Trophy/Big Game Hunting. Killing animals for fun.

[loraward]

I answered and agreed, but the post (non-contentious, and only quoting your own non-contentious post) was erased as well (go figure ).

 

There was nothing evil in it whatsoever, neither was there anything evil in mine: your point was that managed reserves selling the opportunity to kill some of their managed animal populations allows these reserves and the local communities that work in/around them to be self-reliant and self-sustaining (including the herds).

 

I agreed fully, as a long-time hunter myself and entirely familiar with animal population management (for that is essentially what 'hunting' is about, at least in my neck of the woods (northeast France): sick and old animals are killed/culled in priority, overpopulation is likewise culled to prevent crop damage, because in that particular neck of the woods, hunters actually pay farmers for that damage).

 

No moral dilemma for me: so long as the hunting is supervised and in a managed reserve (therefore precluding truly wild 'unmanaged' animals populations, which would effectively amount to poaching), it's a business with strong local bio- and socio-ecomic benefits.

 

I really don't know what was so contentious about the above (...unless some closet overzealous animals-über-alles activist took offense to some home truths, of course)

 

Whilst I disprove of hunting animals for sport, I accept the validity of this argument, but I don't understand the need to cull one species so that another species can continue overpopulating the planet.

[L00b]

Whilst I disprove of hunting animals for sport, I accept the validity of this argument, but I don't understand the need to cull one species so that another species can continue overpopulating the planet.

False logic, bit of a strawman there.

 

Culling is, by definition, population management, which has happened since time immemorial: its purpose is not to make more room for humans, it is to keep that animal population healthy and preventing/stopping an imbalance in the immediate ecosystem. Killing a few gazelles is not 'culling' by any stretch of the imagination, either.

 

I understand people taking exception to hunting animals for sport, but the fact of that matter is that if they were not, then periodically mass cullings (of the sort recently considered for badgers) would have to be performed by contractors/armed police/the army, or biowarfare (refer myxomatosis' introduction in the UK): until not so long ago, hunting was easily as much for food as for 'sport' (ask your grandparents about their rabbit/etc. eating habits) and the animal populations were pretty much balanced, it's only in the past few decades that people have effectively stopped killing anything themselves to improve their ordinary, and taken to just buying everything from the shelves. What do you think has happened to the animal populations that are not being hunted anymore? overpopulation, then sickness (a side-effect of overpopulation), then periodical mass culls.

 

As regards humans, regrettably there's still plenty enough culling going on at any given time somewhere on the planet to this day. Ask the Bosnians, Rwandans, Syrians, <etc.>

Edited May 21, 2015 by L00b

[SqueakyPete]

Two years ago I went to Kenya on one of these trips, though it didn't quite cost £60,000!

 

I managed to bag myself a Gazelle and someone in my group was lucky enough to get a Giraffe.

 

To me shooting a Giraffe is no different to squashing a spider in your house. Both are deliberate attempts to kill an animal for no real reason. Fishing is just the same too.

 

I see no problem with shooting animals, it is fun and educational.

 

Resident troll?

[hyper]

I see no problem with shooting animals, it is fun and educational.

Yeah, deffo. Should be in every school's curriculum ... not

[charmer]

Yeah, deffo. Should be in every school's curriculum ... not

 

Of course not, it would be far too expensive for one and not really needed to educate children to be successful in the adult world.

 

Lots of things are educational but belong outside of a school curriculum, ones first sexual experience as an example.

 

Your point was silly.

[taxman]

As I posted to you yesterday (in that erased post), indeed what matters is the fluffiness factor : you don't ever see the WWF and others asking people to sponsor a platypus or a hippo pup

 

Actually you are wrong. The Black Rat is very rare in the UK and is almost extinct. It clings on in a few isolated islands, one of which the RSPB own. They wanted to eradicate the black rats to help the puffin population.

 

Now seeing as puffins on the island were generally doing well, and seeing as black rats are incredibly rare people did actually kick up a fuss about it. Whether they were successful I'm not sure, but it's an example of non-fluffy thinking.

 

It isn't the fluffiness factor. Most grown ups know that countryside management can involve killing things. I can't for a minute imagine the benefits to the countryside, the environment or the local ecosystem though of killing thousands of skylarks, hoopoes, turtle doves, or anything that can fly

 

What is "fun" about that?

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 20:35 ----------

 

I think shooting to kill is a special skill.

There are many things to consider, the quarry, the weapon, the bullet, the terrain, the weather and the taking of the shot.

All these combined to result in the 'switching off' of an animal makes it very satisfying.

 

Why would you want to "switch off" an animal? Are you some sort of pervert?

 

How is shooting a big animal with a powerful gun a special skill? You can even hire automatic shotguns to shoot skylarks if you want.

 

Now going one on one with a bear or tiger without a high powered rifle might get you kudos points, but shooting something with a gun? Pervert.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 20:42 ----------

 

I was always of the opinion it should be banned until watching a Louis Theroux documentary where he went to visit a game reserve. The owners explained that without the money from game hunters, the land would be used for farming or development.

 

Yes we should conserve the land for animals anyway.

 

But we wouldn't.

 

The hunters themselves were sad though, being driven to watering holes to shoot what in effect is a sitting duck used to human contact, in order to trophy the head home and take photos, for the wall. How pathetic. Not even a achievement.

 

I still think its wrong, I just think banning it would have a worse consequence.

 

This argument always comes up. How would you feel if a paedophile was allowed to abuse two children a week in an orphanage in return for a big donation? The donation would enable the orphanage to take more kids in, but then every so often they'd be buggered.

 

Abusing children is wrong.

Killing animals for fun is wrong.

 

People shouldn't be able to pay their way out of being a git.

[RonJeremy]

Killing animals is not wrong always.

Abusing children is wrong. Always.

[monkey104]

Actually you are wrong. The Black Rat is very rare in the UK and is almost extinct. It clings on in a few isolated islands, one of which the RSPB own. They wanted to eradicate the black rats to help the puffin population.

 

Now seeing as puffins on the island were generally doing well, and seeing as black rats are incredibly rare people did actually kick up a fuss about it. Whether they were successful I'm not sure, but it's an example of non-fluffy thinking.

 

It isn't the fluffiness factor. Most grown ups know that countryside management can involve killing things. I can't for a minute imagine the benefits to the countryside, the environment or the local ecosystem though of killing thousands of skylarks, hoopoes, turtle doves, or anything that can fly

 

What is "fun" about that?

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 20:35 ----------

 

 

Why would you want to "switch off" an animal? Are you some sort of pervert?

How is shooting a big animal with a powerful gun a special skill? You can even hire automatic shotguns to shoot skylarks if you want.

 

Now going one on one with a bear or tiger without a high powered rifle might get you kudos points, but shooting something with a gun? Pervert.

 

---------- Post added 21-05-2015 at 20:42 ----------

 

 

This argument always comes up. How would you feel if a paedophile was allowed to abuse two children a week in an orphanage in return for a big donation? The donation would enable the orphanage to take more kids in, but then every so often they'd be buggered.

 

Abusing children is wrong.

Killing animals for fun is wrong.

 

People shouldn't be able to pay their way out of being a git.

 

I don't know, maybe I am. It gives me a strange tingling sensation.

[Bonzo77]

My moral dilemma was erased - no doubt for very good reason - would anyone care to answer. Obviously I'm not going to repeat it because there must have been something evil in it. I think it was addressed at Bonzo, but tbh I forget.

 

Don't know what happened there Ron. I was given a suspension for using inappropriate language?! I didn't mean to aim my comments at you or anyone on here, apologies if that's how it sounded.

[JamesR123]

I am fairly sure BoJo will have little impact on the laws of most African countries.

 

I suppose he could ban the importation of trophies.