Trophy Hunting Banned in Parts of Africa...leading to problems for locals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Radiolab just did a great piece about this very thing. It's a great perspective from a real hunter that went to hunt a black rhino. I think anyone conflicted with this style of resource management should give it a listen. Also gives you an idea how the media captures stories and edits them however they want.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/
 
Last edited:
There is a similar problem in India. Tigers are protected and if one becomes a man killer, too bad.
 
Watched a special a couple nights ago about a village in India that had a man-eating tiger.
Don't remember his name but they hired the #1 tiger hunter in India to dispatch it.
Think it was Discovery channel.

DC
 
Brian Jones said:
From NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/a-hunting-ban-saps-a-villages-livelihood.html?_r=1
Click to expand...

An interesting article and it mirrors what I have been attempting to explain to people wringing their hands and calling for the burning of Walter Palmer, the hunter who took the lion in Zimbabwe. The best practices for conservation include hunting which makes the wildlife valuable to the local populations. As well as to the national economies. Last I checked, Zim officials were realizing this and were lifting the temporary hunting ban they had imposed on the heels of former mercenary Johnny Rodregues, owner of the wildlife "charity", firestorm he caused internationally with false reports concerning the lion hunts. Zimbabwe has not pressed charges against Palmer and neither has the USFWS.
 
Last edited:
I understand animals have to be culled time to time, but what the F is the fun of shooting an animal from the safety of a truck? Isn't danger suppose to be exciting?

My father and uncles go hunting (land and sea) and if it's boring, they won't do it. And shooting fish in a barrel is BORING.
 
Um... I didn't notice anything in the article about shooting from the safety of a truck. Did I miss it?
 
I wouldn't even call it hunting just killing. It's not like the hunter has super amazing aiming skills. Any numb nut can do the same thing.

Personally I'm not a fan of sport hunting. If the meat of the animal and its hide can't be used and its not a nuisance animal then your basically just killing it for fun and laughs.

Now those armored catfish in south FL are a nuisance invasive fish from an aquarium release, doing high damage to the environment with no known predator. Imagine if piranha invested FL waters. Hunt those.
 
Last edited:
I am a fan of sport hunting. It is a very important part of conservation efforts worldwide. I've eaten and fed hunted animals to my family all of my life. There are many subforums here where hunting is not discussed however. So those who are against hunting have plenty of places to hang out and discuss other topics.
 
needler420 said:
I wouldn't even call it hunting just killing. It's not like the hunter has super amazing aiming skills. Any numb nut can do the same thing.

Personally I'm not a fan of sport hunting. If the meat of the animal and its hide can't be used and its not a nuisance animal then your basically just killing it for fun and laughs.

Now those armored catfish in south FL are a nuisance invasive fish from an aquarium release, doing high damage to the environment with no known predator. Imagine if piranha invested FL waters. Hunt those.
Click to expand...
The problem with Africa is the population is getting bigger and humans are settling all the wild areas. Unless you designate a wildlife park and say nobody can settle there, people will move there. I don't know if you have met many farmers or ranchers, they tend to have the mentality of kill anything that consumes their resources. Now that industrial scale farming and ranching has taken over in the U.S. they are even worse here.
Do you really think those poor African farmers and ranchers won't kill wildlife that doesn't benefit them and can't be regulated by hunting? If you read the article they make the comment that they kill less wildlife with sport hunting. People will prosper and multiply and if wildlife is in the way it will be killed. If it has value then it is something to be protected.
 
Jhansenak47 said:
The problem with Africa is the population is getting bigger and humans are settling all the wild areas. Unless you designate a wildlife park and say nobody can settle there, people will move there. I don't know if you have met many farmers or ranchers, they tend to have the mentality of kill anything that consumes their resources. Now that industrial scale farming and ranching has taken over in the U.S. they are even worse here.
Do you really think those poor African farmers and ranchers won't kill wildlife that doesn't benefit them and can't be regulated by hunting? If you read the article they make the comment that they kill less wildlife with sport hunting. People will prosper and multiply and if wildlife is in the way it will be killed. If it has value then it is something to be protected.
Click to expand...

I would define those animals as nuisance then. As there is a reason for actually eliminating them other then just pure sport. A farmer killing a animal that is destroying his resources is not considered sport hunting to me.
 
But the Africans themselves have said that fewer animals were killed when sport hunting was allowed as a part of a planned wildlife management program. Plus the bonus of much greater economic benefit to the people. A part of that money going to enforcement of poaching laws. Is poaching (much of it going to Asian markets) and farmer killing of wildlife with no plan and little enforcement more palatable to you than controlled sport hunting by quota and permits? It certainly is not more beneficial to the wildlife populations.
 
There is no way for a foreign hunter to bring the meat from his kills back with him but, but trust me, everything but the moo gets used when someone shoots something in Africa. Normally, the land owner sells it in the local markets as his source of income from the land. They eat parts of the animal there no American would ever consider touching.
 
More result of "social-mania" brought about by "social media".

Group think is normally a good thing, but group mania is never good.

best

mqqn
 
needler420 said:
I would define those animals as nuisance then. As there is a reason for actually eliminating them other then just pure sport. A farmer killing a animal that is destroying his resources is not considered sport hunting to me.
Click to expand...

They don't even consider the sporting aspect, that is more important to people with a first world perspective. I really don't care if it is sporting. If people destroy all the wildlife and wild areas it is our loss collectively as the human race, even if it is in BFE. 'Sport' hunting is the lesser evil or greater good, depending on perspective, and is preferable to extermination.

BTW I strongly suspect you do little or no hunting, such broad generalized blanket statements of contempt suggest you lack familiarity, so you don't specify the qualities in great detail. Stalking in close doesn't require great shooting skill, but does require other factors often considered sporting.
 
Codger_64 said:
An interesting article and it mirrors what I have been attempting to explain to people wringing their hands and calling for the burning of Walter Palmer, the hunter who took the lion in Zimbabwe...
Click to expand...

What you are conveniently ignoring is Mr. Palmer has a history of flagrantly ignoring local hunting regulations, and not just in Africa. He actually is the poster child for what's wrong with trophy hunting.
 
Needler420,

Not only is it clear you don't hunt, it's also clear you don't farm in any capacity. In much of the US, sport hunting and nuisance animal control is the same thing. Every year millions of hunters spend sunrise to sunset outdoors for at least a few days, learning about the environment and the life of a variety of animals, both game and non-game. They donate billions for the preservation, restoration, and expansion of habitat. I know many farmers who hunt deer because they enjoy the hunt, but I know none who view it as the righteous extermination of hoofed rats.

I struggle to grasp the mindset that opposes sport hunting but has no issue with "eliminating nuisance animals." We don't spray corn crops with poison to eliminate feeding deer because that brand of indiscriminate killing is neither humane nor moral. The idea is abhorrent. Instead, we humans act in our historic role as predator. We are the surrogate wolf pack or cougar. We accept rules regarding hunting methods, weapons, and times we can hunt so as to preserve the population. It's not about extermination or blood fetish. It's about being a responsible part of the world we live in. You don't have to participate but you don't get to pass judgement from a place of ignorance.

Sport hunting educates hunters about the importance of habitat, it protects the wildlife population, and preserves a human tradition dating back millions and millions of years. The act of harvesting a wild animal in its own habitat is a rite of passage in many cultures for those reasons - it makes people better stewards of this earth.

Furthermore, as far as I know, it's illegal in the US to shoot a game animal and not take the meat. People who are only after the trophy will generally pay for guides and donate the meat to food shelves or give it away. None of us like to find a carcass left to rot, killed only for the sake of killing. Those who engage in such behavior are aberrations and detested by damn near all who hunt.

Bottom line, sport hunting is a far better alternative to indiscriminate nuisance elimination. The proof is that only non-hunters would advocate "nuisance elimination" (read: planned extinction) as somehow a more appropriate human activity.
 
I think the sport is multifaceted and it's tough to figure what's right or wrong. You have the guys who respect the game and use as much of the animal as they can. Then you got the guys who give away or sell it. There's a duck fanatic down the road from me who doesn't eat it nor does his family. He gives the stuff away, used it a fertilizer or crab bait. But when the season is near he has a gleam in his eyes. You got the houndsmen who use their dogs to pin down game until they are close enough to knife them. Often times the dogs are injured and sometimes are put down on the spot. Its none of my business to tell someone what they shouldn't do. It's the game wardens who have to sort it out.
 
40oz said:
What you are conveniently ignoring is Mr. Palmer has a history of flagrantly ignoring local hunting regulations, and not just in Africa. He actually is the poster child for what's wrong with trophy hunting.
Click to expand...

Are you old enough to drive? If so, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? If so then you have a history of violating this nation's traffic laws and would likely do the same in other countries. So any accusation made against you by anyone would be true regardless of lack of supporting evidence. His "history" includes one incident in his life where he and his hunting buddies mis-reported the zone in which a bear was taken. He paid the monetary fine and served his brief probation period without further incident. And was not barred from hunting. This whole kerfluffle over the lion kill was invented by a retired Rhodesian war/SA bush war merc there who runs a faux charity soliciting money. And he has made out like a bandit using social media. And people fell for it worldwide. In Zimbabwe nobody cries for lions.
 
Often the news media doesn't accurately report the details of what actually happened. We should keep that in mind when reading these stories.

I'm all for hunting provided that it's done in an ethical way that helps protect the species and habitat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top