw them back and not kill them or just take what you need for dinner.
And stalking wild animals is lots of fun too. But you could just take their picture and go home with that.
And I have just heard on the news that Australian Bush Heritage have purchased Craven’s Peak in western Qld. I don’t think they’ll have to rely on hunting to get some visitors. And obviously enough money is about to purchase a significant cattle station. The previous owner seemed pleased that the new owners would “look after it”.
http://www1.bushheritage.asn.au/
Boxer – with respect – my father was in WWII too and I had cousins who were in Vietnam. They don’t recommend the experience. Anyway ..
So your description of the roo hunt is good, I can see you there in the brush, and the heart racing. You may also need to control roos on your property. Fine.
But would you like to go to Zimbabwe and shoot and elephant for fun ? Or a rhino ? Would be thrilling ? Doubt you’d eat it. But would it be fun ?
As a young man I shot at things with friends’ guns. Now I take pictures. Sometimes I just observe and remember.
Phil
Would it be fun? depends. If it was a pure act of wasteful vandalism, I would be ashamed and the stalk would be no fun. I wouldn’t do. Other than with a camera. If the hunt was part of a properly organised cull with a practical and sensible purpose, I would find it thrilling. Not everything has to come back to me having food for the table, but shooting to eat is the easiest example. The excitement is, I think, related to the primal urge to hunt, to provide. I’m just a predator, like a wild dog, with some limited self-awareness.
Must go, bbq tonight. Red meat!
Phil, of course hunters enjoy the experience, it is, after all, voluntary, so they can choose not to do it.
What you described in your earlier comments was senseless killing for killings sake, with some lurid embellishments, as though all hunters act like that.
The enjoyment of hunting is much more complex and ambiguous than that (much like life), and yes, it can include the satisfaction that one is contributing to conservation. Hunters in Australia are heavily involved in conservation.
Actually, at the moment I do not hunt, though I will be resuming next year after many years absence. Personally I would not want to shoot an elephant, but I have no objection to it being done if needed to manage the species, especially if the fees raised were substantial and helped to fund the conservation effort. It goes without saying that humane treatment of the animals is also required.
This is what I was talking about with regard to the bison hunting, hunting fees helping to fund the conservation of a species in its natural habitat, not excessive hunting of an endangered species, nor wanton cruelty.
As regards to culling elephants, I have seen footage of a cull in, I think, Kruger national park, where the elephants were being shot from helicopters, using SLRs, hardly an ideal elephant rifle! How is this better than wealthy people paying possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars to take an elephant with an appropriate calibre rifle? Undoubtedly with backup guides to ensure the animal is humanely despatched if the client botches the job.
replying to Phil Done’s question, briely, Pleistocene Extinction.
For some the application of ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’ to everyday events is their sport.