What an Idiot

[valo403]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

I know that hunting has led to conservation efforts etc but this trophy hunting crap is still ridiculous. You can conserve without doing that, but of course it comes down to a bunch of rich boys playing as usual.
A guy on my mail route goes to canned hunts in Africa, and once I found that out I have a hard time looking at him.

Sure you can, but the fact of the matter is that this provides a financial incentive for preservation, and money talks, especially in Africa.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Sure you can, but the fact of the matter is that this provides a financial incentive for preservation, and money talks, especially in Africa.

Yep just ask Douw Grobler

[undercoverbrother]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...achers-protect

A game reserve in South Africa has taken the radical step of poisoning rhino horns so that people risk becoming "seriously ill" if they consume them.
Sabi Sand said it had injected a mix of parasiticides and indelible pink dye into more than 100 rhinos' horns over the past 18 months to combat international poaching syndicates. More than 200 rhinos have been poached so far this year

Great idea

[PIMking]

i like to hunt the rare Mohawk Beaver

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I just don't get killing for the sake of saying you killed an animal. Hunting is fine, for meat. But I can't wap my head around someone that kills an animal "because it was there".

I went hog hunting a few weeks ago and got myself a hog. I didn't have room or space for the meat but I knew someone that does the butchering of the meat and he did it and took all the meat to a homeless shelter.

Hogs however are a huge huge problem down here.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

In AB/SK/MB?

Are you serious?




They eat the meat, what does it matter if the kill was thrilling?

They aren't poaching.

And he stuffs his kills what does it matter if he kills for the thrill and so he can stuff them?

He wasn't poaching either, was he?

Bunch of hypocrites in this thread, you're not the moral police. There are people who look down on you hunters the same way you're looking down at this guy.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PIMking

I went hog hunting a few weeks ago and got myself a hog. I didn't have room or space for the meat but I knew someone that does the butchering of the meat and he did it and took all the meat to a homeless shelter.

Hogs however are a huge huge problem down here.

Yeah I have no issue with that, the meat was used.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Skootenbeeten

I don't give a #### if you jerk off after you shoot it but use meat. This guy is no better than a poacher otherwise.

I agree that using the meat is important but it's not the only thing that matters. Some people hunt for different reasons. People stuff birds all the time in Calgary, legally.

Who's to judge?

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

And he stuffs his kills what does it matter if he kills for the thrill and so he can stuff them?

He wasn't poaching either, was he?

Bunch of hypocrites in this thread, you're not the moral police. There are people who look down on you hunters the same way you're looking down at this guy.

Talking about moral police..... that is what you are doing? Step back and take stock in terms of the law. I don't hunt, but if you hunt an elk in season, its lawful and there I would hesitate to judge it. Of course you can have an opinion, but its just that, its puts you no higher from a moral standpoint.

The issue here is there was a stuffed Cheetah(or the rhino) in that picture, that is clearly an endangered species and may not have been killed or imported lawfully.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

And he stuffs his kills what does it matter if he kills for the thrill and so he can stuff them?

He wasn't poaching either, was he?

Bunch of hypocrites in this thread, you're not the moral police. There are people who look down on you hunters the same way you're looking down at this guy.

...I looked down on that guy? When did I call him a poacher?

I was simply responding to your post insinuating that hunters in our part of the world don't hunt for meat. That's wrong. Every hunter I know, eats as much meat as possible after shooting a deer/moose/elk.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by PIMking

i like to hunt the rare Mohawk Beaver

Especially since you can't find Mohican Beaver anymore.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Who's to judge?

Me. Next question?

PS: I'm not keen on hunting in general, but hunting for meat is understandable, if not something I would ever do (unless the zombie apocalypse comes, of course).

Hunting for pleasure or trophies - well, you're causing pain and/or killing for "fun". Cruelty for its own sake is morally wrong, and I don't really see where you can make an argument for it. That the cash paid by trophy hunters has enabled the recovery of some species is irrelevant, as in most cases it's hunting coupled with habitat destruction that put the species in peril in the first place.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jammies

Me. Next question?

PS: I'm not keen on hunting in general, but hunting for meat is understandable, if not something I would ever do (unless the zombie apocalypse comes, of course).

Hunting for pleasure or trophies - well, you're causing pain and/or killing for "fun". Cruelty for its own sake is morally wrong, and I don't really see where you can make an argument for it. That the cash paid by trophy hunters has enabled the recovery of some species is irrelevant, as in most cases it's hunting coupled with habitat destruction that put the species in peril in the first place.

That's true, but it's also beside the point. If controlled hunting can stabilize an endangered population and result in habitat protection it's obviously having a positive impact. Previous behavior that caused an issue doesn't change that. Whether or not it's moral to allow some animals within a species to be hunted in order to allow the species as a whole to survive is another discussion.

Note: I'm presuming that this trophy hunting protects helps to protect endangered species argument is actually legitimate, and not just a story cultivated by practitioners.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

####ing disgusting:

http://www.africahunting.com/content...h-hunting-513/

If you would dig a bit deeper you would note that the Namibian permits are issued by CITES, are managed by a cheetah conservation organisation in Namibia and are critical to their conservation.

We both agree that hunting for trophies is disgusting. But in this case there is a strong argument to be made that it is a necessary evil.

http://www.cheetah.org/?nd=tour_ecol...huntingcheetah

The alternative is to withdraw the permits and let the farmers go back to shooting them, or the poachers.

Like it or not these sorta people will always exist so you might as well expoit them for every dime you can get in a controlled environment that benefits the local economy therefore placing a value on the animal.

[GP_Matt]

In Alberta, I am pretty sure that the law requires all hunters to extract the entire carcass and have the animal butchered even if they don't want the meat. We definitely get trophy hunters here, but last I heard a permit for a foreigner to hunt a sheep was in the neighbourhood of $100000.

We also have one of the most well protected parks in Alberta that exists because of a group of hunters and trappers who convinced the government to set it aside. Willmore has become so great that animals who were becoming scarce in Jasper have grown plentiful in Willmore and are now migrating back into Jasper.
As sad as it is, the area that we set aside for hunting has done a better job protecting animals than the area that we set aside to protect nature. (Assuming that that is the reason for National Parks and not to increase tourism)

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

...I looked down on that guy? When did I call him a poacher?

I was simply responding to your post insinuating that hunters in our part of the world don't hunt for meat. That's wrong. Every hunter I know, eats as much meat as possible after shooting a deer/moose/elk.

I wasn't insinuating anything, it was a legitimate question. The amount of time and money people spend hunting, wouldn't they be better off just buying the meat? I've got friends who sometimes make 3-4 trips a month and not come back with anything.

They always used the "I had a good shot, but it was too small" That sure sounds like someone who is hunting just for the meat. Face it, hunters hunt for the fun and thrill, and the meat is the bonus. It's like a competition with hunters. Some might call it a sport.

And I have no problem with people hunting for meat and I don't see how anyone can rationalize agreeing with hunting for meat and calling someone who hunts for trophies an idiot.

Personally, I could never kill an animal. If everyone had to kill for their own meat I'd definitely be a vegetarian, but I won't judge people that have the heart to shoot an animal for whatever reason they see fit as long as they obey the laws. Something this man did btw.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

I wasn't insinuating anything, it was a legitimate question. The amount of time and money people spend hunting, wouldn't they be better off just buying the meat? I've got friends who sometimes make 3-4 trips a month and not come back with anything.

They always used the "I had a good shot, but it was too small" That sure sounds like someone who is hunting just for the meat. Face it, hunters hunt for the fun and thrill, and the meat is the bonus. It's like a competition with hunters. Some might call it a sport.

And I have no problem with people hunting for meat and I don't see how anyone can rationalize agreeing with hunting for meat and calling someone who hunts for trophies an idiot.

Personally, I could never kill an animal. If everyone had to kill for their own meat I'd definitely be a vegetarian, but I won't judge people that have the heart to shoot an animal for whatever reason they see fit as long as they obey the laws. Something this man did btw.

You can't? Why not just go around slaughtering hundreds of cows at a time for nothing? How about if its slaughtering for food consumption...no difference?

Obviously there is a sporting element to it, but the reality is people are going to eat meat, and this is how they choose to get it. People hunting solely for trophies are killing living things for no other reason than it will look nice on their wall, I find that morally reprehensible, legal or not. I assume the hunting season thing has more to do with populations, migrations etc.. that Alberta conservation uses to ensure populations aren't overly hunted.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Bagor

If you would dig a bit deeper you would note that the Namibian permits are issued by CITES, are managed by a cheetah conservation organisation in Namibia and are critical to their conservation.

We both agree that hunting for trophies is disgusting. But in this case there is a strong argument to be made that it is a necessary evil.

http://www.cheetah.org/?nd=tour_ecol...huntingcheetah

The alternative is to withdraw the permits and let the farmers go back to shooting them, or the poachers.

Like it or not these sorta people will always exist so you might as well expoit them for every dime you can get in a controlled environment that benefits the local economy therefore placing a value on the animal.

I have two issues, I find trophy hunting morally repugnant, and to do it with an animal classified as Vulnerable is even worse (yes it isn't too high up the extinction ladder, but high enough).

There are alternatives to hunts to control animals on farm land:

http://www.cheetah.co.za/an_description.html

Namibia has the largest population, far and away.

Will this stop poachers, no, and having witnessed the poverty in Africa, I can't say that if I was in that position I wouldn't resort to poaching. But it might keep 150 more cheetahs alive in the wild (or maybe all those hunters will turn to poaching, tough to say).

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Will this stop poachers, no, and having witnessed the poverty in Africa, I can't say that if I was in that position I wouldn't resort to poaching. But it might keep 150 more cheetahs alive in the wild (or maybe all those hunters will turn to poaching, tough to say).

And I'm betting >150 are killed either through illegal hunting or by farmers.

Or else there would be no reason for CITES or the conservation organisation to adopt the management plan they have.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by fotze

Do people actually hunt just for the meat? Why not hunt cows, tastes better and really easy.

There has to be a thrill element to it. I always thought the meat was a byproduct of the primary thrill.

I think hunting for sport or meat is probably passed down from generation to generation. I was raised in Toronto, and my uncle used to take me out rabbit hunting in my early teens. It saved me from the boredom, and tendency to get into trouble as a youth.

It's hard to explain the thrill of hunting. I think it's a combination of basic instinct, getting out in nature, companionship, and having meat to
enjoy and celebrate the effort.

I fed my family on elk meat for the first 4 years in Calgary. I have been told by many new Canadians that in Europe you almost have to be born into nobility to enjoy the same level of hunting we are able to enjoy in Canada.

I recall hearing on a radio program, while in Ontario one year, that there is a concern that fewer and fewer young people are hunting as the years go by. And some have called for a program to train young people to hunt.

I'm sure there are many small communities thoughout Alberta that benefit financially in the Fall from an influx of hunters. The sport also contributes to controlling the population of many species. Also organizations like Ducks Unlimited are doing a lot to preserve our wetlands.

Contrary to what anti-hunters believe, we are very conservation minded, and provide considerable input to those in the government who are controlling the population of various wild species.