Do they still hunt lions and tigers anymore?

[not2sharp]

John,

Lions, tigers and bears are a commodity. Just like everything else. As long as someone is willing to pay for the product, the market will do it's best to provide it. Not only does John Doe hunter pay for a hunting license, he also pays for travel, lodging, equipment, and support. There is alot of money here; and it all goes to maintain facilities for the game.

It is one thing to donate $50 to the save the whale fund, and quite something else to actually buy some adjacent lands and grow forage for the animals. Hunters do this because they enjoy it, and the animals they harvest help to keep the herds strong and healthy. Yes, there are people out there who are opposed to hunting, and plenty of condo and mall developers who would be happy to fund their campaign.

n2s

 

[ThorTso]

My dear friends...

I politely asked a moderator 2 or 3 days ago to close this thread because it is a highly emotionally charged subject with people for and against both sides.....It is just a matter of time before it really degrades to a mud slinging episode. This has already happened.

No logically-sounding argument is going to convice me of killing/hunting for the sport thereof, call it whatever you like ( a spade by any other name is still a spade!).

And Ron, you are sorely misguided about game management. That is why they have stopped culling elephants in the Kruger National Park. They have scientific evidence that it is totally unnecessary to cull any species in its natural environment. Nature takes its course. This is and will always be a ploy from blood-thirsty "hunters" to do their thing for the sake of sport, and then camaflouge it as "GAME MANAGEMENT!" BALDERDASH I say.

I have met many many many local and international HUNTERS, and I would not like to share the same space with them for any longer than it takes me to turn around and walk away. I would not like to befriend any of the ones I have met. It seems to me that it attracts a certain "element" that I do not care to be associated with.

And for EVERYBODY's sake, especially all those that do not live in Africa and seem to be experts in the continent, Lions, leopards and cheetahs are NOT over-populated by any means!!! They are all on the endangered list and numbers have dwindled to dangerous levels. This has reached a point where farmers are compensated for stock losses if they report a leopard or cheetah on their farm, and it is relocated. Farmers are actually heavily rewarded for reprting these wild animals on or near their farms. Despite this incentive, there are still a percentage that shoot and kill these animals because it's "fun" or "sport" for them to do so, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION ON CAMERA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" They do not care for the "reward"

This is despicable!!!!

PERIOD!!!!

Now please close this thread moderators!!!!! I emplore you before we start insulting one another!!!!! PLEASE

 

[alco141]

you are absolutely right, the game management people have found that they can sell and move the animals and support more conservation rather than culling the animals. as far as you not associating with the hunters, what makes you think they want to associate with you. it has been said on this thread over and over by people that have a keen interest in animals that hunting is a way of thining the herds so that they will stay healthy. it is an integral part of game management any reputable biologist will confirm this.

many of the arguements place on this forum against hunting have been filled with "bambiisms" you try to put human characteristics on an animal species. more walt disney stuff which is so much tripe for consumption of the press.

alex

 

[oupa]

You've said it in a nutshell.
I could not have said it better and could not agree more.

 

[guncollector]

ThorTso:

Glad to have you back in the discussion. Though we had lost you there for a moment. And for the record, I don't belive we need censure of this thread--only self-restraint on your and JG's part (the only two posters I recall who have exceeded the bounds of civility).

By your own admission, you dislike hunters because of they represent a "certain element". Do you really expect anyone to consider anything you say to be objective after making such a statement? Personally, I have conservationist friends and anti-hunting friends--none of which I find repulsive enough I cannot share the same space with them.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand: game management and rebuttals and disprovings of your false statments:

ThorTso misinforms:
And Ron, you are sorely misguided about game management. That is why they have stopped culling elephants in the Kruger National Park. They have scientific evidence that it is totally unnecessary to cull any species in its natural environment. Nature takes its course. This is and will always be a ploy from blood-thirsty "hunters" to do their thing for the sake of sport, and then camaflouge it as "GAME MANAGEMENT!" BALDERDASH I say.

[Note: underlining by Ron]

Interesting statement there....where do you obtain these factoids?

First, Kruger National Park (KNP) is nearly 2 million hectares (20,000 square-kilometers)--nearly a country unto itself. It stands to reason that wildlife populations will self-stabilize with such wide-ranging terroritory. BTW, KNP is so big it represents nearly 50% of all RSA Parks combined.

Second, KNP's territory is so large its borders transcend national boundaries (and therefore control by any one government)--so it is not a "closed-system" which amenable to all tennets of game management.

Finally, you say elephant culling has ceased to be practice in KNP. I say, nothing could be farther from the truth (read=that's a lie). Culling is still in fact required--primarily of the elephant population because they are the ecosystem's primary terrain-alterers. Want proof? Okay, with a simple search:

Rethinking South Africa's Most Famous Wildlife Area
(Note: article abbreviated, click on title for full article.)

PRETORIA, South Africa, March 17, 1999 (ENS) - Recreational opportunities, biodiversity and wilderness values are at the heart of a revised management plan for South Africa's Kruger National Park approved Friday by the South African National Parks Board.

The plan represents the culmination of a three year review period, and will usher in new policies which reflect the Kruger National Park's goal to be considered as an international leader in wildlife management practice.

[snip]

ELEPHANT MANAGEMENT REVISED

The new elephant plan is based on managing elephants as part of an holistic approach towards ecosystem management, so as to promote all facets of biodiversity conservation.

Elephants and tourists in Kruger National Park (Photo courtesy Kings Camp) The Park will be divided into six zones, to achieve varying levels of elephant densities and impacts. This zonating recognizes the key role of elephants as habitat architects who can dramatically change the environment, sometimes to the detriment of other species.
Elephant numbers are not modulated by short and medium term climatic cycles as are virtually all other animal species in the Kruger National Park. The park management believes it has a responsiblity to control elephant numbers in accordance with the biodiversity conservation objectives.

Two zones will be botanical reserves, two high-impact elephant zones where elephant numbers will be allowed to increase indefinitely, and two low impact zones where elephant numbers will be reduced to allow recovery of vegetation.

Roughly 40 percent of the Park will have high elephant numbers, 40 percent low numbers, and the remaining area will have moderate numbers. In the low and moderate impact zones elephant numbers will be reduced by live capture and relocation when park management finds these methods possible.

But elephants will be killed, a process called "culling," if areas outside the park are not available to relocate elephants.

Now, this article was released in 1999; so if ThorTso, you can provide factual data with contraindications, please feel free to post them this thread.

Until then, we ask you simply practice self-restraint from posting erroneous information. Also, AFAIK, residence in the RSA does not qualify anyone as a wildlife expert.

 

[guncollector]

ThorTso drivels on:
And for EVERYBODY's sake, especially all those that do not live in Africa and seem to be experts in the continent, Lions, leopards and cheetahs are NOT over-populated by any means!!! They are all on the endangered list and numbers have dwindled to dangerous levels.

Well, maybe.

Problem is "endangered" is a difficult concept to pin down, and subject to almost an infinite number of definitions. Anybody or corporate-body can give themselves a "Wildlife"-sounding name and begin blabbering this- and that-species is "endangered".

Okay, but back to real-world, factual, data. And, according to the latest KNP 1993 animal census statistics, none of the feline species you list in your post seems lacking ("endangered") in KNP (much less in the entire SAN Park system, much less in all of Africa):

Black rhino: 220
Blue wildebeest: 12,723
Buffalo: 15,253
Burchell’s zebra: 29,142
Cheetah 250 - 300
Eland: 496
Elephant: 7,834
Giraffe: 4,600
Hippo: 2,314
Hyaena: 2,000
Impala: 97,297
Kudu: 3,150
Leopard: 600-900
Lion: 1,500+
Roan antelope: 44
Sable antelope: 880
Tsessebe: 363
Waterbuck: 1,425
White rhino: 1,871
Wild dog: 350+

BTW, feel free to reply with any factual data containing contraindications to the above. You see, actual research and hard data is what you require to convince people of the truth--not emotion-driven outbursts.

 

[John Gerasimov]

Sure there is a market for lions etc,but there is market for child porn and body parts(not that it`s the same thing).It all depends where you draw the line.Everything is a commodity.If you pay me to go to Africa to put a bullet thru a lion I won`t gn the other hand I might go to cap a couple of poachers,he-he-he.I think i`ll stop writing here,since you already know what I think of this business.Take care everyone.

 

[not2sharp]

Sure there is a market for lions etc,but there is market for child porn and body parts(not that it`s the same thing).It all depends where you draw the line.

You may have missed my point. If we end the market for child porn, then child porn will be reduced or eliminated. Likewise, if you end the market for game animals, you can expect the game to go the way of the dinosaurs.

n2s

 

[oupa]

Soon as they paint themselves into a corner - they take their marbles and go home.
Probably the best place for them - their mommy must be getting worried - have not done their homework yet.

 

[guncollector]

JG replies:
Look guys,I admit I don`t know $hit about hunting,never wanted to hunt,but don`t have problems with hunting tasty animals.

John-

Ahh, a ray of hope.

Did it occur to you that if self-admittedly you did not know "$hit" about hunting, you should refrain from casting aspersions upon sportsmen (hunters)--who are by and large the most animal-loving, conservation-minded, financially-motivated-to-assist wildlife people you will meet?

Do you mean that rich hunters pay big $$ for the right to hunt lions and the money then goes for the care of remaining lions,maintaining populations etc?Correct me if I`m wrong.If I understood correctly,it`s still a sad situation,if a guy is rich enough that he can pay big $$ for one shot at a lion and money goes to care for the wildlife,why not just give the money and shoot some beer cans. [irrelevant statements snipped]

I take your reply as the closest we'll get to a "YES"-statement (that you believe in game management). Good, that's a start.

We still have a slight problem with your correlation with hunters and wealth though. Let's try and fix that. You see, most hunters are NOT rich. We are ordinary Joe's like you, hard-working, law-abiding, community-oriented, often Spiritual, raising a family, and squirreling our money away.

Some of us save money for years and years to realize the dream of an African shooting safari. It is the culminating experience after years of hunting experience and the financial burden of achieving the opportunity.

That being said, do you think I, or anyone else, would put up with the financial hardship for years, give the money to somebody else, all in order to shoot beer cans? Are you truly that naive? I can shoot beer cans for free in my back yard--I'm certainly not going to pay $0.01 to do it, much less thousands of dollars.

Look, I understand you're emotionally attached to the allegory of cats--but like I said in one of my first posts, 'don't confuse the symbol with the reality'. Trust me, you'll be much less tortured and your mind will open to actually a rather pleasant reality of the lion situation in Africa.

 

[guncollector]

Oupa quips:
Soon as they paint themselves into a corner - they take their marbles and go home.
Probably the best place for them - their mommy must be getting worried - have not done their homework yet.

LOL!

However, I felt we were making some progress, in that his posts were becoming less caustic and more reality-based (sort of). I took as a challenge to assist this gentleman in thinking outside of his provincial, crime-analogy and crime-comparison-laden box. Oh well.

[BTW, Oupa, how's that Tony Bose ltd. edition lockback holding up? Still got my little Sebbie, carry it everyday. ]

 

[John Gerasimov]

One last post,as for homework stuff and low fat,I was a steroid user at the age of 16 back in USSR and I eat a medium rare bloody steak every day.I admit I worship cats,it`s worse for me to see a dead cat than a corpse.There IS machismo aspect to lion hunt,imagine this:you take some ditsy blond to your place and there is a lion skin on the wall and you kinda casually say:"this is a lion that I shot,one of many,by the way".The one-brain cell blond goes "WOW"!!!!If you got a rabbit skin instead,ain`t the same thing.In China small-dicked individuals pay big$$ for tiger bones,to enhance their sexuality,good luck to them.Why would you save up for years to kill a cat?As I said there are plenty of people on the planet that need to be killed(pedophiles etc).Please don`t be insulted,I`m biased as hell when it comes to cats,purrrrrrrrrr!

 

[guncollector]

JG-

I see no point in continuing to discuss this topic with you. You have nothing factual to add, and you have already reminded us of your biases towards cats ad nauseum.

But, as a favor to you, may I suggest you take Piet Hein's grook to heart:

"In view of your manner
of spending your days
I hope you may learn
before ending them,
that the effort you spend
on defending your ways
could better be spent
on amending them."

Cheers, my friend.

 

[Dave B]

Mr. guncollector: What facts are you waiting for?

It's the opinion of a fair number of people that killing animals for fun is wrong. Morally wrong.

Many of these people have no serious objection to hunting for food, as opposed to hunting for sport.

Those are facts.

Here's another: I have hunted off and on since I was about 10. I have no problem whatsoever with killing and butchering a deer or elk in order to feed my family, and I don't actually NEED the meat.

One last fact: In my opinion, people who kill animals for fun are morally bankrupt; especially those who kill large predators (there are damn few left anywhere).

There is no justification for what you advocate, with the possible exception of the killing of animals who have begun to prey on humans. Game management argumants are specious; given that fact that good quality habitat is disappearing rapidly, we need to save all animals remaining. My degree in Environmental Biology is showing...

db

 

[guncollector]

Dave B-

Welcome to the debate.

Mr. guncollector: What facts are you waiting for?

Actually, I was waiting for ThorTso to provide factual information to backup his statements that: 1) culling is no longer practiced or part of the game management policy in Kruger National Park (currently proven false), and 2) that certain feline species are currently endangered--presumably in the world over (also subsequently proven false).

If you wish, by all means, provide factual data/references to the contrary.

It's the opinion of a fair number of people that killing animals for fun is wrong. Morally wrong.

Many of these people have no serious objection to hunting for food, as opposed to hunting for sport.

Now, I think that is what JG and ThorTso have been attempting to encapsulate through their misguided arguments all along. Your statement is true enough, I have no argument with you here.

We all have opinions, they often differ.

Those are facts.

Yes, its a fact that people have opinions on the subject of hunting. What are you trying to say?

Here's another: I have hunted off and on since I was about 10. I have no problem whatsoever with killing and butchering a deer or elk in order to feed my family, and I don't actually NEED the meat.

More power to you, but again your point is lost upon me. Are you advocating sport hunting now?

One last fact: In my opinion, people who kill animals for fun are morally bankrupt; especially those who kill large predators (there are damn few left anywhere).

That's not a fact, that's your opinion.

You state yourself you've hunted deer since age 10, and I imagine you've bagged an elk or two--they can weigh in at over 1500+ pounds--and you say you don't need the meat. Well, that pretty much qualifies as sport hunting, don't you think? Are you therefore self-admittedly (in your opinion mind you) morally bankrupt? Are you therefore motivated in this debate by self-loathing?

It amazes me that you can admit to us you hunt deer & elk for sport, yet pass judgment on others who hunt other species (legally mind you) for sport. A bit of a double-standard wouldn't you say?

There is no justification for what you advocate, with the possible exception of the killing of animals who have begun to prey on humans. Game management argumants are specious...

Well, apparently, the Government of the RSA and South African National Parks administrators (and those in other African nations) in charge of wildlife management don't see it your way. Culling, as cited above is an established method of population control, and the RSA continues to grant hunting/big game concessions as part of their wildlife preservation/conservation policy.

Here's an opinion: BTW, I don't see it your way either.

My degree in Environmental Biology is showing...

Actually, to be honest, its not.

 

[not2sharp]

Game management argumants are specious; given that fact that good quality habitat is disappearing rapidly, we need to save all animals remaining.

Let's see... pressure on hunting... less habitat... fewer animals.

No there's no connection. It must be something else entirely. Perhaps we can blame global warming?

The market will provide what people are willing to buy. Forget the Disney stuff - it is only valid inside Disney World, and just keep repeating that to yourself. The market will provide what people are willing to buy.

n2s

 

[W.S. DeWeese]

Frankly, the KNP census figures strike me as low for most species extent. I cannot begin to estmate what the KNP optimum biomass should be. I also hope that someone who is a better cutter and paster than I puts up the CITES list re the discussed animals so we can see what is officially at risk.



B

 

[guncollector]

Dave B espouses:
Game management argumants are specious; given that fact that good quality habitat is disappearing rapidly, we need to save all animals remaining.

Actually, the exact opposite is true.

As human development, agriculture and livestock encroach and encircle what's left of the wilderness, game management (or wildlife management--call it what you will) becomes all the more critical in preserving what's left.

As not2sharp is alluding to, without the substitution of hunter's financial support of the remaining wildlife habitats (through hunting licenses, tourism, outfitter concessions, etc.), the remaining wilderness will be overcome by human development in short order. In Africa its pretty simple: you prefer to allot the real-estate to people or animals? If you want to preserve real-estate for animals, you'd damn well better have a financial means of keeping people (human development) at bay.

The so-called animal activists that ignore this reality, are by their very ignorance further promoting the destruction of wildlife habitat and animal life.

As I've said it before, even my friends here in SF (liberal bastion of the world) who are card-carrying members of the Sierra Club and some who have worked for the Rainforest Action Network understand the reality above. They, believe it or not, embrace sport hunters are fellow conservators of wildlife.

[NOTE: Commercial hunting (harvesting for resale and profit) is an entirely different matter--but that is beyond the scope of this debate.]

 

[Dave B]

<I>Commercial hunting (harvesting for resale and profit)</I> is exactly what you're advocating here. It's true that various F&G agencies in Africa raise many millions of dollars from hunting license fees, but the fact remains that the numbers of 'big, fierce animals' are decreasing, and trophy hunting contributes to the decline.

I'm OK with 'I kill 'em 'cause it gives me a stiffie' because at least it's honest, but don't tell me that killing lions and tigers and such benefits the species. That's silly.

db

 

[guncollector]

Dave B writes:
Commercial hunting (harvesting for resale and profit) is exactly what you're advocating here.

No its not. Sport hunters do not re-sell their kills for profit.

Please provide me with any reference of sport hunters legally, and repeatedly making profit from their legally-hunted game. The practice is so few-and-far between, as to be nearly non-existent.

"Commercial hunting" (or fishing for that matter) is generally government-licensed and government-regulated, and financially viable by only fairly large operations/corporations. It is also taxed.

Be careful here, Dave, of making ignorant statements.

It's true that various F&G agencies in Africa raise many millions of dollars from hunting license fees, but the fact remains that the numbers of 'big, fierce animals' are decreasing

Beware the trap that ThorTso's statement fell into. Statements such as "big, fierce animals are decreasing" are near-meaningless without factual support.

and trophy hunting contributes to the decline.

Well, Dave, finally a true statement. By definition a successful hunt depletes a specie's numbers--but as an self-admitted "Environmental Biologist", does the term surplus population ring a bell? The depletion is only to prevent overpopulation and maintain a pre-determined, sustainable population. If the sport hunters are prevented from do it, then the Game Wardens must perform the same function--and millions of irreplaceable dollars are lost for the benefit of the Parks and Game Reserves.

I'm OK with 'I kill 'em 'cause it gives me a stiffie' because at least it's honest,

Hmm, a tactic of JG's book--if you can't win the debate, belittle and taunt them--basically start trolling. As an educated man, I expected better of you. You know nothing of my motivation for hunting, and I don't presume to know yours. Thus, please don't project any further comments like those above--or I will take it personally.

but don't tell me that killing lions and tigers and such benefits the species. That's silly.

Be advised no one here has suggested the illegal hunting tigers, which is an acknowledged endangered species.

Sorry, but the reality is, often killing surplus animals does in fact benefit the species in an environment by reducing the population to a sustainable level (see citiation from SAN Park above regarding elephant culling still being acknowledged wildlife management policy to this day). Furthermore, it is regarded by wildlife conservationists as more humane than permitting the surplus animals die of starvation and disease. Did you know that?

And no, its not silly, its science--and an extremely serious matter.