Trophy/Big Game Hunting. Killing animals for fun.

[donkey]

nvm, misread your post

 

 

Which is the lesser of the two evils, donkey? The trigger-happy rich folks who want to bag a buffalo or an antelope, or the locals catering to their tastes?

 

The locals catering to their tastes would be the lesser of two evils, if they didn't go over quotas. But on the wealth of evidence that cash has massive power to corrupt people (especially those with sod all) it would be suprising if head counts weren't being falsified, and over zealous estimates of the optimum culls weren't being submitted and approved. The whole thing sounds like a cash cow. Maybe the profit motive isn't always the best way of dealing with difficult questions of conservation and ecological balance?

 

http://ocpausa.org/hunting.htm

 

This article casts grave doubt on your argument that paying trophy hunters are strictly regulated and do more good than harm. It seems more likely this is merely an extremely dubious line these wealthy and well connected weirdos spin to justify their behaviour.

 

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that there is something wrong with people who want to kill wild animals for pleasure.

Edited November 6, 2011 by donkey

[Mr Gobby]

He means in the gluttonous West

 

Even more so, i like my meat.Dead or alive.

[some guy]

I love killing insects. I have one of those electric tennis racket things. It's so fun getting a big fat fly stuck to one of them and watching it spark and smoke

[L00b]

http://ocpausa.org/hunting.htm

This article casts grave doubt on your argument that paying trophy hunters are strictly regulated and do more good than harm.

Here are a couple of -I'd like to think- somewhat less biased and better-researched articles on the very subject:

 

article 1

 

article 2

 

Which readily acknowledge the problem of corruption (it's Africa, for God's sake...who is kidding who, here? ), yet equally measure the current benefits of this form of eco-tourism, and recommend continuation, albeit more strictly controlled. Nothing surprising there, then. Save as to the obvious few exceptions that will confirm the rule, my argument stands (seems fair, since you are broad-brushing yourself )

 

Oh, btw-

This article casts grave doubt on your argument that paying trophy hunters are strictly regulated and do more good than harm.

Where did I say that?

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that there is something wrong with people who want to kill wild animals for pleasure.

You need to define 'pleasure'. Do you mean this generally as a form of leisure, or more pointedly as a form of pathos? Edited November 6, 2011 by L00b

[donkey]

 

Which readily acknowledge the problem of corruption (it's Africa, for God's sake...who is kidding who, here? ),

 

 

You have changed your tune somewhat. You gave the impression earlier that you believe tourist trophy hunting is a fantastic aid to conservation from which everyone is a winner. Yet - at the drop of a hat - you readily admit it is plagued by corruption, with the obvious compromising effect this has has on it's intended purpose.

 

yet equally measure the current benefits of this form of eco-tourism, and recommend continuation, albeit more strictly controlled. Nothing surprising there, then. Save as to the obvious few exceptions that will confirm the rule, my argument stands (seems fair, since you are broad-brushing yourself )

 

 

I don't see where you have demonstrated a measure of anything. How is it you have proved your assertion that paying trophy hunters are, on the whole, beneficial to wildlife and ecology?

 

 

 

This article casts grave doubt on your argument that paying trophy hunters are strictly regulated

 

 

Oh, btw-

Where did I say that?

 

 

How would you even know what the effects were unless it was monitored and controlled?

I'm becoming increasingly mystified as to the logic of your argument. You didn't say it directly but it is self evident that if you asserting paying trophy hunters help maintain the eco balance in game reserves, it could only be as part of a strictly regulated scheme.

 

Otherwise what you are asserting is that even if they let these people shoot animals willy nilly, the effects on conservation will still turn out to be beneficial?

 

 

You need to define 'pleasure'. Do you mean this generally as a form of leisure, or more pointedly as a form of pathos?

 

No I don't (need to define pleasure). You are retreating into lawyerish style semantics here, which I always take as a sure sign that someone is arguing a cause which they don't really believe in.

Edited November 7, 2011 by donkey

[ANGELFIRE1]

I think it would be fair to say some posters on this subject are posting with little or no knowledge of the subject in hand. Letting emotion over rule common sense.

 

The clue is in the Avatar.

 

Regards

 

Angel

[0742Sheff]

If you really feel that strongly, have you not thought about going and shooting some of the anglers in Crookes Valley Park?

 

Why would he want to shoot a course fisherman?

[Murphy Jnr]

Why would he want to shoot a course fisherman?

 

Presumably it should follow that if you're against animal sports then all should be included.....

[L00b]

You don't half-do hyperbole, donkey, do you?

You have changed your tune somewhat.

I have not.

You gave the impression earlier that you believe tourist trophy hunting is a fantastic aid to conservation from which everyone is a winner. Yet - at the drop of a hat - you readily admit it is plagued by corruption, with the obvious compromising effect this has has on it's intended purpose.

I did not. You are continually interpreting or 'second-guessing' my posts and putting words in my mouth, to make my opinion sound more extreme than it is, using words like 'fantastic', 'strictly', 'at the drop of a hat', etc. I already queried you about it in my previous post, apparently to no effect

I don't see where you have demonstrated a measure of anything. How is it you have proved your assertion that paying trophy hunters are, on the whole, beneficial to wildlife and ecology?

It's not me who has demonstrated (or, for that matter, who has to demonstrate anything - it's you who is continually interpreting my posts and putting words in my mouth), the researchers in the articles have. Read the articles I linked.

How would you even know what the effects were unless it was monitored and controlled?

How would you? I have been told what effects were witnessed by people who have done it, whom I have known for nearly 40 years now and have no reason to doubt. The researchers in the above articles by and large confirm these effects, with a measure of caution. It makes for a -my- balanced opinion, not the extreme/entrenched opinion you are falsely lending me.

I'm becoming increasingly mystified as to the logic of your argument. You didn't say it directly but it is self evident that if you asserting paying trophy hunters help maintain the eco balance in game reserves, it could only be as part of a strictly regulated scheme.

That's your (argumentative) interpretation. I'm limiting myself to a reasoned, balanced opinion (since I haven't been myself, don't know all the ins and outs, only what I have been told by people who actually do it).

Otherwise what you are asserting is that even if they let these people shoot animals willy nilly, the effects on conservation will still turn out to be beneficial?

Thats is not the case at all, and this argument borders into strawman territory. Again, you are interpreting -quite misleadingly, as well- my post.

No I don't (need to define pleasure). You are retreating into lawyerish style semantics here, which I always take as a sure sign that someone is arguing a cause which they don't really believe in.

Not at all. It's a genuine question. Stop interpreting or 'second-guessing' my posts and we might get somewhere. Edited November 7, 2011 by L00b

[Conrod]

A late reminder that the red and roe stag seasons both finished on 20th October, so the best shooting is red hinds now until February.

 

The freezer's almost out of venison so must nip back up for a weekend.