Most safari outfitters offer a menu of game that clients can choose from. It’s like shopping from a catalogue.
Looking down these lists is slightly surreal. Everything is on offer, including porcupine ($250 – is it possible people really hunt these?), warthog ($300), on through a multitude of indistinguishable deer-like species, up to the big ticket items: $8,000 for a hippo, $14,000 for a buffalo, between $25,000 and $35,000 for a male lion, and between $50,000 and $100,000 for a rhino.
It was all quite weird, but I became intrigued by the element of pretence in what was being offered – the outfitters were selling an old-fashioned idea of man-against-nature while secretly working the scenery in the wings. There was a whiff of theme park about the whole thing.
Read more on safari hunting in South Africa here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7329425.stm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I am reminded of an episode of the Goodies about apartheid in South Africa with Big ‘uns and Little ‘uns. Some humans would like a list that included other races/genders/religions/ages/sexual orientations/ etc on it. Maybe bag a greenie and mount its head on a wall, or mow down a Palestinian family in a studio Ramallah? Would fetch less than a warthog though.
You can even hunt remotely, via computer, but where’s the fun in that?
“Simply put, hunters are paying for more and more exotic animals to be kept alive and healthy – which has to be a good thing. There are now more wild animals on private farms in South Africa than in the nature reserves”.
There is nothing more to say, the results speak for themselves. Provided the kill is quick, and the author mentioned the unease of the farmers when one of their animals was not killed quickly, then any other perception of this industry is irrelevant.
The author seems to spend a lot of time describing the participants, as if the urban public he writes for has some sort of divine right to approve or disapprove of someone else’s leisure options. But the simple facts of the matter are that articulate metrocentric wankers support no wildlife at all while supposedly monosyllabic bogans with guns support and maintain healthy populations that are in excess of the so-called “reserves”. The former merely adopt “positions” while the latter actually pay their way in full.
The only one being morally superior here is you Ian. Give us a break tosser.
Cyber-bullying and perving are “leisure options” too Ian Mott. But as long as it doesn’t hurt *you*, it’s ok. You have to wonder about a “leisure industry” that attracts so much criticism, is totally pointless and consists of having an animal “bleed out.”
There is nothing noble about canned hunting. It is someone making a buck. They make money from compromised people who don’t want the experience of a real hunt but want to do it on their own terms. They pay a bucket load of money to some game reserve owner whilst up the road the locals live in poverty.
Any illusions this is doing something for conservation are exactly that. The animals exist the be killed, not preserved. They are PRIVATE game reserves. These are not endangered species and should the reserve owner want a change of career the animals go. Those with a view that the only way of keeping species alive is by providing blood sports seriously need to think outside the square.
As for the remorse of the reserve owner, who’s to know if this was not as staged for the journalist as his money-making business is for his rich clients. Money obviously speaks louder than the right to let live.
So how do you “make a buck”, Mohammed? Is this a case where you making a buck is somehow a noble pursuit while others who make a buck are immoral?
Have YOU bought any products recently that came from a place where “up the road the locals live in poverty”? Where do you think your computer parts came from, hypocrite.
Which part of “There are now more wild animals on private farms in South Africa than in the nature reserves”, is beyond your comprehension? They may live to be killed but they obviously live well, and in greater numbers and better health than those on the reserves.
And while I would not choose to be stuck in a bus load of dude ranch hunters, the thought of being stuck in a bus full of urban green wankers is far more likely to make one’s flesh crawl.
So tell us, Mo, how much money have you parted with recently that has gone directly to maintaining and sustaining wildlife? And don’t include your political donations to Greenponce etc, how much has gone directly to maintain wildlife?
“So tell us, Mo”
My name is Mohammed. When you show some respect Ian Mott I will answer you.
>Is this a case where you making a buck is somehow a noble pursuit while others who make a buck are immoral?
Get a grip on yourself jerky-boy. Mohammed you are forgetting that Mott thinks making a buck killing animals for sport and wank points is admirable. Anything less just doesn’t crack it. He is a frustrated individual.
>Which part of “There are now more wild animals on private farms in South Africa than in the nature reserves”, is beyond your comprehension? They may live to be killed but they obviously live well, and in greater numbers and better health than those on the reserves.
Obviously YOU don’t geddit Mott. Better to live well to be killed than live wild and take your chances? What’s so good about more animals in game reserves than nature reserves??? As Mohammed pointed out, these are not endangered species. There are more tigers in captivity than the wild too, but that doesn’t necessarily help a species does it? Let’s put animals in game hunter’s reserves, control them and then forget about looking after the ones in the nature reserves. Oh, and let’s make a buck from it too.
It’s a complex issue. The outcome seems to be that there are more animals around than there would be without commercial hunting reserves, and they suffer less than they would in the natural state.
Some of the people living down the road in poverty are undoubtedly receiving a wage from the hunting operation. What would happen if the commercial aspect was removed and the land thrown open to be left in it’s natural state? Would there be more or less animals there, and how would their welfare compare during a drought, or if they were injured?
Or how about if the hunting reserve marketed itself as a wildlife watching reserve? Would there be the same results in terms of numbers of animals and economic benefit? Incidentally, animals would still have to be shot from time to time, due to old age, injure and overpopulation.
Paul Williams,
It would be interesting if such reserves were for photographers, researchers and documentary makers. Locals could just as easily benefit from this sort of operation. The question, as you say, is – how many want to watch vs how many want to kill, and which pays better?
Considering that animals in natural reserves are still culled from time to time due to over-population, the issue of more animals in game reserves than natural reserves doesn’t necessarily wash. Again, those in the game reserves don’t tend to be endangered, and as Travis asked, why is it so “good” to have more animals in game reserves than natural ones?
The idea that animals living in a wild state and suffering from drought, injury, being eaten alive, etc is a far worse deal than living in a game reserve and receiving 5-star treatment until you are in the cross-hairs at the prime of your life is perhaps anthropomorphic. Many of us like this captive form of living (although when it comes to humane euthanasia of suffering humans, that is a different thing, as is caring for the elderly).
I agree it is a complex issue, but when you start to justify the existence of living creatures purely on a commercial basis and with no real point to the outcome, it makes you wonder about the state of the world.
Endangered animals certainly are kept on hunting reserves for people to hunt. Maybe not in Africa, but elsewhere they are.
African hunting reserves may be 30,000 acres in size, so the animals live a life that they may not be able to distinguish from life in the wild, except that the operators have a vested inerest in maintaining populations of healthy individuals.
Yes, you can hunt endangered animals in some places. So (a) what message is that sending out regarding endangered (valuable?) species and the need to conserve them when they can be kept simply to be killed, and (b) what use to the species is it? The debate was had with China and her tigers, but again it comes down to money talking louder than the in-situ survival of a whole species.
Lions, leopards, cheetahs, painted dogs, hyaenas, etc can also maintain populations of healthy individuals. Take these out of the equation and the animals are basically in a large zoo, but a zoo where they are killed for sport, not displayed for education.
Strip back the wrapping paper of the “maintaining healthy numerous populations” argument and the real question is: Why do some people feel the need to participate in canned hunting?
So can we conclude from your side-step, Mo, that you have spent nothing, zippo, diddly squat money on anything that maintains wildlife in their natural state?
Once again, Mo and Travis have missed the point. Photographing wildlife and shooting wildlife are not mutually exclusive. Only a portion of the stock are shot each year and that leaves the remainder available for photographs. Indeed, if Mo and Travis had a rudimentary grasp of business they would understand that the two, operating together, will substantially improve the economics of both. Surely, 30,000 acres is large enough to enable both activities to take place without interfering with the other.
Only the performance impaired “do-nothings” of the green movement have minds that can only process these two variables seperately.
There is a forestry operation in Texas that derives 60% of its revenue from bird watchers and only 40% from harvesting trees. And clearly, harvesting takes place on only a small portion of the property at any one time, leaving all the rest of the area to other pursuits.
And one must ask Mo where he got the quaint notion that endangered species are conscious of human land tenure type and avoid game reserves? Do they have some wildlife equivalent of “lonely planet guide”, that tells them where to find the refuges?
Looks to me like the usual soup of fetid morality, half truths, loaded assumptions and practicality blind spots masquerading as enlightened concern. Give us a break.
” Why do some people feel the need to participate in canned hunting?” -Mohammed
A very good question.
In my part of the world now hunters and fishermen say that humans have distanced themselves from the nature when not taking part of the harvest of ” sustainble ” species , such as deers and moose.
I have a certain understanding for hunting for food , culling some animals like minks that have been released from fur farms etc.
It is as well necessary to have hunters for killing injured animals after road accidents etc.
But this canned hunting must be for urban people . It’s not like stalking a wild animal in the pure wilderness.
My grandad and grandma were farmers , and they never let any hunters hunt on their grounds , because they didn’t like hunting of emotional reasons, note this was long before greenes, IFAW , animal rights movements etc. Grandma also used to complain to the fishermen that fished in the fish breeding and nursery grounds.
So I can conclude Ian Mott that you are a disrespectful waste of space. Learn some manners.
The only one being morally superior here is you Ian. Give us a break tosser.
And a xebra skin might look decorative, but there are very nice looking fake zebra skins, saw that in an interior magazine , that btw featured ” fake” trophy animals heads as well.
Mohammad, if I understand your argument, are you saying that hunting reserves do nothing to help preserve a species, but only cater for peoples desire to kill and make money? And that all necessary conservation work is being done outside of hunting reserves?
Are there any conservation organisations funding electric fences for African village Farmers?
Careful Helen, we’ll be back to the old selfish free-market fundamentalists versus the compassionate central-planners argument soon!
Helen,
A Swedish NGO for protection of predatory animals, published an article in their magazine re” certified eco -meat ” in Africa produced by African villagers/ cattle.
As far as I understood they( the farmers) got help from conservation organisations , so they didn’t poach leopards and cheetahs in case. Methink they got help with fences as well.
See if I can get hold of the article during the day.
To Helen,
About the African project that protects cheetahs and supports African farmers :
http://www.cheetah.org/?html=news-press&data=news-press&key=141
What the hell is your problem Ian Mott? Mohammed asked you to refer to him by his name, and yet you deliberately referred to him four times by the abbreviation you decided to give him, apparently with the aim to aggravate and be disrespectful.
Why don’t the people who run this blog control trolls like you?
What a joke that BBC article is. The author is open about the fact that he is completely disconnected from nature and his place in the food chain, commenting on his “farmyard feeling” when he looks at sausages. And yet he feels qualified to pass comment on people who are trying to remain true to their nature as a predatory animal. Does the author have children? Did he get a “farmyard feeling” when witnessing childbirth, or having sex? Should we abandon these “barbaric” rituals in favour of IVF and C-sections? Let’s not forget that, like reproduction, predation is part of the natural world. If your morals lead to the conclusion that everything about nature is wrong, might I suggest you reconsider your morals?
Paul,
“Careful Helen, we’ll be back to the old selfish free-market fundamentalists versus the compassionate central-planners argument soon!”
If you wish to go down the same path as Ian Mott be prepared to be judged as him.
“are you saying that hunting reserves do nothing to help preserve a species, but only cater for peoples desire to kill and make money? And that all necessary conservation work is being done outside of hunting reserves?”
You wrote that “it is a complex issue”, and I wrote “I agree it is a complex issue”. I also wrote “The debate was had with China and her tigers, but again it comes down to money talking louder than the in-situ survival of a whole species.” The fact tigers exist at all in China appears to be largely due to hunting and that money can be made from it. Clearly some preservation work is done by keeping animals in game reserves or for the purpose of hunting. The value of this work may be questionable when genetics, behaviour and proper conservation of in-situ stock and ecosystems is taken into consideration.
If your morals lead to the conclusion that everything about nature is wrong, might I suggest you reconsider your morals?- Russell.
Where does the article say everything about nature is wrong? It doesn’t, so why exaggerate?
And yet he feels qualified to pass comment on people who are trying to remain true to their nature as a predatory animal. – Russell
You’re kidding right? If they were true to their nature do you think they would be doing it so easy? What sort of predatory animal has the head of their food stuffed and mounted in their home after paying a $hitload of money to be driven around a fenced off large paddock to pop off an animal and get back on the jet home? Pedophiles are predatory by nature too but I guess you still want them locked up.
Are you someone who wants the cake and to eat it too? If you want to remain true to nature, then perhaps your wife should not receive hospital help during child birth, your children should be left to succumb to disease and you should take your chances with other predators without the assistance of a high-powered rifle, scope, infr-red, camo gear, GPS, 4WD, water purifiers, etc.
Mohammad, I was seeking clarification of your argument, but didn’t really get any.
The first part of your comment is quite rude, by the way.
Ian Mott: “Do they have some wildlife equivalent to “lonely planet guide”……” No, but you if the dollar$ aren’t right indubitably something else goes wrong ! http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23530231-5013605,00.html
And Mohommed,to gain a moniker is not the end of the world.A friend of years ago,Alan, {Al} became Alamo on the strength of his mo.
It’s a badge of honour wear it proudly.
Paul,
I tried to clarify with my last comment. I thought I was clear. If I was rude it was because I found your comment to Helen along the same inflammatory and provocative lines as Ian Mott. If it was not intended that way by you then I apologise.
wjp,
“It’s a badge of honour wear it proudly.”
It depends on whom is bestowing it on you. From someone you know and like, sure. From someone who is trying to be a smart alec and derogatory, no thanks.
Is this the same Russell that wrote on the Mary River Turtle and friends?
First, my apologies for posting my question on the wrong thread. It should have been under the “Best Book on the market” thread.
The paragraph that prompted me to raise my question is:
“Africa has had similar experience in preserving wildlife, like elephants.
The obvious policy punishing anyone caught killing them does not work. Villagers will risk it, rather than see their harvest trampled underfoot. But the market has a solution: make the very rarity of these animals the basis for a business. Now, in game lodges across southern Africa, visitors pay handsomely to hunt (or just to watch and photograph) rare animals. So now, the local villagers see elephants as a source of income, not a pest: they dig water holes for them and use electric fences, rather than bullets, to protect their crops. This market-driven policy has led to a revival in many species that were once seriously threatened.”
The key sentence for me is “villagers will risk it rather than see their crops trampled underfoot”, plus the implicatons that “farming” the native animals for viewing or hunting has funded electric fences to protect farmers’ crops. Is the “market” the only way to obtain the funds to help protect their crops?
Have conservation organisations looked seriously at this problem? And sorry, “educating” the locaks is often a cheap, patronising, non-solution.
Thanks, Ann for your reference to the story about cheetahs in Namibia. If I read it correctly, some villagers have been helped to build yards to corral their stock (overnight?). Not quite on the scale I was looking for, but it is a start in helping local people cope with the costs and consequences of Western imposed conservaation agendas.
Mo needs to stop taking himself so seriously, he only does it in a pathetic attempt to try and put people on the back foot. Stomping his feet may well have worked to make his mum and sisters rush to his attention but here in the real world all we can see is just another egotist chucking a tanty. My kids stopped doing that sort of crap at age four.
The surprising thing in all that has been said here was the breathtaking suggestion that there was something morally wrong in maintaining animals for the primary purpose of killing them for profit. Come again? What the hell does Mo think takes place on nearly every farm on the planet? Livestock are maintained for the purpose of eventually killing them, eating them and obtaining hides and other economic benefits from them.
The wildlife farmers have simply found a bunch of people willing to pay good money to do a particular part of the value chain. Shock horror.
So is Mo now claiming that most farms on the planet are morally challenged? He is clearly under the breathtakingly stupid impression that the animals, once shot, are left to waste. As if a valuable source of “bush meat” would not end up either as supplementary feed for some of the carnivorous wildlife, or, more likely, end up on the tables of the very “locals up the road living in poverty”, that Mo expressed such bogus concern for.
And then we had the novel suggestion that “canned hunting” was some sort of stylistic fall from grace. As if ecotourism operations don’t lay it all out for the convenience of high paying urban punters who don’t want the tedium of hiking for three days to find a particular gem of nature? As if whale watching tour operations don’t lay it all out for the convenience of the punters? The stench of double standards around you people is now well beyond fetid.
And still no word on how much Mo has actually spent that has helped sustain wildlife. Yeah, that would be about right, wouldn’t it Mo?
How about you, Jennifer B? Where do you fit on this particular morality food chain? All talk, eager to adopt a moral position but no-where in sight when something actually needs to be done. Why am I not surprised?
” And then we had the novel suggestion that “canned hunting” was some sort of stylistic fall from grace. ” – Motty
IMO , canned hunting is a fall from grace. Actually ” real” hunters signature is to be like a predatory bird / animal , and sometimes you succeed to kill the prey , sometimes not. This is not the case with canned hunting.
So what do the ” hunters want to achieve???? Are they trying to do this to parrot Hemingway ??? Some kind of macho display, going to big game hunting and to bull fights and then boast about to some big breasted blondes????
…and the environmental or political value of a thread on canned hunts is what again exactly?
“So what do the ” hunters want to achieve???? Are they trying to do this to parrot Hemingway ??? Some kind of macho display, going to big game hunting and to bull fights and then boast about to some big breasted blondes????”
You just can’t help yourself can you Ann?
On the one hand pretending to be the victim of gender attacks and then helping yourself from the same bowl you chastise others for.
Maybe you need to spend more time with female hunters?
“My kids stopped doing that sort of crap at age four.”
“And still no word on how much Mo has actually spent that has helped sustain wildlife. Yeah, that would be about right, wouldn’t it Mo?”
I’m glad your kids learnt something Ian Mott, but it was obviously not from you. I’ll repeat it for you since you appear to have cognitive difficulties – when your treat me with respect, you will get answers from me. It’s pretty clear – even for a 60 year old that thinks it’s cool to act like a 4 year old.
“Perving are “leisure options” too Ian Mott…”
…and then you go on to chastise Mott for insults?? Far be it for me to be defending Iam Mott but you are quite capable of stripping away the caff of his posts and dealing with the central issues.
Those of an “ethical” bent here prefer however the constant refrain of insults, put downs and red herrings.
I do admit that it does keep the conversation in circular and inherently irresolvable back and forths on “ethics” at the expense of any environmental, conservation or even political discussion.
“You have to wonder about a “leisure industry” that attracts so much criticism, “”
Homosexuals and Jews both seem to attract a lot of “criticism” but I fail to see how this would make me wonder either about the sexual prefs of others or their faith.
It does however make me wonder about the folks and their money who are busy trying to demonise both parties and to what ends?
“They pay a bucket load of money to some game reserve owner whilst up the road the locals live in poverty.”
“It would be interesting if such reserves were for photographers, researchers and documentary makers. Locals could just as easily benefit from this sort of operation. ”
There are numerous examples of Hunting tourism that does directly benefit locals. Indeed, many times it is the locals who are the main push for hunting tourism. Often it is seen a s much lower impact form of tourism and “development” than many alternatives which are erroneously proffered as low impact including “hiking, photo tours etc”.
Seriously the “take only photographs” line is just rubbish. I’ve seen firsthand the pressures people and by extension the animals come under when one has to deliver “the shot”.
Hunters come up knowing that they may leave empty handed.
Not all hunting happens in private preserves either.
It is a fallacy that all forms of non-consumptive use are of less impact than hunting tourism. Just the numbers of tourists involved and the dollars gleaned make it hard to beat in many places. This doesn’t deal with the social impacts of having to turn your back yard into a theme park for suburbanites and their video cameras.
Oftentimes, there is a cultural connection between locals and hunters too.
I don’t understand canned hunting and I don’t practice it but in light of the environmental and social impact of other accepted forms of recreation, I don’t see myself as able to single it out for such criticism.
“Any illusions this is doing something for conservation are exactly that.”
Hunting tourism *does* help with conservation. I’ve seen it in practice and applaud the growing appreciation for the practice.
“Perving are “leisure options” too Ian Mott……and then you go on to chastise Mott for insults??”
How is this an insult Iceclass?
“Those of an “ethical” bent here prefer however the constant refrain of insults, put downs and red herrings.”
Yes Iceclass, I see you have done that in your previous comments here and on other blogs.
Ann Novek: So if I bag a wild dog,and if indeed you are a BBB,can I claim the bragging rights?
Mo, you will get respect when you EARN respect. You forget that you tried on the same stunt last time you were here. As if we will all shrink away because little Mo is “vewwy vewwy cwoth”. Get this straight, fella, this aint a cultural misunderstanding here, you stand out as a manipulative punk in any culture.
Another classic line of the eco-bogans is the notion that there are all these thousands of photographers out there all just waiting for the hunters to leave so they can spend similar big bucks taking photos. What a complete crock.
These people forget that the publicly owned reserves provide photo opportunities for nothing more than the cost of entry and transport in the park. So how could a private landowner possibly compete in the same market when the public sector competition do not even have to earn a return on the cost of land?
So tell us, Ann, how many photographers would the farmer need to attract to get the same return as from one Buffalo at $14,000? On the current market prices, somewhere between 140 and 1,400.
So spare us all these cheap throw away solutions that have absolutely zero realistic contribution. This kind of crap is just a convenient salve for your conscience so you can walk away from the harm you would inflict with narry a scrap of guilt. Nothing but cheap thrills for urban day trippers, how very original.
And do tell us Ann, if canned hunting is a fall from grace, what does that say about canned eco-tourism? Canned whale watching? Canned rainforest walking? Canned tourist cabins with hot tub, massage, beauty treatments and the obligatory musical sedatives? Give us a break.
Clearly, zero wildlife maintenance funds from Mo.
Nice try Ian.
Reading your comments takes too much time when I have to get babelfish to translate “oonga bonga urff slurp burp grunt” all the time. What a pathetic loser.
>Get this straight, fella, this aint a cultural misunderstanding hereyou stand out as a manipulative punk in any culture.
Pfffttt. Yeah right. You just had to put that in did you Grott? Mohammed isn’t a red neck so you need to attack. You need to be taken out and socialised more, otherwise you may get euthanased as a lost cause.
So in the one hand Mott is telling us that photography and canned hunting can peacefully co-exist end of story, but then he changes his mind to say there wouldn’t be enough demand for photography tours. Clearly you are out of your depth here Mott, as usual.
>This kind of crap is just a convenient salve for your conscience so you can walk away from the harm you would inflict with narry a scrap of guilt.
Yep, I can see Ann slinging her rifle over her shoulder, tilting back her head and nonchalantly walking off after blasting a Cape buffalo to smithereens!! Sht you’re funny Mott!!
> Canned whale watching?
Oh, they have that now? You’re obvioulsy talking about dolphinariums Mott. Then again, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about, as usual.
Well done Mohammed. It is one thing for grown men to revert to childhod, but Mott really does like to act like an insolent little boy. He is frustrated you see, and thinks everyone should EARN his respect, which is clearly so valuable. LOL!!! How does it feel to be a sleazy old geezer no one wants or cares about??! Tsk.
Jennifer B: The human species has always been one of technology-using carnivores. It was these two traits that accounted in large part for our success. Eating meat drove our brain growth, and our brain growth enabled us to develop hunting technology. We pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps. Without technology, humans are a hopeless proposition as a predatory animal. So in fact, nothing is more natural to humans than the use of the best available technology to hunt.
As for the keeping of trophies, well no, only the human species really has the ability to reflect and therefore the desire to keep mementos. However, it is absolutely a part of predatory behaviour in all social predator species for competition to exist for the most challenging kills. Play, practise or pleasure killing is also quite common in animals, as anyone who has kept a cat could attest.
“Where does the article say everything about nature is wrong? It doesn’t, so why exaggerate?” — Jennifer B.
Nature fundamentally relies on predation for the sustenance of virtually every animal species (scavengers excepted). This article implies that one animal preying upon another is wrong. Unless a good reason is given for why humans, and no other species, should be denied the right to live out its genetically programmed behaviour, then the implication is that the author is opposed to one of the most fundamental aspects of the web of life.
Libby: Re Mary River Turtle. No. Sorry, I did not realise there was already a “Russell” posting here.
P.S. Hmm can’t seem to get paragraph breaks working correctly. Sorry.
Travis: What’s with the cultural misunderstanding?
You are angry angry angry and not very coherent.
Check your undies , could be size tooooo small.
If you happen to be in the conservation business, like any business,things have to be culled from time to time. Like those lions over there, hmmm , we’ve got way too many, say, males. What to do?
Let them fight it out? Not my cup of tea ,but some dude {or dudess} prepared to pay $25,0000 – $35,0000 per shot would pay a few bills.
But of course in your cuckoo world you’d print the money and everyone would be happy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/22/zimbabwe
Wjp I don’t usually laugh when angry, do you? I also don’t wear undies 🙂 Culling to presumably maintain a sustainable population is the same as canned hunting? My cuckoo world? Is that the one with the parasite Mott, kicking out the smaller birds and not ever shutting his mouth? LOL!
Travis: Are you becoming the boofhead of my life or what?
When you cull stock ,the idea is to keep the most useful ,if you can get good compenation from the process ,you get to stay in business and pay tax.
Then lower down the food chain ,magic happens ,some grundyless bludger has pity taken on them by their own species and cops a handout ,lives another day , and bites the hand that feeds it.
It’s a funny thing the circle of life….
” Ann Novek: So if I bag a wild dog,and if indeed you are a BBB,can I claim the bragging rights?” – WJP
Sorry, I’m not a longlegged, big breasted , blue eyed , blonde Nordic goddess ;)! LOL! I’m just a dark haired bitchy witchy!!! 🙂
Re hunting tourism vs photo safaris.
In Sweden moose hunting is the big thingy , but there exists as well moose ” farms” or big paddocks with moose for tourists from the UK, Germany , France and other European nations. Tourists can pet a moose , feed it with apples , make photo opportunities etc. It keeps many local , rural villages alive and generates muchos profits as well as good will for the Swedish symbol, the moose.
There as well a big problem with wolves, bears , wolverines, lynx , golden eagles in Sweden. There is a big illegal hunt on these animals.
Tourist hunting would hardly help to preserve these animals , that are claimed to kill farm animals and rein deers.
However , there has been developed small scale wolf safaris , tracking the predatory animals foot prints etc , looking if you can see the animals on some special feeding places etc. This kind of tourism seems as well to be a big hit in the near future and generating money and livelyhood for the locals and at the same time changing the locals negative opinion on these animals.
And re culling of animals and so to make a buck of it.
As far as I have understood, in Norway , there was created a tourist hunt on coastal seals some years ago, as to make a buck of culling , as they claim , of seals that eat too much commercial fish.
This tourist hunt created a big international outcry, and as far as I have understood the locals ( the fishermen) state it would have been better if they killed the seals by themselves.
I checked a site on trophy hunting in Estonia. At first glance it might look like a good idea to make a buck from hunting wild boars , but at a second glance , there seems like there are lots of wounded animals.
http://www.nordicfootprints.com/eng/Hunting/trophyfee.htm
Re the tourism hunting, methinks there are lots of unskilled hunters , which results in injured animals ( not funny).
No, if there is any need to cull animals , it should only be carried out by professional hunters IMO, otherwise many animals would probably suffer from wounds…..
Game farms and so called “canned hunting” do have some conservation benefits but not as much as hunting wild populations. If you doubt the conservation benefit of a game farm look at the alternative. Either cattle, goats or other livestock or a monoculture such as wheat. Land for hunting wildlife is made as natural as possable and provides many habitat benefits for other native species.
The main conservation problems in Africa are people encroaching on and destroying habitat which leads to uncontroled and unsustainable poaching. By government controled safari hunting income is gained both for the government and for locals who usually recieve both employment and income from hunters. The money from hunters gives the government money and incentive to control poaching and protect the environment. The presence of hunters and acompanying local staff also helps in discouraging poachers as they will be seen.
If you still dobut the benefits of hunting look at Kenya. Since hunting was banned 60% of the wildlife has been destroyed. Countries with hunting programs on the other hand have ever increasing populations of wildlife.
Here’s the bitchy witchy Ann:
http://www.sloleht.ee/index.aspx?id=206813&d=20060929&a=1
PS. The headline states ” We ain’t rich loonies!”
Ann those prices for animals wounded is to stop it happening. As there are idiots in all walks of life it is necessary to charge for any wounded animals to prevent idiots making poor shooting decesions. In all Africa countries I know of a lisenced profesional hunter must accompay all hunts and will if necessary fire a second shot to ensure animals are not wounded.
Profesional shooters are not necessarly better than an average recreational shooter, the only differance is a recreational shooter pays to shoot, and you have to pay a profesional shooter.
And you say I’m not coherent wjp? Good to see you also choose to hang loose.
>No, if there is any need to cull animals , it should only be carried out by professional hunters IMO, otherwise many animals would probably suffer from wounds…..
Ann you would be depriving people of their predatory needs. No doubt part of it for some is seeing animals suffer.
>Profesional shooters are not necessarly better than an average recreational shooter, the only differance is a recreational shooter pays to shoot, and you have to pay a profesional shooter.
That’s reasurring Goodoo.
You are talking about government-run nature reserves, and basically all that is left of the “wild”. Obviously culling is an option in certain situations as ecosystems have been altered. It is a management decision for the future of those wild populations you wish to survive and pass on their DNA. Canned hunting is separate from this form of killing. Three may be some links, but the aim is different (so to speak).
Sory I was getting off the topic of farmed game. My main point was that even though it is not a perfect situation game farms are better from an environmental perspective to either running traditional livestock or cropping.
“Obviously culling is an option in certain situations as ecosystems have been altered.”
Travis all ecosystems are in a constant state of flux. There is no such thing as an “unaltered” ecosystem.
Hunting animals is not a remedial activity. It is a perfectly legitimate form of land use that inherently depends on healthy eco-systems.
I still note that none (Ann included) has dealt with Ian’s pertinent points on the dollar return and impact of a tourist-hunter versus a photographer.
Ann mentions a program where tourists are taken onto the land to observe wolves but she makes no mention of financial or social returns compared to hunting.
Ian asks a good question and it calls for people to attempt to answer it: How many of these supposed legions of tourist photographers and wildlife viewers are there who can compete with what a few well paying consumptive users are willing to pay? And how does a low number of hunters compare in terms of environmental impact with the numbers of non consumptive users that would be required to produce an equal return?
Ther usual culprits are avoiding any political or environmental discussion in favour of “ethical” positions.
Like a number of people have stated many times over, these ethics don’t take into account the realities on the ground or even provide any kind of solution.
It seems to me that the anti-hunters here belong on some animal rights groupie site or something not a site that claims to be about environment and politics.
“No, if there is any need to cull animals , it should only be carried out by professional hunters IMO, otherwise many animals would probably suffer from wounds…..”
Where are the “professional” hunters going to get their practice to become professionals?
At the Ann Novek compassionate hunting school?
Let the people in. Your central planning mentality is stifling.
BTW, I’m feeling a little better about Ann flogging advertising on her site.
I just noticed that all six ads in the masthead were for hunting outfitters.
🙂
I guess there’s “some” balance in the ads if not in the actual content.
“and a xebra skin might look decorative, but there are very nice looking fake zebra skins, saw that in an interior magazine , that btw featured ” fake” trophy animals heads as well.”
Why on earth would you be recommending a petro-chemical fake Zebra skin when the real thing is sustainably and easily available?
From an environmental aspect, this makes no sense whatsoever.
From a bunnie hugger cult point of view…
Good points, Iceclass. It is abundantly clear that the anti-hunting posters on this thread have effectively zero commercial nouse and even less understanding of herd dynamics.
All animals eventually die. Get used to it folks. And it is blindingly obvious that a game farmer could maximise his returns by ensuring that the only animals in the shooting paddock are either surplus males or post breeding females. It is exactly the same choice that livestock farmers the world over exercise when they select stock for sale.
It is appaling that it is apparently necessary to explain to some contributors here that farmers generally do not send their prime breeding stock to the meatworks. And in the same way, game farmers would not willingly send their prime breeding stock to the shooting paddock. In both cases, it is the animals that have already made their contribution and are approaching death anyway, that are consigned to an organised end.
For the same reasons, it will only be the ageing stock that are put in the same paddock with the Lions. So instead of the carnivores munching through 75% of the young each year, the farmer ensures a higher survival rate for the young and feeds the Lions (and hunters) on those who are already facing death. It is the very essence of the social contract between man and animal.
And in both hunting culls and meatworks culls, that end is almost always a great deal quicker, and a lot less traumatising, than being chased down by Lions, Wolves or Dingos. And it is invariably a lot less suffering than getting stuck in a bog, that they would have easily escaped from in younger days, and taking three days to die of exhaustion and thirst under the hungry, threatening gaze of the scavengers.
Yet these bunny huggers would have us believe that wild animals die peacefully in their sleep, in soft warm light, surrounded by music, kith and kin, and content. And then they have the gall to voice their “concerns” that 1% of hunters may need a second shot to finish the job.
And just to explain, folks, there is this thing on rifles called a magazine. It holds more than one bullet so the shooter can get off a second shot in moments if necessary. The technology has been in almost universal use by hunters now for more than a century. So do try and keep up.
Ann has wrongly concluded that there are a lot of wounded animals but the link she provides has no indication of numbers or proportions. The reason why the price list includes a charge for wounded animals (not found) is because those animals will usually be found later and be put down (after the punter goes back to camp). If they are not found then the wound is usually minor or a natural predator found them first.
Good point Goodoo regardless.
>Ther usual culprits are avoiding any political or environmental discussion in favour of “ethical” positions.
There has been discussion here on a number of aspects, not just ethical. Read what has been written. It’s a fact of life that some people just can’t see the point of wasting hard-earned cash killing animals for pleasure. This may be an ‘ethical’ issue or it may be common sense.
>It seems to me that the anti-hunters here belong on some animal rights groupie site or something not a site that claims to be about environment and politics.
What a dumb ass comment to make Iceman. Just because people here are opposed to canned hunting you assume they belong to animal rights groups. Are you that narrow minded and stupid in general life – wait, don’t answer that as we know already. If you go around thinking anyone who can’t see a need or point to ‘leisure activities’ like canned hunting must belong to AR groups then you truly underestimate the number and breadth of people on the planet that don’t share your sadistic view.
The usual soap box rant from Mott. Yawn.
>And in the same way, game farmers would not willingly send their prime breeding stock to the shooting paddock. In both cases, it is the animals that have already made their contribution and are approaching death anyway, that are consigned to an organised end.
You really are stupid. What does the game reserve owner do when a posse of Yankie gun happy “hunters” pay sht loads of money for the biggest and best? Do you think every shooter wants some average specimen? What is the purpose of canned hunting? Wank points, where size matters (sorry Mott, on sensitive ground for you there). So the only ones killed are those past breeding age or inferior males? Pffttt.
>It is the very essence of the social contract between man and animal.
Give us a break, pleeeaasse. You idiots can go all emotional but so-called ‘bunny huggers’ can’t? One tends to forget your preferences for double standards.
>Yet these bunny huggers would have us believe that wild animals die peacefully in their sleep, in soft warm light, surrounded by music, kith and kin, and content. And then they have the gall to voice their “concerns” that 1% of hunters may need a second shot to finish the job.
More Mott crap. Mohammned already raised the issue of anthropomorphising. Funny that you can do it on this apsect, but not when it comes to maintaining healthy animals with the sole purpose of hunting wankers shooting them. On the one hand you lot are saying ‘true to their nature as a predatory animal’, and in the next instance saying canned hunting is doiing the poor animals a favour against the big bad predatory world. Which is it?
>And it is invariably a lot less suffering than getting stuck in a bog, that they would have easily escaped from in younger days, and taking three days to die of exhaustion and thirst under the hungry, threatening gaze of the scavengers.
You are throwing in scenarios that do not support your argument Mott (as usual). The wonderful game warden is s’posed to go around weeding out sick and old. What high paying shooter wants to go around doing this and have some skanky zebra hide on their floor? You go on about how well these animals are treated and perfect their lives are, and then say they could be stuck in a bog or die of thirst and hunger. How, when they are looked after so well?
>Ann has wrongly concluded that there are a lot of wounded animals but the link she provides has no indication of numbers or proportions. The reason why the price list includes a charge for wounded animals (not found) is because those animals will usually be found later and be put down (after the punter goes back to camp). If they are not found then the wound is usually minor or a natural predator found them first.
Unsubstantiated crap Mott. How are you going to get numbers of animals not killed outright??? In case you haven’t noticed this is a sensitive issue that the game reserve owner would not have the time or inclination to collect and would know is controversial. Which predators find these animals with your known ‘minor’ wounds Mott?? The ones kept in the same paddock as the well-cared for hoof stock that are protected against a death most horrid by natural processes? Didn’t you say canned hunting was ‘a lot less traumatising, than being chased down by Lions, Wolves or Dingos.’? Didn’t you also say ‘Provided the kill is quick, and the author mentioned the unease of the farmers when one of their animals was not killed quickly, then any other perception of this industry is irrelevant.’? The key to this hypocrisy is you saying all other perceptions are irrelevant. Intolerance to the max for anyone who holds an alternative view to you, but them your view is so screwed up in an attempt to justify these business ventures that you don’t know what you are saying (as usual).
>All animals eventually die.
No kidding? So let’s play God and hurry some of them along as a substitute for Viagra.
Isn’t it interesting how the people who tend to be on the anti-hunting, anti-meat-eating side of debates tend to be the most aggressive types? I have seen this so many times. I have even had several different anti-hunting people tell me that they would like to shoot me.
Is it possible that they hate themselves, and take it out on everyone else? More accurately, that they hate the genetic heritage of all humans, and take out their anger on those who embrace it.
Russell E, I gather you have not been reading this blog for very long! When you get to know all the characters and their behaviour, you may think differently. Then again, you may not.
>Isn’t it interesting how the people who tend to be on the anti-hunting, anti-meat-eating side of debates tend to be the most aggressive types?
Maybe it’s because we don’t take our anger out on innocent beings by killing them? What we would really do to be able to line up a previously hugged bunny in the cross hairs! Again, read some of the archives and see who is the more aggressive. Over time normally placid participants have resorted to what you may consider as aggressive writing in order to try and communicate with the known obnoxious, narrow-minded pro-hunting anti-greenies here. When inter-species communication has failed, we resort to something they understand – be rude and aggro. In fact I see you have conveniently overlooked the language of some pro-hunters in this thread alone in order to single out anti-hunters as aggressive.
>Is it possible that they hate themselves, and take it out on everyone else? More accurately, that they hate the genetic heritage of all humans, and take out their anger on those who embrace it.
That’s a bit New Age airy fairy isn’t it? Speaking for myself, I do not hate humans or myself. The genetic heritage? Huh? ‘Anti-hunting people’ tend to be those that see the value of all life and don’t understand why the existence of an animal should be snuffed out in the pursuit of human pleasure. They see all life as equal, and not with humans at the centre of it or superior. They would prefer to preserve life – human and animal – than blow it away so they can mount its head on the wall or have a ‘real’ rug underfoot. They do not see it as their right to take the life of another creature – human or animal – simply for a ‘leisure activity’.
It seems to be very hard for pro-hunters like yourself to understand, but maybe it has something to do with that Neanderthal genetic heritage.
“It is the very essence of the social contract between man and animal.” – huh – wank on?
Thank heavens humanity with little dicks and big guns came along to save the day. The ecology would be doomed without such timely intervention. Thanks heavens.
One has to wonder at the excitement caused by blowing away a very large animal just because you can do so. Probably an example of peak evolution at work or would it be sexual dysfunction inappropriately expressed?
But the urban myth of the quick kill by the noble hunter at one with his quarry is well ingrained. What’s a lot more fun is to run smaller animals over in your FWD – why use guns? Or to wound animals so you can get in there with an axe or chain-saw – nothing like a bit of blood lust. What goes on out of sight is pretty rank. But hey – all part of the fun.
But perversely yes might save a species through some “morphing” of conservation into “farming”. Might generate more revenue than taking photos. Many trophy hunters may also be top shots. But is this a worthwhile thing to do? Putting a bullet through a large animal’s brain for fun is fun? I guess it must be if it pays so well.
Travis, hunting is not an “angry” activity. And “Neanderthal” is not an insult any more, since it is now believed that Neanderthals were the tall, good-looking, intelligent ones!
Hi Luke, a well reasoned argument as usual. What is it with all these Viaga/sexual dysfunction analogies from you anti-hunters? Projection?
” Why on earth would you be recommending a petro-chemical fake Zebra skin when the real thing is sustainably and easily available?
From an environmental aspect, this makes no sense whatsoever.
From a bunnie hugger cult point of view…” – IceClass
In touch with reality as usual IceClass! There must be at least 10 000 fake zebra skins produced each year , if not more , especially since I have seen that they are very popular in some magazines.
So you suggest it would be sustainable to kill tens of thousands zebras? Get a grip , I thought you were more intelligent than this!!!
” Maybe you need to spend more time with female hunters?” – IceClass
Hmmm, no thanks! I have a female friend that goes hunting, actually she does this to impress men, thinks it’s kind of cool and sexy with this Amazon style!
Another female hunter stated in a paper ” I got a shot gun from my husband for my birthday, now the funniest thing I know is going out on Sundays and shooting small birds in the forest!!!”
IceClass , I want to socialise with NORMAL people not wackos….
>And “Neanderthal” is not an insult any more, since it is now believed that Neanderthals were the tall, good-looking, intelligent ones!
It’s good to see you don’t have evolution on your side then and are happy with the status quo.
>Travis, hunting is not an “angry” activity.
A picture of peace and calm. Perhaps punching out anti-hunters is their outlet.
>What is it with all these Viaga/sexual dysfunction analogies from you anti-hunters? Projection?
Casual observation.
Travis: “‘Anti-hunting people’ tend to be those that see the value of all life and don’t understand why the existence of an animal should be snuffed out in the pursuit of human pleasure.”
But it’s okay in the pursuit of (non-human) animal pleasure?
Or are you going to start a campaign against all predatory animals now, too? Shall we cull them or just round them up and feed them mung beans?
Russell E, your comment is totally stupid. Are you placing human values of pleasure on predatory non-human animals? If you are anthropomorphising with pleasure, then try doing it with fear and pain.
Why would I start a campaign against predatory non-human animals? They almost always kill in order to survive. It’s called nature. Are you now going to tell me that cashed up bogans going canned hunting are hunting to survive? Are you going to forgo your car, computer, hospitals, schools, et al in favour of the natural life, or just when it suits and you get the urge to ‘remain true to your nature a predatory animal’?
Travis, so your argument goes something like this: humans can experience pleasure so they are not allowed to hunt. Correct? Very strange.
Firstly, hunters take “pleasure” in the activity because they are acting out an innate behaviour. This is not a gratuitous, hedonistic kind of pleasure. It is more related to satisfaction and fulfilment. It is very much akin to the pleasure taken in caring and providing for one’s children, in childbirth and in sexual intercourse itself (although obviously this also includes a more gratituous reward mechanism). Most of these can now or soon will be able to be replaced with artificial or outsourced alternatives, with a raft of public health benefits, yet we hang on to them because they are a fundamental part of living a satisfying life. Exactly the same is true of hunting for those who have not repressed this part of their make up.
Secondly, non-human animals are forever killing animals without utilising them. Have you never kept a cat or heard the expression “look what the cat dragged in”? Of course one cannot know whether this is due to some motivating factor such as “pleasure” or not. A behaviourist interpretation would be that they do it for practise and for establishing the social position.
What is wrong with humans doing the same thing?
I’d also point out that although the aim of trophy hunting is not to feed oneself, in most cases the meat will indeed be fully utilised. In Africa, literally every part of the animal will be used by the locals. All that is left, usually, is a blood stain on the ground.
In Australia, too, most trophy hunters have a very strong ethic to utilise meat to the greatest extent possible. In the case of sambar deer, our largest deer species which also happens to live in the roughest country, hunters frequently spend hours carting out up to 100 kilos of meat through several multi-kilometre trips through mountainous country. Often in the dark of night as deer are shot around sunset.
If you think that is “fun” or crudely “pleasurable”, think again. It’s incredibly demanding.
I am a meat hunter, so for me that is an unavoidable part of attaining my goal. But trophy hunters do it too. Even though the trophy is their main goal, making use of the meat is seen by most as imperative.
Finally, regarding nature and technology, there is no conflict between these. Humans have been using technology (and hunting, and using technology to hunt) since before even the emergence of Homo sapiens. Technology use and hunting are part of our genetic make-up.
As you can see, Russell, Iceclass, Goodoo and Paul, this is the part of the argument when, devoid of any remaining substance, the bunny huggers roust out the folks at “rent-a-diatribe”.
It goes like this, “I’ll have the McDiatribe and Spleen Vent combo thanks”. “Yes sir, one McDiatribe and Spleen Vent combo comming up. Would you like Spittle with that sir”? “Yes, a medium Spittle with Perversion inferences”. “That’ll be six cheap thrills thanks, sir”.
As was made quite clear in all the material above, these people need to be dragged kicking to get anywhere near the reality on the ground. This whole issue is nothing more than a brain rut in second rate minds.
Ann never supplies the key information when cornered because, as a true propagandist, the last thing she wants is the truth getting in the way of a good lie.
Travis’ line about the big money going for prime animals is, again, only a small part of the truth. Yes, a premium is paid for big healthy animals and that is what happens to the surplus males. The very best are kept for breeding and the rest are surplus.
And his claim that is all just a random shootout simply highlights his manifest ignorance. One game farmer I know of actually traps wild pigs but these traps catch the full range of age classes etc. So he sorts them and puts the surplus males and post breeding females into a larger pen to wait for a shooting customer.
A day before the shooters arrive he cuts off their water so that when they are released the next day they go straight down to the water hole for a drink.
Well a few points made by myself and others amply illustrated in the last two posts!
>Travis, so your argument goes something like this: humans can experience pleasure so they are not allowed to hunt. Correct? Very strange.
Very strange the way you have managed to twist and come up with something totally different Russell. But whatever makes you feel better.
>Firstly, hunters take “pleasure” in the activity because they are acting out an innate behaviour. This is not a gratuitous, hedonistic kind of pleasure. It is more related to satisfaction and fulfilment. It is very much akin to the pleasure taken in caring and providing for one’s children, in childbirth and in sexual intercourse itself (although obviously this also includes a more gratituous reward mechanism).
Obviously I am not feeling statisfied and fulfilled as I have not experienced true blood letting, only hunting down that interview, tradesman, bargain, perfect camping ground… Perhaps this ‘innate’ hunting is from a shared DNA with chimps. I don’t possess this innate behavior and neither do many others, so perhaps we are closer to bonobos (who prefer to make love, not war). Perhaps we are better at controlling our own lives and don’t want to control the deaths of others.
As for the rest of what you wrote, let’s just say for politeness sake that we will agree to disagree. But you have enlightened me a little into the ‘mind’ of a killer when using an analogy with a domesticated animal – killing out of sheer boredom. Nothing else satisfies, so go and kill something. I think they call it ‘blood lust’? I’ll stick to watching a DVD or catching up with friends thanks. Of course it could be that kitty is so well fed that it doesn’t eat the native animal as canned food tastes better (pun intended). And as cats are loners I doubt it would be for social position, but that sounds about right for human canned hunters.
Incest, rape, pedophilia, lying and violence are also part of our genetic make up, but we have what we call morals to keep these ‘repressed’ throwbacks to our ancestors in check.
>Ann never supplies the key information when cornered because, as a true propagandist, the last thing she wants is the truth getting in the way of a good lie.
Pfftt. Classic Mott. Is there a mirror around?
As you can see, Luke, Ann, Mohammed, Jennifer B, (shall we include Daniel too?), this is the part of the argument when, devoid of any remaining substance, animal killers roust out the folks at “rent-a-diatribe”.
Whatever Mott, yawn.
“>What is it with all these Viaga/sexual dysfunction analogies from you anti-hunters? Projection?
Casual observation.
Posted by: Travis at April”
Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
The other conspicuous fallacy flogged by bunny huggers is the claim that the animals don’t stand a chance, that this kind of hunting is somehow unfair, blah blah. But the difference between modern waterhole ambush and the same conducted by hunter gatherers is minimal.
In the past, humans overcame the problem caused by animals not arriving on que by hunting in groups. So instead of a single hunter hiding beside one of four tracks leading to a water hole, and facing a good chance of going without, they hunted in numbers so one or more could wait beside each track. And when a suitable animal came past one of the group members they all got a feed whether they actually made the kill or not. Ditto for other hunters like Lions etc.
So this implication that modern practices that improve the chances of a kill are somehow not kosher is, once again, pure Bull$hit.
So where does that leave us on the morality scale?
Right at the top is the game farmer who has a very large share of his total assets devoted to maintaining wildlife in close to their natural state.
Below this is the big price hunter who parts with enough funds in one day to support an entire village for a year, or cover a big share of the interest bill.
Below this is the lesser price hunter who along with the greater number of his kind, provide the regular cash flow that keeps the entire venture and all the wildlife on stable financial ground.
At this level are also the paid staff who maintain the the going concern and all the wildlife in it, and the villagers who buy the bushmeat and engage in all the associated commercial activities etc.
Below this are the informed public who have sufficient common sense to recognise a true sustainable industry when they see one. And while they may not choose to go hunting themselves, they recognise the right of others to do so.
And on rock bottom are the ignorant, moralistic, intimidatory hypocrites who have their heads so far up their own backsides that they can no longer see daylight. The limited depth of their vision is a direct consequence of their intellectual poverty and the darkness of their souls. And their willingness to interfere is directly related to their contempt for the rights of other people.
Travis: Unfortunately Ian Mott’s scenario of an animal stuck in a bog is very real but the gruesome end is invariably worse than the three day lingering death. Scavengers don’t wait for the beast to be recently deceased they tuck much sooner. Crows deem eyes to be a good opening. Dogs love a good fresh tongue. Wedge tail eagles will start with a wedgie.
I recently had a cow attacked by dogs while calving , they ate the young’s nose and tongue ,of course the mother paniced and consequently fell down and couldn’t get up.
Upon finding the poor animal you endeavour to improve its lot, you know water within reach and a bit of feed, just in case.
Other things need doing so off you go. Returning to the animal after a couple of hours only to find the eagles have moved in.
I can assure you that that animal looked up knowing all to well what had to done.
So spare us the pious self-righteous crap, get out a bit more,and open your eyes ‘cos what you’ll see won’t necessarily be the Garden of Eden.
Yes that’s a day in the life. How many times do we have to multiply that to reveal the true ugliness of existence.
Don’t forget to smell the flowers!
OK guys to make it all very nasty,
Once WJP was very upset with me , because I had a certain understanding that the local Norwegians and Icelanders hunted whales. As a ” true” Aussie , he didn’t like that at all, and I do respect that! So are we back again to the old hypocracy issue?
The whalers hunt for food , so what’s wrong with whaling but not ” canned hunting”?.
I know a tricky issue!!!
Spot on wjp. Run a statistical analysis of life expectancy, stress and “quality of death” and farmed animals, either wild or domestic, will always come out miles ahead of animals in nature.
Nature’s convenience food is the young and adolescent. This notion that natural predators provide a valuable service by culling the sick and less genetically robust is only a very small part of a larger truth. That larger truth is that natural predators don’t actually promote the survival of the fittest but, rather, the random survival of a lucky minority of the young. Those taken are not weaker or less deserving than the survivors, they are just plain unlucky.
In contrast, farmers consider that they have a serious problem on their hands when even 5% of each year’s young are lost. And game farmers know that one 600kg adult can satisfy a pride of Lions for longer than ten 60kg calves. It is not “egghead maths” here folks, keep ten young animals with potential and sacrifice one old animal that has enjoyed a good, safe, well fed life and has served its purpose.
Hunting or meatworks, the life is far better, and the death is faster and less stressful. For those with the capacity to really understand the whole situation, it is THE humane thing to do.
But the essence of bunny-hugger wildlife management has always had neglect and indifference to suffering as core attributes.
Note how Travis no longer even has the wit to defend his position. He seriously thinks a yawn is a considered response. I suppose in his millieu a yawn would be.
And Ann, no weaseling now, how many photographers are needed to match the revenue from a buffalo hunter? And where are all these photographers?
My main problem with the hunting issue , is the notion that some people think it’s ” natural” and ” fun”.
If hunting is for food I have less problems with the issue.
Methink as well it’s strange to collect trophies, that have been hunted in ” canned ” hunting. It’s not sports , it’s just wackoo..You have zero connection to nature or how the prey is moving and do not need any tracking skills etc.
Animals in game parks are often familiar with humans, so what’s the difference between hunting in ” canned” hunts or working in a slaughterhouse???
The entire thingy seems to be to collect some throphies for your friends for impression , but it’s only FAKE!!!
Motty, re wounded animals , I can tell you that I have no stats on animals in game parks, but there are 10 000( at least) deers and moose wounded each year in Sweden in the annual hunting. When it comes to bears the stats are awful and very cruel.
“And where are all these photographers?” – Motty
Might be the case that the photographers don’t want any photos of semi domesticated animals that are born in captivity and have also lost some of their natural instincts , etc.
The photographers might want real wildlife encounters?
Ann: do you also want to ban prostitution or pornography?
> Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
Just as a clarification, this is the same Paul Williams that is a vet? Who chastised Ann for anecdotal evidence when she reported a story about farm/domesticated animals swallowing plastic bags but then went on to say in his practice he had not seen any animals which had swallowed plastic bags, thus providing his own anecdotal evidence? Who also didn’t use his veterinary experience to explain to certain repeat offenders how items such as plastic bags, hair ties, toys, plastic, cloth, etc can cause life threatening obstructions in animals? Hmm…
Wjp, we are talking about canned hunting here, not you or any other farmer performing what is surely their duty for the welfare of their animals when they are in situations such as ‘stuck in a bog’. As you are managing said animals, I would hope that you do despatch of them quickly and humanely.
>So spare us the pious self-righteous crap, get out a bit more,and open your eyes ‘cos what you’ll see won’t necessarily be the Garden of Eden.
Yes that’s a day in the life. How many times do we have to multiply that to reveal the true ugliness of existence.
Don’t forget to smell the flowers!
What the hell is wrong with you pro-hunters? You can’t comprehend basic English? It’s a rhetorical question by the way. Where here have I said life is all a Garden of Eden? Where have I even hinted I am clueless as to the vicissitudes of life for a wild animal? I’m not the one putting human emotions on animals like ‘I can assure you that that animal looked up knowing all to well what had to done.’ As you have no idea what I do or have done your comment is ill-informed in the extreme. Again I reiterate for you so hopefully it will sink it – we are taking about canned hunting. There has been the usual confusion thrown in by the usual suspect regarding these animals living the good life and not being eaten alive one minute and then the next being left to predators when they are not outright killed by canned hunters, but that’s to be expected. You pro-hunters like to justify controlling life and death by saying how bad the big wide word is and how you are doing animals a favour by hunting. Anti-hunters seem to know that death is part of the natural world and that animals do not always die pleasantly. When you are managing animals, then you have a duty of care to act humanely when animals are sick or injured or in cases of over-population or pest species. You don’t need to justify your fun to me, so give it a break and take your own advice of smelling a flower or two.
More stupidity and ranting by Mott
> Note how Travis no longer even has the wit to defend his position. He seriously thinks a yawn is a considered response. I suppose in his millieu a yawn would be.
Yes, stupid. You can’t even recognise when someone can’t be bothered with simpleton Mott. You are so predictable it us boring. You are so hypocritical it is boring. Why waste time defending any position against you? Life is too short and there are batter things to do.
So stick with the issue – canned hunting. Rich wankers going out and killing animals so they can have fun and boast to their buddies.
>Ann: do you also want to ban prostitution or pornography?
Your point would be?
So Russel, what kinda of a looser are you that have to buy sex???
So you don’t want to eat the animal;
it wasn’t a threat to yourself, family or community;
you didn’t want to wear its hide;
it wasn’t part of a cull to preserve the soil/vegetation resource;
it wasn’t competing with your livestock.
You really just wanted to shoot it dead and blow its brains out.
You can tell all the stories you like about how human management might be more “kind and less violent” than nature. How nature is cruel. But the really interesting issue is why does a human, most likely male, want to gratuitously kill an animal simply for that reason alone – why not take it’s photo and go home.
Are we missing something?
” It is very much akin to the pleasure taken in caring and providing for one’s children, in childbirth and in sexual intercourse itself (although obviously this also includes a more gratituous reward mechanism).” – Russel
I find it very disturbing that Russel compares the ” pleasure” to take a living beings life to the joy of giving birth to a child!!!
Makes you wonder what mechanisma are at play in his brain!
Mo wouldn’t tell us so how about Ann and Travis telling us how much of their own money has gone to maintaining wildlife? Why not admit that on the basis of your actions, rather than your blabbered opinions, you have contributed absolutely jack $hit to help any wildlife. You are both at the very bottom of the moral standing curve.
And hunters are motivated by the same things that motivate more than 60% of any human population to go fishing. No-one goes fishing for some sort of desire to choke the life out of a fish. No, they go fishing and hunting for the whole package, the escape from the every day, the contact with nature, the thrill of the chase, the company of friends, and, yes, the trophy. In both cases a killing takes place but it is a part of the experience that rarely gets remembered.
So kindly take your pathetic attempts to demonise hunters and give them time and place utility in an appropriate orofice.
I have put my view across and can see those antihunters will never alter their views. I will just put up a couple of points made I found strange.
“I don’t understand why the existence of an animal should be snuffed out in the pursuit of human pleasure.”
The price payed for the life of that animal provides a future for many others and the protection of the habitat.
It was stated that hunters want the biggest and best. What has not been mentioned is that the biggest will be the oldest and they have already passed on their genes. Removing the older animals allows the younger animals to take their place and is good for the population.
“So stick with the issue – canned hunting. Rich wankers going out and killing animals so they can have fun and boast to their buddies.”
These well off people you refer to as “rich wankers” have just spent much more money than 100 photographers would ever spend, to harvest several older animals and take home their horns and hides while the meat has just fed many locals. Even though it may not be something you want to do you should be thankfull that these people are prepared to spend their money on wildlife so it will be avaliable for future generations. With the ever increasing world population and their demand for food, giving these animals a larger value than their meat is the only way they will continue to exist.
So yes you can assert the social aspect of the hunt, and the overall experience – but bird watchers might go to similar lengths to “spot” a rare bird. Doesn’t culminate in the destruction of the object of desire.
Says something. What’s so good about blowing the animal’s brains out after you’ve had your time communing with friends and nature, and adrenalin pumping during the stalk. Seems utterly gratuitous if the sole reason is to finally execute the beast. Face it – supporters love blowing life away. You love it. Gets you off doesn’t it.
Shooting a rhino for $100,000 would make you a total barbarian IMO. Why the hell would you want to do that unless you were a totally diminished wanker. So guys show us how rhino populations are booming (that’s populations not their craniums) as a result of this population engineering by hunting?
Reality is before the “big one” – the “hunt” blasts away at sundry wildlife for a couple of days, bodies rot in the field, the wounded limp off and if they’re lucky die quickly, and the money is siphoned off by middle-men with bugger all going to the locals.
>Why not admit that on the basis of your actions, rather than your blabbered opinions, you have contributed absolutely jack $hit to help any wildlife.
LOL! So Mott regardless of the fact you know jack sht about contributors here, you make your usual baseless assumptions? That’s why you are taken so seriously Mott!!
If you want the whole package with fishing Mott, try spearfishing. That way you really do have to work for your supper and just might end up being a snack of something higher up the food chain.
>In both cases a killing takes place but it is a part of the experience that rarely gets remembered.
So they have a brain faze when looking through the photos of them standing, chest puffed out, dopey grin, with their foot on the head of a dead kudu?
>So kindly take your pathetic attempts to demonise hunters and give them time and place utility in an appropriate orofice.
Hunters do a pretty good job of demonising themselves Mott!! You are the pathetic losers that feel the need to justify your fun and games harming other living beings. If the appropiate orifice is your backside Mott, then just make sure Alex vacates it first.
>The price payed for the life of that animal provides a future for many others and the protection of the habitat.
The proverbial sacrifical lamb excuse. Any ‘future’ would be for the others in the game reserve, and their future is going to end with a bullet or arrow. It is private property and its long-term future would not be assured once sold. Whilst it is a game reserve it operates as a private business to keep animals alive for the purpose of canned hunting.
>It was stated that hunters want the biggest and best. What has not been mentioned is that the biggest will be the oldest and they have already passed on their genes.
If you are familiar with dominance heirachies and hormonal control during breeding seasons you will know this is not necessaily the case at all. Older animals have pelts that are heavily scarred and may also have horn damage. Animals in the prime of their life are just that.
>Removing the older animals allows the younger animals to take their place and is good for the population.
The ‘population’ you are talking about is the private collection of the game reserve owner. We are not talking about nature reserves here. Believe it or not, in the big bad world of real nature, animals that have lost their strength are knocked off their pedestals by younger and stronger ones naturally. Big bad nature has been doing this since life began – it’s called survival of the fittest – and is all tied in to optimal genetic material transfer. This is something you are saying canned hunters want control of, and control seems to be one of the driving factors behind this blood sport.
>be thankfull that these people are prepared to spend their money on wildlife so it will be avaliable for future generations.
Oh yeah, they spend their money on wildlife – they kill it and use it as a trophy. Do you really think they care about future generations? If all the rhinos were gone they would move on to something else. As the article points out, some of these people are totally clueless as to what they are shootng, They just want to shoot *something* exotic. Future generations exist for the sole purpose of killing them. That sounds like a good way of preserving life! As for being thankful, I would be thankful if these individuals got a taste of their own medicine (and that is being polite).
>With the ever increasing world population and their demand for food, giving these animals a larger value than their meat is the only way they will continue to exist.
What a crock of sht. So the future of wildlife management rests on game reserves making profits from cashed up sadists on private properties? All the tourism that goes through wildlife reserves doesn’t make enough to continue the existence of wildlife? There is no local culture that wants to preserve their endemic fauna except for the purposes of canned hunting?
>I have put my view across and can see those antihunters will never alter their views.
With all due respect, are you seriously thinking we will on the basis of what has been put to us here??!
Travis has spoken like the true ambassador for Dumbturdistan. Despite all the evidence his brain rut still dominates with its underlying position that killing by humans is a threat to the long term survival of the species.
So why don’t you tell that to sheep, cattle, goats, horses, donkeys, deer, caribou, camels, moose, alpacas, llamas, pigs, guinea pigs, rabbits, geese, ducks, chooks, turkeys, pigeons, quail, ostriches, salmon, tuna, perch, eels, prawns, crayfish, and crocodiles. For they are all farmed by humans and all now have their future absolutely assured.
And the essence of their social contract with humans is that we;
1. protect their young and maximise their growth,
2. ensure the continuity of food supplies by adjusting stocking rates,
3. improve the nutrition of their food supplies,
4. minimise stress by excluding predators,
5. minimise stress and harm from excessive competition between males,
6. remove or reduce threats posed by natural hazzards and extreme weather events,
7. improve their resistance to diseases through selective breeding,
8 reduce the proportion of energy stocks used up on travelling to and from water, and
9. reduce their impact on the environment, especially at water holes, by provision of more evenly spaced water points.
All these activities fall unambiguously within the meaning of “care”. They are all sensible and essentially “humane” things that are done by humans for the well being of their animal partners.
And as a result of these interventions each animal has a much longer than average life, with much less trauma.
And even when it is time for humans to collect on their part of this contract by obtaining meat for their on-going contribution, it is generally done in the most “humane” way possible.
When an animal’s time to die eventually comes, it generally comes quickly, with no warning, with no stress, fear or aggravation. It is the kind of death that most humans would choose for themselves and their loved ones.
It is one of the truly proudest achievments of human kind, that when humans set about exercising their minds to improve the quality of their own lives, they took along so many other species with them to share in the benefits of that improved quality of life. It is one of the most ‘humane’ things we have ever done.
Those who truly care for animals are not satisfied with a stupid slogan on a T-shirt. They actively engage in all the above activities and more. They seek out a way to meet their own obligations to their family whilst maximising their care for their animal partners. They “farm” them.
And the more species that can be included in our concept of farming “profit centres”, the fewer remaining species will need to be ‘protected’ in reserve “cost centres”.
Probably explains the plagues of rhinos.
>Those who truly care for animals…They “farm” them.”
Pfffttt. LOL!!! CLASSIC! You are too funny!
Ann > So Russel, what kinda of a looser are you that have to buy sex???
hehe, I do buy it in a way, I am married ;).
Jokes aside, the point I am trying to make is that just because it’s not your choice to do certain things is no reason to deny that right to everyone else, unless of course your branch of politics is totalitarianism.
As for your disbelief that I could in any way relate the taking of life to childbirth, I commiserate you on just how disconnected you have become from the cycle of life and nature’s ways. I assume then to be consistent with your philosophy, you are fruitarian.
>Despite all the evidence his brain rut still dominates with its underlying position that killing by humans is a threat to the long term survival of the species.
And I said this where Mott?? Which species? You’re losing it buddy. Get your glasses on and hearing aid in – canned hunting is about killing by humans for profit. Do they hunt guinea pigs and prawns this way? What sort of camo gear do you wear for that? How do you mount a chook’s head on your wall?
>And even when it is time for humans to collect on their part of this contract by obtaining meat for their on-going contribution, it is generally done in the most “humane” way possible.
Haven’t you mentioned in the past that farm animals are not always killed humanely, as a justification for the cruelty of whaling?
Hey, be my guest and keep spinning sht Mott. It keeps me amused.
Thanks Travis, I really appreciate how you come in, right on cue, with your perfect demonstation of the ignorant urban green, so full of his own $hit that he just can’t get the message. You are a perfect demonstration of those people for whom the word “care” does not come with any action attached. You simply “care” about animals as a statement of ideological position.
But it may interest you to learn that for most people the word “care” comes with both an action and an obligation. We “provide care”, we “give care” and we “take care”. And in farming wildlife we “provide care” that recognises that the alternative to our actions in delivering care is actually indifference.
You claim you ‘care’ for wildlife but you take no action, and certainly provide no funds that would assist in the delivery of care to wildlife. When millions of kangaroos are enduring a slow, miserable death in drought, you are never there to help and you are never there to minimise the harm done to the landscape while they desperately scavenge for food.
Clearly, the only action word that could be attached to your concept of “care” is the action of omission. You simply “don’t care”, because you never actually “provide care”. But you have somehow managed to steal a temporary monopoly on the word based on its most vague and indeterminant meaning.
Jennifer has posted this in the first thread:
” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy via Jim. ”
To Russel,
Tolstoy really was a remarkable man , behind such masterpieces such as ” Anna Karenina and War and Piece”.
He was also a vegetarian. He couldn’t bear to eat his animal friends…
Apologies, read : “War and Peace”
Leo Tolstoy:
Not long ago I had a talk with a retired soldier, a butcher, and he was surprised at my assertion that it was a pity to kill, and said the usual things about it’s being ordained. But afterwards he agreed with me: `Especially when they are quiet, tame cattle. They come, poor things! trusting you. It is very pitiful.’
This is dreadful! Not the suffering and death of the animals, but that a man suppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity — that of sympathy and pity towards living creatures like himself — and by violating his own feelings becomes cruel. And how deeply seated in the human heart is the injunction not to take life
Tolstoy was also part of that turgid, idealistic intellectual soup that spawned Stalinism and the Kulak genocide. The left all “cared” for the poor but that did not stop them exporting millions of tonnes of grain to pay for the importation of Stalin’s “modernisation” while millions of the people in the countryside who they supposedly “cared” for died of starvation or were murdered as ‘saboteurs’.
And despite all the evidence of a century of comprehensive failure, we still have isolated pockets of the “Bimbosphere” flogging the same old bull$hit.
Personally my kind of a ” hero” is in the old movie ” the Deer Hunter”. Robert de Niro aimes with his high powered rifle to shoot a deer , but when he has the deer in the scope perfectly , he takes away the rifle and lets the deer run away.
And for the third time , I invite IceClass to post a guest post on either Polar Bears, Wildlife Management in Arctic Canada, Problems with NGOs etc.
I knew I saw Motty out there past Quilpie with a water bag going round giving poor dying roos a drink. Shame on you Travis – where’s your committment….
Funny that they cut their heads off so you can’t see the shooters’ accuracy though.
>the ignorant urban green,
>You are a perfect demonstration of those people for whom the word “care” does not come with any action attached.
>You claim you ‘care’ for wildlife but you take no action, and certainly provide no funds that would assist in the delivery of care to wildlife.
>You simply “don’t care”, because you never actually “provide care”.
Rant, rant, crap on. LOL!
Mott you have no idea what I do, have done or anything about me. It is proof that you post unsubstantiated rubbish. It’s laughable what a fraud you are.
>you are never there to help and you are never there to minimise the harm done to the landscape while they desperately scavenge for food.
Tell me Mott, how do you *know*? You don’t! Plain and simple. So quit making up Mott porkies to suit your dopey justification about…canned hunting??
Russell E wrote:-
>Ann: do you also want to ban prostitution or pornography?
>Jokes aside, the point I am trying to make is that just because it’s not your choice to do certain things is no reason to deny that right to everyone else, unless of course your branch of politics is totalitarianism.
Without doubt the majority of users of prostitution and pornography in the world would be males, and they would be viewing women. I am not convinced that many women choose these ‘careers’ because they like it. They are on hard times and need to support themselves, their families, their drug habits, they may even be kidapped and forced into such activities.
Prostitution and pornography can be activities that harm individuals for the purpose of providing pleasure to others. But I guess you’ll be saying at least it provides employment.
Your comparison of canned hunting with prostitution and pornography is the best support yet that canned hunting is for wankers. Your comparison of voluntarily taking life for fun with giving birth is proof you are a sicko.
So come on Travis and Ann are you fruitarian? If not please explain how you can bear to eat the corpses of other living things.
P.S. Far out I’ve had the book thrown at me before, but never “War and Piece”
> fruitarian
The term is frugivore.
Russel asks if I’m a vegetarian/ fruitarian.
No, no I’m not as healthy as that 😉 . I’m into junk food , pasta, chocolate cakes , whipped cream, beer , whine , you name it , but hardly never meat.
I have to give it to you, Ann, you are the queen of the humourous Freudian slip.
” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy via Jim. ”
Sort of paraphrased by Mark Twain as
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
And a quote for users of a certain principle –
“The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one’s self to destiny” Richard Hofstadter
(found in a local newsletter)
To IceClass , that criticized me for saving sea gulls:
” Albert Schweitzer said that: “All life is sacred.” Let’s go further and realise it’s all sacred – down to the curve in this hill, the colour of that rippled sand, the way the sea current sets between those particular rocks, the ones with the green lichen, where the seagulls like to sit and screech at high tide.”