Interesting facts on African hunting, just what PETA doesn't want you to hear!


PDA






H&Hhunter
March 19, 2006, 01:06 AM
Paper for Presentation at A Symposium
UN and Regional Small Arms Regulation:
Issues Concerning Civilian Firearms Ownership
in Search of Common Ground
Sponsored by the World Forum On The Future of Sports Shooting Activities
May 2, 2003 The Tower of London

Peaceful Arms: Hunting and Sport Shooting as Culture and Heritage
by James A. Swan, Ph.D.

Execrpt:

"Hunting, especially big game hunting, is also a major force in encouraging conservation and promoting economic self-sufficiency in native cultures. In Africa, in l979 the wild elephant herd was 1.3 million. By 1989, it was sliced in half to 600,000, largely due to uncontrolled poaching. To curb the decline, importation of ivory was banned, and some countries forbade sport hunting for elephants. In places where hunting has been banned, elephant populations have plummeted even more. Kenya banned elephant hunting in 1977. Poachers subsequently butchered the herds, as supervision of the animals also declined with the loss of revenue from hunting. In less than two decades, Kenya's elephant herd went from 150,000 to less than 6,000."

"Botswana, in contrast, permitted big game hunting, and in the same period of time, their elephant herd has quadrupled. The key here is that hunters pump considerable money into the local economy, which increases the value of the animals to local natives, provides jobs and fresh meat for many, and supports wildlife research and law enforcement. It is estimated that hunters spend $35 million to $65 million dollars a year on African elephant hunting safaris. The white rhino in South Africa has similarly increased in numbers, thanks to hunters' dollars."

"In 1980, Zimbabwe had 40,000 elephants. Today, after 22 years of carefully regulated hunting, they have 88,000 pachyderms. According to Ed Adobe, Chairman of the Zimbabwe Wildlife Advisory Council, eco-tourists may outnumber the hunters, but the hunters outspend them, $15 million to $10 million. When eco-tourists come in, they whisk around in a jeep for a couple days, wine and dine, and leave. Hunters stay longer, pay trophy fees and guides, and the meat from animals killed goes to local villages, along with skins and bones that can be used for clothing and arts and crafts."

"The program that oversees hunting in Zimbabwe is called CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programmed for Indigenous Resources). (37) Under CAMPFIRE, people living on impoverished communal lands, which represent 42% of the country, claim the right of proprietorship, including wildlife. CAMPFIRE offers people an alternative to destructive uses of the land by making wildlife a valuable resource. Wildlife, in fact, is the most economically and ecologically-sound land use in much of Zimbabwe."

"Since its official inception in 1989, more than a quarter of a million people have been involved in managing wildlife through CAMPFIRE. It has been so successful that South Africa, Namibia, Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana are now developing programs similar to Zimbabwe, sometimes using relocated Zimbabwe animals."

The entire article is here:
http://www.jamesswan.com/Paper%20for%20Presentation%20at%20A%20Symposium.htm


Taming Animal Rights Activists

U.S. animal rights activists are on a crusade, not only to hinder medical research by denying scientists the right to use animals in research, but also to eliminate the killing of wildlife in Africa.

Having endangered scientific research programs here, they are out to deny a source of livelihood to many poor African villagers.

* Twenty-nine of the world's 36 poorest countries are African -- with an estimated 150 million to 325 million Africans earning less than $1 a day.

* Yet in Zimbabwe, revenues from a sport hunting program has built several health clinics in rural villages and generated millions of dollars split among communities.

* In one village, each of the approximately 120 households earned $450 by selling their legal hunting rights to a safari operator, whose clients paid him for the privilege of hunting elephants nearby.

Statistics from Kenya point out just how deadly elephants can be.

* At least 358 Kenyans have died as a result of elephant-human clashes since 1990.

* In some districts elephants reportedly kill more people who are protecting their own crops than poachers kill elephants.

* Experts say that if landowners can't make money from wildlife, they will wipe it out.

Kenya did what animal rights activists proposed: they banned all hunting in 1977. But Zimbabwe granted proprietorship over wildlife to landowners in 1982 and allows hunting.

The result?

* Between 1970 and 1989, Kenya's elephant population plunged from 167,000 to 16,000.

* But in Zimbabwe, the population increased from less than 40,000 to more than 50,000 since 1982.

Source: Ike C. Sugg (Competitive Enterprise Institute), "Selling Hunting Rights Saves Animals," Wall Street Journal, July 24, 1996.
from: http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdenv41.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting facts on African hunting, just what PETA doesn't want you to hear!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fisi
March 19, 2006, 11:42 AM
the truth is very hard for the bambi lovers to swallow.they don't want to be confused with facts,they already have their minds made up. the current issue
of Sports Afield has an excellent article by a Namibian P.H. Jan Oeloise,
that mirrors the conservation efforts to preserve hunting rather than to ban it

H&Hhunter
March 19, 2006, 12:48 PM
M'Fisi,

Jambo..

Is your name Fisi the "hyena" or is it just a coincidence?

Your statement is so very true it is also so very unfortunate that these people if they have thier way will kill thousands of head of wildlife yet are so narrow minded and radical in their views that they still feel better about themselves no matter the outcome.

This is such a vivid example of the Leftist view. It doesn't matter the outcome as long as they "feel good" about what they are doing.

Just have one look at kenya the facts are indisputable! It is amazing to me that soccer moms and well meaning yet ill-educated college age radicals will probably be the final nail in many species coffins.

I saw that article in Sports A Field. It was very well written.

Greg

Double Naught Spy
March 19, 2006, 03:56 PM
Actually, PETA knows the information clearly. They would contend that the wildlife strife was a human-created situation resulting in loss of habitat. While game hunting may show some benefits to herd management, they aren't like to condone slaughtering the animals by well intentioned people over those making a profit. Either way, animals are killed.

No doubt, elephants can be dangerous to humans, if just by sheer size and power. However, there are many types of animals that are dangerous to humans when humans attempt to occupy or take over their habitats.

Hippos actually kill more humans than elephants in Africa. That is interesting as elephants probably have a much higher encounter rate with humans than do hippos. After all, most humans and elephants spend the majority of their time on dry land. A large number of the hippo encounters are in water or immediately around water. As far as humans go, hippos are even more dangerous than crocs.

I don't agree with much of PETA's concepts or beliefs, but I do understand many of them and the logic they use. Similarly, I understand the logic of pro-hunting groups to allow hunting, but don't necessarily agree with their beliefs. Pro-hunting groups often claim to make things better for wildlife by keeping herds in check. The notion of preservation through selective extermination is a bit twisted, but can work. The problem is that with PETA or pro-hunting groups, neither side really has much about which to boast. Across the board, humans have proven to be poor stewards for nature, even when trying their best to help nature. The Yellowstone elk fiasco is classic and it is a fiasco that has been repeated in many areas by humans.

I liked this quote...
* Twenty-nine of the world's 36 poorest countries are African -- with an estimated 150 million to 325 million Africans earning less than $1 a day.

This is crap put out by many groups. Being money poor isn't a big deal in societies where people are self sufficient and don't require money. Before invasion by Europeans and later arrivals, most of North America was occupied by "poor" peoples. Given that the didn't exist based on money, the comparison is not valid. More over, so people make less than $1 per day. What are their living expenses? How much of their survival is based on having cash? Without knowing these things, whether $1 a day means horrific poverty or is actually icing on the cake can't be ascertained.

fisi
March 19, 2006, 05:49 PM
Jambo!

everybody knows what a hyena is but few are well versed in the local interpretation or even the latin ( crocuta crocuta) so i just picked fisi.
i've been to kenya once but THEY would not let us off the ship and it was not
a cruise liner. i will get their soon, probably the east cape for some plains game,heck it's cheaper than alot of the north american hunts.

take care and keep the faith,
brad (FISI)

H&Hhunter
March 19, 2006, 06:58 PM
Double,

I'd have to say that in a nut shell you completely and totally missed the point.

Lets take it comment by comment.

1. Hippos kill more people than any other mammal in Africa, crocs kill more people than hippos. The Number one non human killer of people in Africa are mosquitoes. Much of African bush life is centered around rivers, hippos spend much of their time on dry land at night grazing on grass. The most common hippo human encounter is on a river bank or near a river at night when some poor person gets between a grazing hippo and their natural escape route to the water. This causes the hippo to immediately rush for the water and if anybody or thing gets in its way it gets the chop.

2."The notion of preservation through selective extermination is a bit twisted, but can work. "

Nowhere in the commentary was there a mention of selective killing for the purpose of herd preservation. Rather, and this is point that most American hunters completely miss, that hunting assigns value to the beast which is hunted above and beyond what a native could make from poaching said beast.

If the animal in question is not of some intrinsic value to the individual the tribe or the village it will be destroyed for food or profit and the habitat where that beast once roamed will be cultivated with low yield short term plots until it is farmed out then the plots will be moved and the habitat will be rapidly destroyed as has happened with frightening speed in places like Kenya and others.

3. Whether you like it or not we now live in a cash society. There are very few true traditional societies left in the world Africa included. Villages who had nothing and were forced to subsist off the land living and dying with it's natural highs and lows now have tractors, water wells, food storage facilities, access to medical facilities, schools and a general higher standard of living than they did before.

In many places these things are provided by the hunting leases and license fees from hunting not to mention the employment that a hunting camp offers to the locals. In fact villages that are in the communal safari areas are truly self sufficient and enjoy a much higher standard of life than those that are trying to eek out a living from the red earth by themselves. Or are dependant on various aide groups for their basic needs. No two ways about it.

Your comment reminds me of a time when I was in Kotzebue, AK. I was at the local ACC store and overheard a young long haired Inuit man bitching to his grandmother about how the white man has screwed up the local way of life. The grandmother quietly listened until the red faced young man made his final point. To which she replied "If you want to go live in a sod and caribou hide shelter for the winter nobody’s stopping you. I lived that way as girl and if it taught me one thing it was how much I like my house and my heater and this store.” That in my opinion pretty much puts to rest the notion of the noble savage and the romanticizing of living off the land as a primitive carefree native. Because living off the land is a tough way to make a living and there is no such thing as a carefree primitive.

Respectfully

Greg

sm
March 19, 2006, 07:15 PM
H&H -
Everyone...Excellent thread, and replies!

Mods, suggest this be stickied ...and if'n ya wanted to put in THR Library that'd be all right too.

Reference for many matters contained therein.

Steve

Art Eatman
March 19, 2006, 10:19 PM
DNS said,

"I liked this quote...
Quote:
* Twenty-nine of the world's 36 poorest countries are African -- with an estimated 150 million to 325 million Africans earning less than $1 a day. End Quote.

This is crap put out by many groups. Being money poor isn't a big deal in societies where people are self sufficient and don't require money."

This includes the income in cities as well as in the countryside, does it not? Looking at an atlas of country populations and the city populations of the countries, there is far more urbanization than one might believe.

Further, as one reads of the lifestyles in TODAY'S world, rather than in the low-population countrysides of yesteryear, it is apparent that "self sufficient" is nowhere near what it used to be.

And I, like the Eskimo lady, submit that having money beats hell out of not having it.

Edit-add: DNS also said, "Across the board, humans have proven to be poor stewards for nature, even when trying their best to help nature. The Yellowstone elk fiasco is classic and it is a fiasco that has been repeated in many areas by humans."

I note that where we have the controls on hunting as here in the U.S., almost no game animal's population is threatened. Au contraire, they'e on the increase almost everywhere. Note that it is the hunters themselves who have called for the rules, and who have provided the money to make the modern system viable. (The only species of which I know of with problems are the desert bighorn and the Rocky Mountain bighorn. The problems have arisen from such things as blue tongue from domestic sheep, and over-grazing in the winter habitat. However, hunting is not at all the causal factor. However, restoration efforts for the desert bighorn are becoming ever more successful.)

The Yellowstone elk fiasco is a result of governmental actions. Again, hunting has no causal relationship with that problem.

So, yeah, humans have caused and are causing problems. What's germane, however, is the fact that it is not the hunter who is the cause of the problems.

Were Ingrid Newkirk's PETA to have all the publicly articulated desires, the deaths over and above the "normal system" as we now have it would be horrendus. Millions of both wild and domestic animals would die off in a relatively short number of years.

How? Simple: Per Newkirk, no hunting, no domestic livestock nor pets. You either do euthanasia, or turn them loose on public lands. Overgrazing and thirst wouldn't take long. Dogs and cats? Damfino. Coyotes would dine well on poodles and Persians, I guess. For wildlife, overpopulation would lead to destruction of habitat and then a mix of starvation and disease. (That already happened once with the mule deer herd of the Grand Canyon.) There would be no money for game wardens, so poaching for sale of velveted antlers and bears' gall bladders would be rampant--among other problems.

Art

Boom-stick
March 22, 2006, 09:45 AM
The original post echo's what I've been saying for years, great, glad it's in print to be read by all the anti-hunter I'm going to send it to.:)

DW

Art Eatman
March 22, 2006, 11:33 AM
Sorta thinking about people and which sort has what attitude about the whole hunting thing and about animals in general:

As a generality, those folks who've spent the most time outdoors and "messing" with animals don't have all this PETA-type attitude. I think about the farmers I've known; the ranchers, and of course the hunters.

Most of those folks look all walleyed at the idea that man is not part of nature.

Generally, in my experience, it's the city folks who get into the PETA state of mind. At most, they've had a pet or two. Milk comes from the grocery. Wool sweaters come from stores. They've never had to get up at 4AM to milk cows at 5AM so the cans of milk can be set out by 8AM for pickup. They've never had to deal with coyotes killing lambs. Never had to doctor screwworms in baby calves. Never seen dead deer from drouth in an area of overpopulation.

I dunno. I have more time around a campfire--certainly, in hunt camp--than a lot of folks have upright and breathing. Yet, they presume to tell me about "nature"? I don't think so, Scooter...

Art

H&Hhunter
March 22, 2006, 12:52 PM
Art,

That's it in a nut shell.

Greg

smokemaker
March 22, 2006, 05:16 PM
Art,

Ditto what H&H said.

Jeff

HankB
April 26, 2006, 01:54 PM
the truth is very hard for the bambi lovers to swallow.they don't want to be confused with facts,they already have their minds made up.This is very true. Several years ago there was a TV special regarding the elephant situation in Africa, and it echoed the points made about the different approaches taken by Kenya and Zimbabwe, as well as their different results.

When it was pointed out that in some areas of Zimbabwe there were too many elephants and that game rangers had to crop them, a woman who was associated with Amboseli said words to the effect of "If you have to shoot elephants to control the population, you're better off having NO elephants at all!" :banghead:

Another thing - there's good evidence that Kenya didn't ban hunting to protect elephants, Kenya banned hunting to protect poachers. Professional hunting companies, having paid for hunting rights in certain areas, still have quotas to observe. Reduced animal herds translate to reduced quotas, which means less money.

Poachers reduce herds, so the PH's had a nasty habit of reporting the poachers. These reports proved embarassing to Kenya on the international scene.

BUT . . . the poachers were pretty well tied in with old Jomo Kenyatta and his wife & extended family - it was common knowledge that Kenya's national airline was routinely being used to ferry the poached ivory out of the country, while the customs people were looking the other way.

In the eyes of Kenya's leaders, it wasn't the poaching that was a problem - it was the REPORTS of the poaching that was a problem. The pragmatic solution was to get rid of the people reporting the poaching, and this was done via a hunting ban.

And the poaching increased . . . as did the financial benefit to Kenya's leaders.

Art Eatman
May 1, 2006, 07:17 PM
Yeah, HankB, I saw that TV program. More than once I've used that young lady's babble as an example of the difficulties for rational wildlife management. I guess my engineering style of thinking about the world I live in might be what makes it difficult for me to understand how facts can be so much less important than emotions or perceptions. And, as a hunter, I think in terms of the health of a species, not the fate of some individual members of any species.

I'm not surprised at the Jomo deal. I hadn't fully made the connnection, although I was aware he was profiting from the black market in various animals and their parts and pieces.

Art

jeepmor
May 3, 2006, 02:57 PM
I used to be a non-hunting type and even voted against using traps and dogs to hunt cougar and bear in Oregon. I wish I could have that vote back. Now cougar sightings are increasing in urban boundary areas and some areas in NE Oregon are so thick with them that I don't think you should go hiking in the backcountry without a firearm for your own protection. My 10mm would always be close.

A recent snowboarding vacation landed me in Anthony Lakes on a great powder day and I met a fellow that said him and his buddy saw three of them while snowmobile commuting to their favorite backcountry hill. He was riding behind the snowmobile on a tow rope like a water skier. He said he wasn't going to let go for anything. Granted, these cats are pretty fast and they may have seen the same one three times, but he said they covered 6 miles or so in roughly 20-30 minutes, not sure a cat could keep up to that pace, but maybe.

People just see killing, not conservation. I used to see it that way living in a big city thinking nature was best off just left alone. Well, left alone means reduced law enforcement and more poacher traffic. The numbers presented in this post make that abundantly clear. And it provides a source of nourishment to the locals as well as jobs managing the hunting. It's the way to go, PETA be damned, management is the key, not just leaving it be. That stance is to the poachers advantage, and obviously to the detriment of the wildlife population.

jeepmor

chrisbob
May 18, 2006, 03:49 AM
If people did not eat meat there would be no P.E.T.A

I hunt for the sole purpose of eating. I believe in not wasting anything. I don't need a trophy; I want my freezer is full.

Art Eatman
May 18, 2006, 12:56 PM
Sorry, chrisbob, but that's just not correct. Ingrid Newkirk, ExDir of PETA and its founder, has publicly called for the outlawing of having domestic livestock for any purpose (milk; plowing; wool, and mohair, e.g.) and outlawing of having pets.

Art

chrisbob
May 19, 2006, 01:27 AM
All I know about P.E.T.A. Is what the media tells me I have been a shooter and supporter of hunting and gun ownership for 25 years but I am way late in finding the internet and this sight. I thank you all and appreciate the chance to talk to people with the truth to tell ...thats why I will be quiet and listen for awhile!!!:o

Art Eatman
May 19, 2006, 07:18 PM
No problem. :) That's what we're here for.

When Newkirk frirst came here from England, she popularized the statement, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Absolutely no use of animals in medical research, regardless of the need--among other things.

Another group to warn folks against is the Humane Society of the United States. HSUS is in no way associated with the American Humane Society, or any group involved with any animal shelter work. Its ExDir, Wayne Purcelle (Purcelles?), stated in an interview with (IIRC) Sports Afield magazine that after hunting is ended, they'll start in on fishing.

Art

RSABear
June 8, 2006, 07:01 AM
Thanks for the good reading on this Thread.

You will also enjoy the following read:

http://www.krugerparktimes.co.za/krugerpark-times-2-7-elephant-vasectomies-19454.html

:cool:

Mauserguy
June 10, 2006, 03:13 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the animal rights movement is not about animals at all. It is primarily a lefty anti-American movement, designed to attack conservative values. This belief comes from having dealt with many Sierra Clubbers.

Animal rights, environmentalism and "human rights" are just buzzwords designed to conceal a fundamentally Marxist ideology. The fact that regulated hunting actually improves the health of game herds is irrelevant. The majority of these people don't care about animals or the environment, they just want to attack your value system.
Mauserguy

tube_ee
June 10, 2006, 04:16 PM
As one of the "token liberals" here on THR, I've gotta say...

The PETA folks don't get much repect on the lefty boards I hang out on. That's because most of us can make the moral distinction between man and mouse. There is a section of the people who put all life on the same plane. This has been true forever. There are Bhuddist sects that wear mesh over their faces so as to not accidentally inhale insects. While I disagree, I wouldn't fault them. But the animal rights bunch has taken this attitude to a whole different level.

There are two ways that you can put humans and other animals on a similar level. One brings them (the animals) up to our level. This is the PETA approach. The other (and more honest, although I disagree) puts us down on their level. Animals hunt and kill. Humans are animals. Therefore it's OK for humans to hunt and kill. This idea is at least internally consistant.

The real problem (it seems to me) is that modern society has removed us completely from where our food comes from. I remember a survey taken in a poor, mostly black neighborhood in NYC. The most common answer to the question "where does meat come from" was "the grocery store." We have banished the experience of death from our daily lives. This produces both Randall Terry and PETA. All death is bad, and any life is preferable to any death. That's simply not true.

Nature is morally neutral. Trying to apply huiman ethical standards to it leads very quickly to contradiction and confusion. This is the mistake that PETA makes. Most folks on the Left are capable of making that distinction. And most of us would much rather see African wild lands preserved than given over to strip-mining and slash-and-burn agriculture. Hunting, and the revenue it generates, creates incentives to preserve lands and wildlife. That's a win for everyone, whether they hunt or not.

--Shannon

Art Eatman
June 15, 2006, 12:28 PM
Agred, tube_ee. I've always figured that animals don't have rights, so much as people have responsibilities. That goes for how animals are treated and how habitat is maintained.

I've seen nothing to change my belief that the worst enemies insofar as dealing with Maw Nature were Felix Salter and Walt Disney. Next come the $$$ people.

Art

H&Hhunter
June 15, 2006, 01:00 PM
Mauserguy,

You have hit it right on the head ole boy. This is infact stated Marxist ideaology. It's only too bad the people who are spouting it for the most part do not realize where this stuff comes from.



Tube_ee,

By golly what do we have here.....Yes I think it is. A CONNECTION of ideas despite personal ideaology!!:D :D This has made my whole day. Thank you!

Greg

gunslinger15
July 2, 2006, 04:13 PM
H&H hunter,
I enjoy reading you postings and comments. They have facts to back them up and are very informative keep up the good work. You represent fellow hunters well.


- Gunslinger15

JShirley
September 1, 2006, 08:09 AM
There are Bhuddist sects that wear mesh over their faces so as to not accidentally inhale insects

There may be Buddhists that do this, but it is commonly seen in the Jains (http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/jainhlinks.html).

John, token board Buddhist

H&Hhunter
September 12, 2006, 10:58 AM
Mmegi/The Reporter (Gaborone)

In the recent past, the lives of ordinary villagers in Botswana have been endangered due to elephants and other wildlife. A Bobirwa woman has just lost her life after being trampled upon by an elephant. That is not the only life that has been lost due to animals that are part of Botswana's ecosystem. However, the fatalities have not armed our leaders with enough courage to be more vocal about the dangers posed by wildlife to people.

Government should be warned against the dangers of becoming too obsessed with conservation at the expense of human life. It is Botswana's government and those responsible for wildlife management that should be in the frontline when articulating what the country needs to do with its wildlife. One hopes that such people are competent enough to measure up to the task. Otherwise doubts will emerge on the extent to which they are in touch with reality when Batswana continue to die because of wild animals.

Animals have not only been a source of menace to human life. They have also led to environmental degradation and soil erosion. At another level, they have impoverished Batswana by eating their crops and destroying their fields.

Currently Botswana has over 150, 000 elephants. The herd has swelled because of a crackdown on poaching and a moratorium on culling. The largest herd is found in the Chobe District, which holds about 70,000. These large numbers of elephants have become a menace, as they interact with people, and constantly destroy crops and property and put human life in danger.

In view of this situation, there is need for Convention on International Trade in the Endangered Species - CITES - to listen to Botswana and allow the country to cull its elephants. The need to protect elephants should be balanced against the need to preserve the environment and crops and safeguard human life. We would be losing on three fronts while gaining on one front only. It is like scoring once and conceding three own goals. A delicate balance should be struck between protecting the country's elephant population, the environment, crops and human life. Otherwise, protecting elephants and forgetting the other aspects is a counter-productive move with absolutely no benefit.

El Tejon
September 12, 2006, 11:25 AM
150K elephants just in Botswana?:what:

I need new ivory pistol grips.:D

Nathanael_Greene
September 12, 2006, 12:32 PM
Wow. I had no idea.

Crosshair
September 12, 2006, 02:57 PM
Settles that question, 375 H&H it is.:neener: Think of the money the locals could earn through legal, regulated ivory trade.

/I'll let my friend carry the 577 T-Rex.:what:

Cosmoline
September 12, 2006, 03:15 PM
This highlights the absurdity of the anti-hunting movement. But there's so much emotion and money invested in keeping the ivory trade shut down I doubt we'll ever see a change.

NRA4LIFE
September 12, 2006, 03:26 PM
A simple search revealed that the population increased from 130K to 151K in only 2 years, estimated between 2003 and 2005. That's a staggering 8% a year approximately. I'm guessing they could cull 8000-10000 a year and have the population stable. I'm no game management expert but these numbers seem almost unbelievable to me. What we'd give to have that problem here with Elk.

mete
September 12, 2006, 03:39 PM
But the myth that pervades our population is that the poor elephant is on the verge of extinction !!! Proper management is conservation not preservation.

Art Eatman
September 12, 2006, 04:38 PM
Thanks. Worth a sticky.

H&Hhunter
September 12, 2006, 11:33 PM
As El Tejon has mentioned that is just Botswana. Most of southern Africa is experiencing the same problems with elephant over population. Zimbabwe and South Africa are screaming for elephant population reduction programs before it is to late.

There are more elephants in Africa today than there have been in recent history. Yet to watch any of your popular "wilderness shows" they always start out with a statement on how the poor elephant is hanging on by a thread and that hunters are largely responsible for this travesty.

Hunters are THE primary reason that there are any elephants left on the planet. We as a group pay the tab for the elephant and most other wildlife as well.

Two examples. Kenya banned any and all sport hunting back in the 70's (?) I think it was about 1978 or so. In any case there are fewer than 17,000 elephants left in all of Kenya down from over 100,000 at the time of the hunting ban. The moment that elephant were no longer being forcibly protected in hunting concessions by safari companies who have an obvious and deeply vest interest in keeping the herd healthy. They were immediately and violently wiped out by government backed poaching squads. The same government by the way that was and still is highly praised for stopping hunting by various anti hunting groups. IDIOTS......

The next example is the black buck of India. They are nearly extinct in their home range. India stopped all hunting also back in the 60's or 70's. If the animal has no intrinsic value to the native it will be destroyed. Period. the highest population of black buck antelope on the planet is in the state of Texas where they were imported exclusively for sport hunting.

How many times does history have to repeat itself before the leftist, emotionalist movement gets the big picture. You can rub their noses in their self proclaimed piles of intellectual crap and they will come up claiming it was a rose time and time again. THEY ARE responsible for the mass decimation of many species of wildlife due exclusively to their anti hunting propaganda and total and complete ignorance of wildlife and nature in general.

aspen1964
September 20, 2006, 02:58 AM
I certainly don't want any of the magnificent animals of the continents wiped out...sound game management is what they need...it woks well here provided the people who know their job set the rules right...and the ignorant dipstix keep their politically & practically wrong ideas out of it...hunters and animals would both benefit...

Byron Quick
November 12, 2006, 10:03 AM
Concur with John. I'm not aware of Buddhist sects that wear masks for the purpose of not killing insects.

Jains not only wear the masks but carry brooms and gently sweep the area they are about to walk so as to avoid stepping on insects that are not seen.

Some Buddhist sects often avoid eating red meat. Others distinguish between the consumer and the person who actually slaughters the animal. In these sects, butchers are viewed as people who acquire karmic debt for the good of the community as a whole. These societies view warriors in the same manner. The pacifism promulgated by Buddhism is usually exposed as nothing but empty talk if one examines the military actions of the host societies. Many, if not all, of these ostensibly pacifistic societies have amassed impressive body counts during the same historic periods that pacifism has been touted.

ldasr
December 24, 2006, 04:09 PM
I believe in conservation and preservation within reason.The real problem is the lack of common sense. It's just not around anymore. You see the lack of it every day and everywhere.:cuss:

akodo
March 7, 2007, 12:37 AM
it is the nature of life to fill up any available space....and then keep on expanding.

We won't ever have the numbers of buffalo we used to, nor the number of elephants, and really, we cannot, because the space for them to live in just isn't there any more.

What needs to be done is look at the space available, and keep hunting/poaching/accidental due to man/accidental due to nature deaths at a level where that population is maintained.

Obviously enough elephants are NOT being hit by lighting, falling off cliffs, or whatever.

Is the answer to go out and give birth control to the elephants? Of course not.

I'd also say no to lifting the ban on ivory, because then poachers will arrive, either there, or elsewhere where there is less control and just fake the paperwork. Ivory pound for pound is very convenient to harvest. The whole elephant is not.

What they need to do is start elephant hunts...even if the ivory gets destroyed at the end.

People will pay BIG DOLLARS to hunt elephants. Not only will just the hunting tag fee infuse the government with money, the hunter will stay at local hotels, pay cab drivers, and pay a mess of locals at his camp. Once the elephant is killed, the hunter cannot have it all butchered and send to via airmail to his home, so the locals traditionally feast.

Another aspect about this is it keeps the locals happy. People get mad when the animals trample their crops (or their wives!), but don't really give a rat's behind if some animal gets poached. Hell, it may even 'trickle down' to them as the poacher has a little pocket change and buys drinks and maybe a new shirt at local establishements. But that is nothing compared to the income the locals receive when some rich american or european comes to town for an elephant hunt. All you need to do is convice the locals that each elephant a poacher kills is one less hunt an american can go on, and they haev a real incentive to turn in poachers. This allows more exact control of said elephant population.

Of course I am preaching to the choir

Poprivit
March 23, 2007, 08:20 PM
I hunted the Chobe area of Botswana for elephant in 1998. Took a nice one with tusks weighing 43 and 46 lbs. He was over 45 years old. I saw thousands of elephants while I was there - everything from the hip-high mototos to the big one I took. Botswana's elephants are not on the CITIES list and I was able to bring the trophies back without any trouble.

The older elephants eat all the food and sometimes push the little ones away and keep them from eating. I agree on the number of elephants over there. One interesting point, though. Our PH said that his allotment for the year was only 26 elephant. Sure won't cut the heard much.

We brought a truck load of villiagers out to the carcass and they cut it up right quick. (Got a few cuts of their own in the process.) All the meat was taken and used. They were VERY happy to get the meat as they have no way of getting meat other than by using snares and traps. (They own no guns.)

I'm going back in April 2008 for Cape Buffalo. The villiagers will get that meat too.

BTW - I'm not rich. I save every other dime I make, have no kids and my wife makes as much money as I. I shoot a Ruger Magnum in .458 Lott with Hornady 500-gr. soft points. Recoil? Yeah, a tad. The bruises go away in a few weeks though.:D

Charshooter
March 25, 2007, 11:04 PM
Animal rights, environmentalism and "human rights" are just buzzwords designed to conceal a fundamentally Marxist ideology.

I'm not sure it it Marxist ideology, rather it is New Age hippie thinking mixed with feminism. Many of these people are very middle-class what in Europe is called Bourgeoisie, not the working-class mentality. Here is one difference, if someone uses PC language, they are more likely to be Bourgeoisie thinkers than Marxist. You might not either one, but the marxist folks are more concerned with labor and income distribution than animal rights and other soft-and-fuzzy thinking.

Afy
April 5, 2007, 11:12 AM
In India the Black Buck is being protected, and the populations have shown an increase over the years particluarly in areas where the Bishnoi population is high.

Poaching is still very widespread in India, and more so amongst the affluent. Who do it more for snob value than anything else.

However it might still be the case that Texas has the largest population of Black Bucks. One must also keep in mind that there are probably more Tigers kept as pets in the US, than they are in the wild. But concluding that the only way to keep the Tiger going is to keep them as pets would be a little out of whack.

I used to hunt, but no longer do. Not for any moral reasons, but I find it simpler to buy meat off someone who shot a 300 lb boar and only has a 200 lb freezer... :p
And I dont want to wake up early and go stomping around the French country side on a cold winter day. But that is me.

Coming back to the point, yes a balance between conservation and culling needs to be achieved, though how that might come about is beyond my limited intelligence.

pdowg881
April 22, 2007, 04:30 PM
I think it's funny when the peta types say hunting is so evil and mean. I then explain to them the process by which meat is "harvested" in a slaughterhouse. Now which do you think is more humane?

Roebuck
May 15, 2007, 05:17 AM
Thank you for an interesting thread H&H Hunter. I have spent a lot of time in Africa, in many countries within Africa. In Mali, I found out the meaning of the phrase, "Not got a pot to P*ss in". In Tanzania, I saw what appeared to be Grandma, Mom and a three year old girl at the roadside, beating big rocks with an iron bar to make a pile of little rocks. No little rocks, no money, equals no eat. In Uganda, most folks have a hole in the ground as a toilet and typhoid and HIV is rife. One in three. Same in Kenya, Angola and in RSA. where the Government choose to deny the problem exists. Forget about self sufficient, the sufficient does not exist in most rural locations, places. Hunting does bring in much needed Dollars, Euros, Pounds, etc. I hunt in Africa on an annual basis. Where I went last year (and where I am going again on 5 June this year) if the farmers' wives club did not provide weekly medical clinics for the black population, they would flat have no medical assistance at all. The whole community exists around farming (white) of which hunting is a big part, providing work for trackers, skinners and taxidermists, who in turn provide more jobs for the locals. I have no doubt that where hunting is permitted, the local and the animal population is better off (other that the ones that get shot).

Roebuck.

foob
June 1, 2007, 11:12 PM
Botswana's elephants are not on the CITIES list and I was able to bring the trophies back without any trouble.

Erm... so the reporter in the first post was full of crap lying to get a point across?

H&Hhunter
June 2, 2007, 02:17 AM
I want to make something PERFECTLY clear not only are all elephants on the CITES list they are on the appendix II list in Botswana.

However there is an exemption to the normal import procedures for several countries. Botswana being one of them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the USFWS web site

What permits do I need for African
elephant trophies taken in Botswana,
Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe?
The populations of elephants from these
four countries are listed in Appendix II
to allow for trade in certain products
only, one of which is the noncommercial
export of personal sport-hunted trophies.
Thus, an import permit is not required
even though the African elephant is still
listed as threatened under the Act.
Under a special rule, the Service must
ensure that each country has an ivory
quota for the year of export and
determine that the import of a sporthunted
trophy will enhance the survival
of the species. We have made these
findings for Botswana, Namibia, South
Africa, and Zimbabwe. They will remain
in effect until we find, based on new
information, that the conditions of the
special rule are no longer met and we
have published a notice of any change in
the Federal Register. Except for
information specific to import permits,
all other information in this fact sheet
applies to the import of trophies from
these four countries.


So no the reporter is not lying. Poprivit was mistaken in his statement about Botswana not being on the CITES.

foob
June 2, 2007, 02:26 AM
Hmm I looked into it, looks like the reporter in the first post is wrong. CITES only governs the international trade of species specified, has absolutely nothing to do with domestic culling due to overpopulation.

From http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/how.shtml, CITES works by subjecting international trade in specimens of selected species to certain controls. All import, export, re-export and introduction from the sea of species covered by the Convention has to be authorized through a licensing system.

Found a website with info http://www.american.edu/TED/elephbot.htm about why he was allowed to hunt and import the trophy.

Another component of the plan was to control the population by culling and or capturing them alive, this was however discouraged by the listing of the Elephant population on Appendix I [Added: they have been moved to Appendix II, some trade allowed] of CITES which implies that Botswana will not be able to engage in the international trade of products derived thereof and therefore the plan could not be financed by international agencies.

See, CITES did not ban population culling.

The management of wildlife in Botswana falls under the Department of Wildlife and National Parks through the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DWNP-MCI). As mentioned before the increased population of elephants can partly be attributed to prudent policies on the part of this ministry. As of the early 1980s when the hunting of elephants was imposed, it was restricted to situations where they were in one way or the other in conflict with human population. This selective shooting has been minimal. Also the government has embarked on anti-poaching activities which include the establishment of anti-poaching units around the country. To try and control the population, the DWNP-MCI has attempted strategies, which had faced various setbacks. One of them has been the Conservation and Management of Elephants in Botswana in 1991 which attempted to maintain the elephant population at the levels of 1990 (which was around 50 000), this was however defeated by the high rate at which the population was increasing.

It's government bureacracy and screwups that have allowed the population to increase and affect the humans.

Troutman
June 30, 2007, 02:23 PM
<<Interesting facts on African hunting, just what PETA doesn't want to hear! >>

Besides this......look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itswGWddk2A&mode=related&search=


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlQlJrgZwOk


This is even better:


PETA and Terrorism


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG812QpZsuQ

H&Hhunter
July 11, 2007, 07:09 PM
An extract from the Game Rangers Assoc. of Africa news letter

Dr. Laurence Frank, from the University of California, Berkeley and the Wildlife Conservation Society, has studied predators in Kenya for 37 years.

He runs the Living With Lions project, working on lion conservation outside of national parks. He is not a big game hunter.

Once internationally famous for its magnificent wildlife, Kenya is in a conservation crisis, due largely to the cynical and corrupt influence of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the US Humane Society and other animal rights groups which spend millions to prevent rational conservation policies that would benefit both wildlife and impoverished rural Africans.

Seventy percent of Kenya’s wildlife has died in the last thirty years, strangled slowly in snares and sold as cheap, unidentified meat. Even animals in national parks are in serious decline due to poaching and habitat destruction on their boundaries. Lions are being speared and poisoned into extinction.

In that same period, South Africa and Namibia saw an immense increase in wildlife numbers, as over ten thousand ranches found that wildlife for trophy hunting is more profitable than cattle. Wildlife in Zimbabwe quadrupled with the growth of hunting on large conservancies, until Mugabe’s ‘land reform’ resulted in most of it being snared. Wildlife continues to flourish in Tanzania, Botswana, and Zambia, where hunting contributes significantly to national economies.

Sentimental love of animals is a luxury affordable by comfortable westerners, but meaningless to the world’s poor and hungry. With ever-increasing human numbers, wildlife in Africa is doomed unless it produces income for rural people. That is not possible in Kenya because retrogressive policies, bought by tragically naive American animal lovers, ensure that rural people resent wildlife instead of profiting from it.

For rural Kenyans, wildlife is an unmitigated nuisance: lions kill precious livestock, wildebeest and zebra compete with cattle for grazing, elephants and buffalo destroy crops and occasionally kill people. While tourism brings wealth to hotels and tour companies, virtually nothing reaches the rural people who bear the costs of living with wildlife. Telling a Masai herdsman that he should cherish wildlife is like telling an urban American that he should cherish muggers and murderers.

Although unpalatable to many urban westerners, carefully regulated trophy hunting is the one avenue through which wildlife can bring serious money to rural Africans. Foreigners pay over two hundred million dollars for hunting safaris elsewhere in Africa, taking old males with impressive horns, tusks or manes, animals that are no longer of importance to the population (as any man my age knows all too well). In North America, Europe, and southern Africa, carefully managed hunting has greatly increased wildlife populations because people value them.

Tanzania has set aside over 100,000 square miles of wilderness for hunting.

It has more wildlife than any country in Africa, and half the world’s remaining lions. In Botswana, a very few male lions are shot every year, earning $65,000 each for the rural community in which the lion was taken, and half that amount for the national conservation agency. The community profit would pay for 350 cattle taken by lions, or support teachers, nurses or wildlife rangers. Lions and all the associated wildlife are a source of income, to be valued and protected.

In Kenya, that lion is only a cattle-killing nuisance, to be poisoned and left to rot in the sun. A rural community would earn far more from a single old male impala shot as a trophy than a poacher earns from snaring an entire breeding herd of females and young for bushmeat.

Kenya shut down legal hunting in 1977, when the world was outraged by hunters’ reports of industrial scale poaching of elephants for ivory, abetted by high government officials. The ban silenced the hunters and the elephant slaughter continued. In the absence of the hunters’ anti-poaching patrols, bushmeat snaring exploded. Vast regions of this country that teemed with large mammals thirty years ago are now barren of any animal bigger than a rabbit.

In spite of plummeting wildlife numbers, that failed policy has been maintained by foreign animal rights groups. Whenever real conservationists try to reform Kenyan policy to reverse the decline in wildlife, these groups launch disinformation campaigns in the local press, relying on racial resentment combined with outright fabrication: “Rich white foreigners want to kill all the animals in our national parks; only rich whites will profit from hunting”. They hire mobs to disrupt public policy meetings and fill the press with nonsensical claims that hunters would indiscriminately slaughter all game.

It is widely believed that these groups rely heavily on bribery, spending huge sums to buy sympathetic media coverage for their propaganda, and to buy influence at the highest levels of government. In a young democracy struggling against entrenched corruption, large scale bribery by westerners is stunningly irresponsible.

Worst of all, these ideologues apparently do not seem to care that millions of animals die wretchedly in snares, so long as none are shot for profit.

They boast to their American supporters that their donations prevent hunting in Kenya, never telling them that, as a result, there is little wildlife left, either.

one-shot-one
July 12, 2007, 01:34 PM
ok not the high road, but i can not resist:

DUH! you mean the touchy/feely bambi lovers do more harm than good?
where have i heard that before? OH YEAH, right here on THR.

sorry, Sarcasm /off

H&Hhunter
July 17, 2007, 01:09 AM
Yep,

It is pretty obvious if you have even the smallest spark in your brain.;)

Alphazulu6
July 17, 2007, 01:16 AM
Ok not exactly sure the validity of this but I can tell you that something needs to be done to protect wildlife. The only ones that can actually protect wildlife are the ones who play in its backyard, which spells hunters and sportsman (us).

IF this article is true the obviously something needs to be done. Being humane has nothing to do with being anti-hunting or anti-gun. It has to do with civility and respect for all things living. I hope that this is true of the High Road members. It is something that I personally take near and dear to the heart.

H&Hhunter
July 18, 2007, 09:54 PM
Alphazulu,

The wildlife decline in Kenya since the ban of sport hunting is highly documented and is THE model of what happens when we stop managing and conserving wildlife through sensible proven methods. It is what happens when the funds from sport hunting dry up.

This is the end result of emotional anthropomorphic thinking. When animals aren't managed and utilized properly they become valueless and will be destroyed.

PS

Man has been a part of the ecosystem for as long as he has been on the planet. This is nothing new. We ARE part of the nature and the ecosystem and we have been conserving wildlife for our purposes from the begining. Unfortunately many of us don't realize that.

Stand_Watie
August 13, 2007, 04:24 AM
H&H: as someone who has hunted elephants, I expect that you're much more knowledable, and much more caring for elephants than the average "elephant lover", I'd call myself that.

As such, I highly recommend that you watch "Mutual of Omaha's recent production on "pygmy elephants of Borneo"

H&Hhunter
August 13, 2007, 01:45 PM
Stand,

I watched it. It was very interesting.

Foob,

CITES controls the import and export of elephant products. If these various countries are not allowed to sell the products from elephants that have been culled they can not afford to cull them. That is why they blame CITES for stopping culling.

Beatnik
August 29, 2007, 02:32 PM
Johnny-come-lately-here, with more info on Africa's "noble savage"...



* Twenty-nine of the world's 36 poorest countries are African -- with an estimated 150 million to 325 million Africans earning less than $1 a day.
This is crap put out by many groups.

Here's some interesting photographic evidence I ran into by accident on Google maps. These are tiny slabs of good resolution in areas Google doesn't have much on. Go here first:
http://tinyurl.com/3aes9e

First, zoom in as far as possible. You can see that these are apparently homes from what could have been centuries ago.
Then, zoom out until you can see where they are - that much is fascinating on its own.

Here are more houses about 20 miles to the south.
http://tinyurl.com/2wcm82

Here's a third spot of good resolution, less than a mile ESE from the second:
http://tinyurl.com/2l6cqb
Now remember where this is while you check out the lower right hand portion of the picture. Zoom in on the white dot: that's a satellite dish. In fact, there are at least two and possibly four in this picture, which only shows about 40 acres.

People living in abandoned cities in the middle of the Sahara desert in the poorest country on earth have satellite dishes. So that $1 means something to them.

mbt2001
August 31, 2007, 05:50 PM
This is what happens when liberal programs collide.

:scrutiny:

Aussie bloke!
September 1, 2007, 01:50 AM
G'day everyone,......

In England of all places there is towns in the country that have restaining orders on Animal Liberationists (both members and the organisations)etc,....because of the damage thay have caused.
Thay are not alowed to go to or operate in those places anymore.

I was thinking,....why don't the hunting groups get together and see about banning those groups from operating in those African states/countrys,.......

Just off the top of my head as a comparison,....take them to the international/world court or whatever its called,and have them banned from operating on the grounds of the damage thay have done.
Would put a big dent in their ego's. (Animal rights groups that is)
(but then it'll be pointed out that thay are already deeply insconced in the UN already)
But would'nt it be good if that could be done though.

Another question is why is'nt the moneys being payed by Hunters getting to the local comunitys?
Where is it all going?
Is'nt there suposed to be some formular that insures funds get to the locals when you pay fee's to go Game hunting in African states?

Just my thoughts.


Aussie.

gyp_c2
September 1, 2007, 08:12 AM
The money paid by hunters does make it to the populace...it is the countries that have banned hunting or small arms (thanks to the UN) having this problem...It's a disgusting method of control allowing animals to suffer extinction through slaughter, while millions of people starve to death nearby...
Animal Lovers...I think not...Control Lovers is closer to the truth...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif

AndyC
September 3, 2007, 07:25 PM
In Africa, the saying is "If the game pays, it stays"

SteveS
September 3, 2007, 08:27 PM
Do you have a link to the entire article? I'd like a copy, if possible.

MDHunter
September 22, 2007, 10:22 PM
I'd like the link too if you have it...

Michael

Art Eatman
September 23, 2007, 10:55 AM
PM H&H. The GRAA newsletter might be hardcopy received via snailmail.

Kimber1911_06238
October 8, 2007, 01:36 PM
H&H, you make far too much sense and your opinions are backed up by facts. That is totally unacceptable when arguing with anti's. You're clearly not fighting fair.

RLsnow
October 12, 2007, 01:43 PM
holy macaroni! something to link my vegetarian friend too...

Art Eatman
October 12, 2007, 08:30 PM
From Jim Amrhein, in today's "Whiskey & Gunpowder" (http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com):

"Like it or not, wild animals are a crop to governments. And in those 20 or so African nations that allow safari hunting, wildlife is so valuable as a source of foreign cash (estimates put this number at as much as $100 million or more annually) that it becomes worth regulating and protecting from the real danger: Poachers that slaughter for skins, ivory or horns they sell on the black market for a fraction of their value to a trophy hunter — and farmers that kill the rarest of wild cats for snatching the occasional $5 goat or cow, or the most threatened of rhinos and elephants for rutting up the odd sorghum field…

In Botswana, elephant populations are growing at a rate of 5% per year, and have been ever since hunting them was re-opened in 1996, when the population was around 80,000. By 2003, there were around 123,000 of them there — making Botswana the country with the world’s largest concentration of the lovable pachyderms. How many of them got trophy hunted that year?

Just 210. Less than two-tenths of one percent of the herd.

Translation: Because trophy elephants are so valuable to Botswana’s bottom line, it pays the government there — and the locals, via the trickle-down of hunting-related revenues — to actively prevent the snaring and poaching of them for their flesh, ivory and to stop the killing of them for destroying crops and forests, which they regularly do…

Conversely, when Kenya banned the sport hunting of elephants in the 1970s, they had a healthy population of 140,000 of them. Today, because of poaching, agri-slaughter and a lack of economic incentives to conservation (like high-dollar trophy hunting fees), there are fewer than 23,000 of them. Less than one-sixth as many. In neighboring Tanzania, where elephant hunting is once again allowed, populations have exploded, like in Botswana."

bloodedsky
October 20, 2007, 11:27 PM
I wonder what the elephant thinks of all of this.

tkendrick
October 21, 2007, 12:16 AM
I wonder what the elephant thinks of all of this.


He would tell you........but he doesn't remember.

Art Eatman
October 21, 2007, 11:57 AM
The elephant is largely content in the knowledge that there will be future generations. :)

But for a serious point in response to an irrelevant question: Better to ensure continuity of existence of a species than to fret over the fate of any one member of that species.

H&Hhunter
December 25, 2007, 05:41 PM
Website for the Game Rangers association

http://www.gameranger.org/

moosehunt
January 12, 2008, 01:25 AM
From the dates, I note that this post has pretty much been dropped, but what the hell. The sad thing regarding all this fine info is that it is nothing but preaching to the choir! Those that need to see/read it are not here to do such, even if it would have an effect. I'm a life member of NRA (40+ years) and support the them fully, but 98% of their propaganda is in hunting/shooting magazines read by people that already subscribe to their ideas, so no net gain. Who gets info from the RMEF other than members? Does DU have any real contact with folks not already interested and supportive of waterfowl, and realisticly, waterfowl hunting?? And the NRA puts an ad there--for hunters, i.e. gun owners, to read. All preaching to the choir.
Now, how do we do it differently? Saddly, I admit that I'm not real sure, but I know that all of those reading this didn't gain anything for the issue. We already knew it. Someone wiser than I needs to figure out how to address the enemy, not just visit among friends. Unfortunately, that's all we're doing here. Visiting among friends, accomplishing nothing.
Now, a sad admission. Many years back, before I ever heard of Ingram Newkirk--surely before she was a factor, I used to googoo with a girl name of Newkirk. Lord, the shame on me, had I known she was related in some way (same name means that some way, she's related) her quality would have dropped to zero (or below) instantly!

Art Eatman
January 12, 2008, 11:40 AM
moosehunt, the choir may not know all the words to the song. Data in threads such as this can be helpful to us choirfolks when we get into a discussion with a neutral or only-slightly-biased group.

Art

moosehunt
January 12, 2008, 05:30 PM
Ah, don't take me wrong. There is nothing wrong with talking about it. My point is that we don't get the word in front of those who really need it, not that they would listen. I'm not making a criticism, just stating a fact. As I admitted, I don't know how to do better, but do see that we gain little with an NRA ad in Guns and Ammo--but it costs money. Wasted money in my view, because anyone reading that magazine (only an example) already knows the story. We need that ad in Better Homes and Gardens or Time or Playboy. I also realize that many of these publications won't accept the ads. Most of the info shared in this thread is common in hunting publications, and basically, we all know it. It's the antis and more importantly the undecideds that need to read it in Time or Better homes and Garden--where it's not going to show up, unfortunately

H&Hhunter
January 14, 2008, 01:59 AM
Moose from some of the comments I get on my hunting threads and some of the PM's and E-mails I receive. I think you might be surprised how many Anti hunters are lurking on this site.

Of course the true anti's do not read this stuff to get anything out of it. But as Art mentioned there are a lot of us who do.

moosehunt
January 14, 2008, 04:13 AM
I surely hope that you haven't interpreted my thoughts as suggesting that I am on a page different from yours! More likely, we're even in the same paragraph!

Art Eatman
January 14, 2008, 10:40 AM
Among the antis are some severely strong emotions. There was a National Geographic special on elephants. Overall, quite good, except at the finale, a beauteous blonde elephant worshiper gal allowed as how that even though the license fees were very beneficial to herd viability, she'd prefer that the elephant go extinct rather than be hunted.

H&Hhunter
January 14, 2008, 01:09 PM
Moose,

No I wasn't referring to you.

andreea360
April 25, 2008, 05:26 AM
This is very interesting. Hunting animals should be against the law for ever. Not only some animals, all the animals should be protected by the law. One day we will end up with no animals, no pets, no little souls by our side to pet or take care of.
______________
drug rehab facility (http://www.drugrehab.net/drug.php)

Art Eatman
April 25, 2008, 10:00 AM
Sorry, andreea, but that's 180 degrees off from reality. Those species for which there is a monetary value have some amount of surplus in their populations. Those without, don't.

To repeat what you obviously haven't read: Hunters are the ones who have instituted the game laws which protect game animals from extinction. Hunters cannot hunt unless there is some amount of surplus, over and above the carrying capacity of the habitat.

And the over-population of domestic animals such as pets puts a rather large tax burden on the budgets of many cities. Why else "animal shelters", if not over-populations?

Art

MinnMooney
May 14, 2008, 08:55 PM
When game laws are enacted and inforced, people - & especially hunters - have a newly found respect for the game that they are hunting. The animals flourish, the locals make money and the hunters are happy that they have game again.
Why that doesn't sink in to animal rights groups, I'll never know.

PlayMaker
May 14, 2008, 09:54 PM
Lions will eat your baby if given the chance

Drgong
August 1, 2008, 11:59 AM
"Botswana, in contrast, permitted big game hunting, and in the same period of time, their elephant herd has quadrupled. The key here is that hunters pump considerable money into the local economy, which increases the value of the animals to local natives, provides jobs and fresh meat for many, and supports wildlife research and law enforcement. It is estimated that hunters spend $35 million to $65 million dollars a year on African elephant hunting safaris. The white rhino in South Africa has similarly increased in numbers, thanks to hunters' dollars."

Botswana is one of the most well managed countries in africa...

esq_stu
August 1, 2008, 01:11 PM
I just feel like PETA activists put animals above people.

This is contrary to the way we were created. Not to abuse nature, but not to be subservient to it either - to master it.

"And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand[s]." Gen. 9:3

I am an environmental consultant and my job is to prevent or fix harm to the land, water, air, and wildlife. I am not a whining environmentalist whining about how bad man is and giving animals and plants the rights of mankind. What we have in PETA is a twisted view of the world born of some kind of sick guilt trip over their affluence.:cuss:

Double Naught Spy
August 1, 2008, 08:00 PM
This is contrary to the way we were created. Not to abuse nature, but not to be subservient to it either - to master it.

Ah, the default view to a disembodied higher authority. The problem here is that not everyone recognizes the same disembodied higher authority.

"And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand[s]." Gen. 9:3

Note quite. The passage you cited is Gen. 9:2, not 9:3.

Gen 9:3 reads...Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Funny how we have been told in the Bible that we can eat everything that lives and moves. I guess the disembodied higher authority has a sense of humor given the numbers of living and moving things that are lethal if consumed along with many green plants.

esq_stu
August 1, 2008, 08:27 PM
The passage you cited is Gen. 9:2, not 9:3.You are correct, my mistake.

No question, it's a religious viewpoint that not all share. And I don't expect everyone to. Until recent years, it influenced the way America wrote its laws. The veer to the left and abandonment of these values have gone hand in hand IMO.

Kentucky-roughrider
August 8, 2008, 01:21 AM
PETA think animals should not be eaten. It doesn't matter if it dies in a slaughterhouse, shot by a hunter, or is used in medical research. And, are not above using terrorism. I don't know if they are doing the terrorism, or just people with similar believes.

bragood
August 8, 2008, 01:30 AM
I believe tube ee said it better than I would ever be able to.

KeithCarter
August 11, 2008, 12:35 AM
It's not elephant overpopulation, it's HUMAN overpopulation. Primitive agrarian peoples need land to survive. We humans are expanding into traditional animal lands, and there are more of us each year.

The Chinese have a population control program for humans. But the Africans are too primitive for that. Their population control program is the elephant.

leadcounsel
August 11, 2008, 12:37 PM
I"m as pro-gun as it gets, but human folley, technology, selfishness and greed will lead to the extinction of important species on this plant including Great Apes, Elephants, Wolves, Sharks, Bears, and Big Cats.

Spend 10 mintues reading news articles and it's abundantly clear that these species are very important to the ecosystem yet hunters and poachers recklessly kill them for tiny profits and poor excuses. For instance, elephant population is less than 1/2 what it was 30 years ago! Imagine if human population were cut in half.

The key to their survival is probably to make them MORE profitable to exist than to be killed into extinction: and there are few ways to do that. I think that hunting licenses and kill limits are probably one way to the key to the survival of elephants, for instance.

The *problem* with prosperity is growth and consumption of resources and land. Extinction of animals should be a global concern, and the mere suggestion of lifting the ban on ivory, for instance, is unbelievably irresponsible because the effect would likely be the immediate slaughter of the remaining elephants by poachers.

I have nothing against hunting for necessity, but hunting for sport or profit is something I am ethically quite strongly against.

If you think that hunting for sport or profit is the ethical highground, then in my opinion you are living in the un-enlightened distant past where people didn't know or care about ecologies, delicate balances of ecosystems, or have the benefit of hindsight when destroying and eliminating species.

ds92
August 11, 2008, 11:50 PM
For any G&A readers out there there was an interesting question in the shooters SAT of the september issue
"Wildlife conservationists generally agree that the most damaging thing to happen to effective game management in the 20th century was : A. Bambi B.Peta C. Condor Release Programs D. Ducks unlimited"

answer: A. Bambi

Guns and more
August 12, 2008, 01:42 AM
Being money poor isn't a big deal in societies where people are self sufficient and don't require money. Before invasion by Europeans and later arrivals, most of North America was occupied by "poor" peoples. Given that the didn't exist based on money, the comparison is not valid. More over, so people make less than $1 per day. What are their living expenses? How much of their survival is based on having cash? Without knowing these things, whether $1 a day means horrific poverty or is actually icing on the cake can't be ascertained.
I'm glad to hear that we can stop sending our aid to Africa now that we know they really aren't poor after all. Thanks.

Art Eatman
August 12, 2008, 11:10 AM
Most of the money--as cash or credits--either winds up in a Swiss/Cayman bank account, or in the hands of arms manufacturers. There's a real-world reason that African countries are called thugocracies. About the only outside help for poor villagers is actual medical help--or the money from hunters and eco-tourists. Probably more from us than the photobugs. Eco-tourism companies are mostly foreign-owned and operated, employing locals mostly in menial jobs. (But tourism anywhere pays little to the staff.)

telomere
August 12, 2008, 04:06 PM
"This is contrary to the way we were created. Not to abuse nature, but not to be subservient to it either - to master it."

Haha good one. We evolved along with the other inhabitants of the planet. Besides that, lets put you in a cage with a pissed off lion and no gun (just like you were "created) and see who "masters" who!

I am not a whining environmentalist whining about how bad man is and giving animals and plants the rights of mankind.

No you are an environmental consultant whos job it probably is to make sure whoever hires you gets around laws and regs, and hopefully doesn't destroy the environmetn while walkign off with cart loads of cash.
It is very easy to make the ohter side of your argument look bad when you throw out untrue/strawman arguments. Very few people actually want to give full human rights to animals, really the only right they would need is right to not be exposed to unnecessary suffering. I would also like to meet these "plants rights" advocates you seem to know.

PETA is the big name animal rights organization, so they are easy to pick on. They are also highly hypocritical, which makes them easier to pick on. That does not make the basic premise of their work, that animals deserve to not be used for our gain, incorrect.
Hunting was a necessity hundreds of years ago, and still is in many parts of the world. In the US there is no need, except that you're not manly unless you kill stuff, and you get in a lot less trouble then if you beat your wife.
Most of the hunters on this board have dogs, why? What is the real difference between a dog and some animal you hunt except the arbitrary distinction between pet and not.
And no animal advocate is going to argue that slaughterhouse meat is more humane than hunted meat. Slaughterhouses are f'ing disgusting places, and animals are tortured to provide you food. If the hunted animal has any luck the hunter is a good shot and they die fast. Unfortunately all to many animals are shot and accidentally or very often purposely left to die.
But It is not a matter of more or less humane, the question should be, "is it humane at all"? The answer in both cases is obviously, NO!

And of course hunters have a big part/say in conservation, no one would argue that. The problem is that their interest is not in the animals, it is purely selfish. It comes down to, if they don't save/manage these animals, then how are they supposed to be able to kill them for fun?

Art Eatman
August 12, 2008, 07:37 PM
telomere, I'll give you credit for a nice, disjointed and mostly meaningless, opinionated rant, but it's rather Shakespearean: "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Once you start interfering with any sort of system, odds are that you can't quit without making things worse. So, as we increased in populations, and used technology to encroach on previously "wild" lands, we begn interfering with the original order of things.

If we don't do legal hunting of deer and other game animals here in the U.S., we'll see more property damage to cars. To crops. And we'll see die-offs from disease and/or starvation from time to time. There will be a dry-up of money for habitat protection: Why join such as Ducks Unlimited if you can't hunt ducks?

As far as hunters' motivations, we know that they vary. However, a commonality among the majority is to maintain some spiritual contact with previous generations. Another part is to get away from the artificialities of city life, to renew a sense of oneness with nature.

Homo Sapiens is a predator. Biology herownself has set us up to eat both meat and veggies. So, we do. Hunters are do-it-yourselfers. Others merely hire somebody else to do the scut work for them.

Another generalization about all the interrelationships between humans and animals is that hunters as a group don't approve of maltreatment of any animals, whether wild or domestic.

I've been reading posts about ethics and morals at The Firing Line and The High Road for some ten years, now. that's a fair number of hundreds of opinions, views and attitudes. The summary of all I have read is that you, telomere, are dead wrong.

cooch
August 15, 2008, 09:28 AM
leadcounsel.

You have been lied to, and are attacking your fellow gun-owners without accepting the responsibility of informing yourself appropriately.

If you had bothered to read as little as the information posted on this thread, you would know that the elephant is in no danger whatsoever of becoming extinct, in those areas in which sport hunting has given them a very large economic value.

In the vernacular, someone has been having a lend of you.
Now please consider before posting again.

Peter

Art Eatman
August 15, 2008, 10:17 AM
leadcounsel, I strongly suggest you go back and read ALL the posts.

Consider one thing: If there were no surplus of game animals, hunters could not hunt. Period. End of story.

Think of it this way: Hunters spend the interest on the principal, and strive to increase the amount of the principal. The most public example in the U.S. is Ducks Unlimited, although they are but one of many.

H&Hhunter
August 17, 2008, 01:17 PM
Spend 10 mintues reading news articles and it's abundantly clear that these species are very important to the ecosystem yet hunters and poachers recklessly kill them for tiny profits and poor excuses. For instance, elephant population is less than 1/2 what it was 30 years ago! Imagine if human population were cut in half.


Lead,

And it is twice what it was 15 years ago due to aggressive conservation programs which are almost exclusively funded by hunters.

If you'd spend more than 10 minutes reading the "pop culture news" and actually spend some time studying the conservation and recovery efforts of the African Elephant you'd be aware of the vast and incredible recovery of elephants in each and every country that allow sport hunting of the elephant.

I'd explain it again but it's already been explained in this and other posts if you'd take the time to read them you'd be a much better informed individual.

Your post above reads like a bumper sticker for PETA.

deaconkharma
August 21, 2008, 12:23 PM
This might get me flamed but how about Christian children's fund teaming up with hunters to solve food scarcity. I personally think that if elephant is edible... well anyway there are too many starving people to have an animal overpopulation issue. If we do then it's time to eat.

H&Hhunter
August 21, 2008, 04:03 PM
Google

CAMPFIRE..

hotlead
August 25, 2008, 02:06 AM
Ahhh, hell. Shoot it, catch it or buy it.....you should eat it, or raelease it. I dont have enough energy to go on about impoverished countries, and thier hypocrisy and what not. Lets focus on who will be the 'big' president soon.

Colt46
October 14, 2008, 08:15 PM
An animal worth nothing is worth, well, worth nothing. No incentive to keep it around.

LionHunter
November 10, 2008, 06:32 PM
I am new to this forum but not new to hunting, Elephants and other animals, and am certainly not new to hunting Africa in particular, having done safari more than a dozen times, covering many of the sub-Saharan countries. I count many contemporary African hunters, writers and film makers among my friends and acquaintances.

Unless one has seen firsthand the damage a herd of Elephant can do to an ecosystem, it is hard to understand the problem. I have driven for the better part of an hour through a Mopani forrest where every tree within sight on both sides of the road had been broken. This was not done for food but rather just a quirk of Elephant behavior. Any other animals in that forrest who required the Mopani for survival was now endangered.

There is no simple answer to the Elephant question, but to date, sport hunting has proven to provide funding and motivation to both government and local inhabitants showing that the Elephant has a value to them on the land rather than in the stew pot. This is the first step in eliminating poaching.

I have arrested poachers and burned their camps and removed their inhumane traps while on safari. I have culled animals gravely injured by such traps who would have only gotten sicker and suffered additional torment before starving to death or succumbing to their wounds. I have done so while accompanied by a government game scout, whose salary and per diem is paid for by me through the costs of the safari. These game scouts and rangers wouldn't be there if not for the sport hunters, they would not have a job nor would they be able to support their extended families.

There are many problems in Africa and no simple solutions. I look forward to writing more about my favorite place in the future.

langenc
November 10, 2008, 08:37 PM
I recall seeing pics of a pile of ivory as big as a house that was burned. Country?? Reason-to reduce the demand for ivory and thus poaching. The local 'elephant cops' had airplanes for patrol, but no gas for them. Ivory could have be auctioned and lots of gas purchased. The elephants that supplied the ivory were already dead. STUPID.

LionHunter
November 17, 2008, 08:56 PM
The video you saw was old. Sales of confiscated Ivory was first authorized by CITES at the meeting of the parties in late 2002. Botswana (20 metric tons), Namibia (10 metric tons) and the Republic of South Africa were authorized to make the sales. Zambia and Zimbabwe requests to sell their Ivory was denied at that time.

There were literally tons of Ivory in storage. The dynamics of life in Africa includes the fact that secure indoor storage was not available for the quantities gathered over the preceding 13 year international ban on sales of Ivory. Some was simply legally stock piled and left outdoors where it deteriorated and was ruined.

A sale was just completed last month (Oct '08) in Namibia where 7.2 tons were sold for $1.3M to two Japanese and two Chinese buyers.

44 Tons were to be sold in Botswana later that month while 51 tons in RSA and 4 tons in Zimbabwe are scheduled for sale this month (November '08). Buyers are usually carver conglomerates who will sell/distribute the Ivory to their traditional carving artists.

Money gained from the sales is designated for Elephant protection.

The bunny-huggers are not pleased.

Loomis
November 17, 2008, 09:09 PM
THey should legalize hunting of elephants. THe elephant tags should be auctioned to the highest bidder. PRocedes from the sale should be used to provide elephant proof homes and fences to the villagers. also, the owner of the elephant tag should only be allowed a small amount of the meat and the head or some other trophy. THe meat should be processed and provided to the villagers that have to live amongst the wild elephants running amok. After all, that elephant's flesh was built by eating the vegetation that would have otherwise been eaten by livestock owned by the villagers.

Fair is fair.

LionHunter
November 17, 2008, 09:13 PM
Animals in Africa have only one of two possible values to the native people.

1. In the cooking pot
2. As a resource that provides employment and financial renumeration

If you demonstrate that sport hunting (#2) will provide MORE value than the poaching (#1) does, then you will succeed.

#2 includes the building of schools, establishment of clean water points, medical attention, clothing, food, etc.

#2 always wins the hearts and minds.

LionHunter
November 17, 2008, 09:27 PM
Elephant hunting is legal in five sub-Saharan African countries. Ivory may be taken, exported and Imported from these countries. Elephant safaris are generally a minimum of 21 days at a daily rate of $500 and up. Elephant license and trophy fees run over $10,000 and up each. Funds from the outfitters and the license and trophy fees are returned to the local community through the employment of local populace in the hunting camps and as trackers, skinners, anti-poaching teams and Game Scouts/Rangers. All meat, other than a small amount the hunters eat, is donated to local populace.

Most villagers do not live in close proximity to Elephants but can and do have occasional negative experiences with them. Nothing worse than a pissed Elephant who needs sorting out - I've done it and also been confronted by some rather cheeky Ele at different times when I was able to manage to avoid a shooting situation. Most Ele dine on natural crops rather than domestic.

I think you need to do some serious research before you express opinions based upon what you see on the Animal Planet channel.

Cheers.

LionHunter
November 17, 2008, 09:40 PM
I've been to many African countries on many occasions yet I have never seen any program supported by PETA or by HSUS that provides a dime of support for the animals on that continent. I have seen programs and services supported solely or in a majority part by hunting-conservation organizations.

Wonder why that is?

BTW, the ALF (Animal Liberation Front), which some suspect is the enforcement arm of PETA and which PETA refuses to condemn, is listed by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization.

H&Hhunter
November 18, 2008, 12:41 AM
Lionhunter,

Welcome to THR you sir are obviously in the know. I appreciate your level of understanding and obvious experience in the field of big game hunting. Please keep posting.

LionHunter
November 18, 2008, 04:45 AM
Thanks, H&Hhunter, I've enjoyed reading your posts about my favorite place in the whole wide world as well.

ArfinGreebly
November 20, 2008, 03:13 AM
If you've had a post (or posts) disappear, I've removed some noise and chaff from the thread.

I'm re-opening it for on-topic discussion.

Please carry on.

moosehunt
November 22, 2008, 08:04 PM
It's really just a matter of money (and government). The Kenyen Gov't recieves more money from the animal rights people than it recieves from hunters (basically zero when there is no hunting), so it applies the wishes of animal rightists because that means more money in their pockets. It is not a matter of what's good for the animals or what's good for the country (or it's people); it's what's good for the corrupt gov't "officials". The potential for hunting again in Kenya (and Uganda) is dependent on the efforts of a few, i.e. 1 or 2, outfitter/PH's that are attempting to get in bed with the gov't people. This may sound bad, regarding these outfitters, but it is the only hope. They are simply trying to do business the way it's done there. Uganda is beginning to crack a bit, but because of the cost of "doing business", the limited hunting being opened in Uganda is quite expensive, much more so than for similar animals in other African countries. Sadly, I don't think the future is good, but it is a start and just might work in the long run. The situation in Kenya is likely to follow suite. Of course there is the question of whether or not there are enough animals of quality left to warrent hunting in these countries. It very well may simply be too late.

DeerSlayer300WM
December 3, 2008, 08:08 PM
Yep,

It is pretty obvious if you have even the smallest spark in your brain.

Thank you H&Hhunter.

DeerSlayer300WM
December 3, 2008, 08:11 PM
H&H, you made my day. thanks for the good post.

moha0154
December 13, 2008, 12:57 PM
This post has nothing to do with elephants, I know, but one reason for the overpopulation of deer, particularly in the Eastern US, is the lack of the deer's natural predators. The wolf and mountain lion were labeled 'varmints' and wiped out by hunters or government agents or whatever.

Readyrod
January 25, 2009, 09:42 AM
I know they aren't elephants but when I was a kid growing up in Quebec we use to go to this snow goose conservation area to see the snow geese every fall. It was a sight that was truly wonderful to see. Seems that many years before some hunting clubs worked very hard to save the place and the geese.
When I went to Zimbabwe I heard the same story about the elephants.
What people don't understand is that hunters (and sport fishers) are far more interested and involved in conservation than almost anyone else.

Art Eatman
January 25, 2009, 11:12 AM
A birder can be thrilled by the sight of one of a few remaining members of an endangered species. The California condor, for instance. But a hunter cannot hunt unless there is a surplus of the species of game animal that is the intended target.

Hunters have the strongest vested interest of all outdoorsmen in habitat preservation and species protection.

blackops
August 1, 2009, 11:30 AM
My quote says it all

antony35
December 8, 2009, 03:31 PM
perfect quote , and that is true

Howaido
January 1, 2010, 10:04 AM
Lions will eat your baby if given the chance

Don't hate on the lion for being a lion. It is the nature of the lion. The large predators will be gone world-wide soon enough. They are really just about there.

We have done the job on them here in the US, where there is no true "wild" left. Sure there are a few places where you might get confronted by a bear or mountain lion, but there are no wild places anymore.

If it weren't for TR and some other visionaries, these small pockets would be gone as well.

RockinU
January 1, 2010, 03:59 PM
Quote:
Lions will eat your baby if given the chance
Don't hate on the lion for being a lion. It is the nature of the lion. The large predators will be gone world-wide soon enough. They are really just about there.

We have done the job on them here in the US, where there is no true "wild" left. Sure there are a few places where you might get confronted by a bear or mountain lion, but there are no wild places anymore.

If it weren't for TR and some other visionaries, these small pockets would be gone as well.
__________________

There are more than you apparently think, you just have to work to get there, and I for one hope it stays that way. I don't live or travel much in areas where there are bear, but I do know (contrary to your above statements) that black bear populations are doing very well...they are even issuing tags for them in Oklahoma now. Mountain Lions...there are a whole lot more of them out there than most folks in the city are aware...may be hard to see, but they are no where near in danger of "disappearing". I think we may be a good bit farther from "there" than you seem to think we are.

Howaido
January 1, 2010, 05:15 PM
True. Although, I don't consider a bunch of bears walking around in the burbs or a small town to be the wild, as I am sure you don't either.

Sure, it can get "wild" if one smells food and is coming through your door, but that isn't the wild. Same with a mountain lion attacking a jogger. Those are just some large predators that are fresh out of habitat and will be killed off for it.

Hunting is one way to control populations, sure. But, these large predators really have only a very few places to be. Very controlled, very small populations on very small plots of land. National parks and forests, crammed with people trying to escape the cities for a glimpse of something natural, are basically fenceless zoos.

Some mountainous regions, the SE swamps, some desert land. Parts of AK I guess are the last true wild. Some of Canada.

Shame but IMO we just have too many two-legged animals here in the U.S. to have much "wild" left if any at all. Population growing every day too.

All the world is moving in this direction to the point that most any big game hunting is dangerously close to being canned if not flat-out canned. "Go to Africa, hunt elephants!" About like shooting a cow from a convertible I heard from a guy who has killed just about everything that walked or crawled at one time or another, including elephant, polar bear, etc.

Most deer are taken in or around cornfields or whatever now. IMO, true hunting is just about gone. One can work around the realities and make the most out of it, as I did for some time.

As far as Africa goes, lions used to number in the hundreds of thousands. They can keep some on game preserves and let them breed to be killed by somebody who wants to shoot one, but fact is it is over for the lion as we think of lions. Think of the Grizzly bear here. Same deal for the lion in the present / near future.

RockinU
January 1, 2010, 08:21 PM
Mountain Lions attacking joggers...I know of two fairly recent incidents...both involved over-populated (by the cats) areas in locals where hunting them is forbidden. Not enough food in over-populated areas causes wild animals to come into populace areas, sometimes with violent results. I'm not sure where you are from, or live, but here in Texas we have counties that are as big as some of the smaller states, and have residencies measured in hundreds of people. If you think "most" U.S. big game hunting is getting close to being canned, I suggest you have a DIY hunt in some of our Western states. I guess I don't understand your definition of wild, but based on my experiences I don' think you have traveled much, or looked very hard, because it's still there for those who crave it.

kiwihunta
February 1, 2010, 04:19 PM
Most of these 3rd world govts in countries where this wild life exists are more interested in buying ak47s and military hardware to prop up there tin pot corrupt regimes than putting a cent into wildlife conservation programmes,corruption in many if not most african countries is rife and sadly rules and regulates the money go round.

Quilbilly
February 3, 2010, 11:28 AM
I would think you would get them out of Botswana the same way you would get them out of Safeway. All you have to do is take the F out of "safe" and the F out of "way"....:D:D:D

jeepmor
February 6, 2010, 11:26 PM
At least some countries over there are embracing the hunters. This will provide seed stock as others come around and repopulate.

Ridgerunner665
February 6, 2010, 11:56 PM
Its not only animal rights groups...

There are just too many people...period.

I get jumped on every time I say that, but its the truth...all over the world, too many people.

If that was not the case, we wouldn't be seeing our wildlife go extinct right before our eyes.

Humans think this world is solely ours...it is not, it was meant to be shared for all creatures great and small.

And no...I'm not a tree hugging PETA member, I'm a hunter and a shooter, but I do understand the concept of conservation.

The wildlife would be fine...if it had room to live, but we people want it all for ourselves, we are a selfish and greedy lot.

If there is land that is not fit for farming or some other profitable use...we are fine with it being a park or game preserve...until they find oil there, then its "to hell with the wildlife".

We enjoy hunting, but we have no foresight past the almighty dollar.

It makes me sick the way man has treated this world and its wildlife.

And please...don't start labeling me with any sort of political parties, they are all FULL OF IT. I'm just a guy with his eyes open...

H&Hhunter
February 7, 2010, 02:21 AM
We enjoy hunting, but we have no foresight past the almighty dollar.

We hunters are the almighty dollar that keeps wildlife wild. If it wasn't for us there would be very little left.

Ridgerunner665
February 7, 2010, 02:38 AM
Thats true H&Hhunter...men like you and I (and I'm sure there are others here too)

But we are also an endangered species my friend. (people who appreciate the land and its inhabitants)

My point is that things are waaaay out of balance...too many people, not enough room.

Ridgerunner665
February 7, 2010, 02:43 AM
A little clarification is in order...
We enjoy hunting, but we have no foresight past the almighty dollar.

There are hunters...and there are people who hunt.

Not everybody who goes out in the woods with a gun is a hunter...not by my definition of the term.

Art Eatman
February 7, 2010, 12:18 PM
At least in the US we hunters have created a system whereby almost all game species are on the increase.

Nobody will find me arguing that there aren't too many people, though. The upside is that they tend to wad up in giant cities. The downside is that huntin' country gets turned into farmland.

Except, generally, deserts. Me, I like the desert. Bureaucrats don't. Works for me. :D

tcsnake
July 29, 2010, 11:28 AM
As a Hunter, I can honestly say that killing animals is less that 10% of what I do regarding wildlife.

The other 90% is conservation plain and simple. I have donated countless hours raising money and donating my time to protect species right here in California. It is sad that all these people jump on the bandwagon and single out us "Evil Hunters" as the Sole problem of all animal related woes. We are passing the torch to our children NOT THEM, and it further infuriates me that they would spend the time slandering our rights that would be better spent with fixing a problem. Aldo Leapold saw this one coming...

FLAvalanche
August 6, 2010, 03:27 PM
from the University of California, Berkeley

I quit reading right there...

Bluenote
August 7, 2010, 02:09 AM
Some mountainous regions, the SE swamps, some desert land. Parts of AK I guess are the last true wild. Some of Canada.
.....................................


You're in error , wilderness still exists in the lower 48 , parts of Texas , Wyoming ,Idaho ,Montana , Utah , some parts of Colorado , New Mexico and Arizona , Oregon and Washinton , along with California , yes you heard me right *California* , I can walk out my back door with a pack ,sidearm and rifle and disappear for a week and see nary a soul but see scads of deer ,hogs and coyotes , a few black bear , cut mountain lion sign and still see bald eagles a few otters in some of the rivers etc.

Wilderness is still there if you want to take to trouble to find it and the energy to get there. Argue the point if you wish , but go out and see for yourself.

Are there to damn many people in many areas? Most assuredly there are , but mankind for the greater part is a herd beast that huddles together in the vast urban centers , they've got to have their 32 inch television , football on Sundays ,golf courses , new Xbox for the kids ,zoom zoom freeways to ease access from here to there and their Frappacino at Starbucks in the morning.

BAH humbug to all that , I'd rather sit on my porch and listen to the coyotes up the ridge of an evening and the hogs grunting and squealing a draw or two over. Sometimes I'll even go skulk about to see what they're up to.

It's still there , go look and for some of us still an integral part of our existence.

Bluenote
August 7, 2010, 02:11 AM
Except, generally, deserts. Me, I like the desert. Bureaucrats don't. Works for me.
............................

Big Bend country forever 'eh.

A and O
August 7, 2010, 04:16 AM
Yep. True uncharted wilderness areas even in Southern California. Last Sept into October we had fires here in Yucaipa that pulled fire resources away from all the Western States that were on fire. Over 50% of the available Air Resources were here to prevent the fires from getting into the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area. I was told by my neighbor (Battalion Chief for Cal Fire) that they were doing everything in their power to prevent that region from catching on fire. Said it could burn for years uncontrolled because of the rugged terrain and dense foliage that has never caught fire.

It's common in this Town to see Mtn. Lions, Black Bears, Deer, Bobcats etc... that come down from the Oak Glen part of town.

Those of you in Socal that are not aware of Oak Glen, do a google of Oak Glen then pm me and we will get together in late Sept./Oct. I'll treat you to an Apple Wood Smoked Pulled Pork Sandwich At Los Rios Ranch.

And I'll stop here, don't want to hijack the thread.

gun guy
August 29, 2010, 09:11 PM
Isn't it odd that everytime some activists launches a cause to save something, anything, pick a topic, they usually create such a mess, nothing on earth can fix it. Happy that they did, "something" and oblivious to the damaged caused, they find yet another windmill to tilt. These types are not concerned with, or detered by, the facts. As long as they make the social page with the headline, movie star, rock star, political activist, does it again, they will do it again. And all we can do is shake our heads, and wait for their next great cause. Trying to correct mother nature, and change human nature, has been a pointless but highly political way to justify, their train wreck lifestyles, that take up the other half of the social pages.

lloveless
August 31, 2010, 06:43 AM
I was in SoCal Last year for 19 weeks. Right outside of Moreno Valley(up where the big M is on the Mtn)I saw deer (track) being followed by a mtn lion (track). It is interesting how in the desert it will be wilderness then all of a sudden city.
ll

COLTHR
September 6, 2010, 03:46 PM
The sad thing regarding all this fine info is that it is nothing but preaching to the choir! Those that need to see/read it are not here to do such, even if it would have an effect. I'm a life member of NRA (40+ years) and support the them fully, but 98% of their propaganda is in hunting/shooting magazines read by people that already subscribe to their ideas, so no net gain. Who gets info from the RMEF other than members? Does DU have any real contact with folks not already interested and supportive of waterfowl, and realisticly, waterfowl hunting?? And the NRA puts an ad there--for hunters, i.e. gun owners, to read. All preaching to the choir.
Now, how do we do it differently? Saddly, I admit that I'm not real sure, but I know that all of those reading this didn't gain anything for the issue. We already knew it. Someone wiser than I needs to figure out how to address the enemy, not just visit among friends.

This is a great thread, so many good points and perspectives.

I used to be anti, now I'm not. It's just not a supportable position with anything other than emotion. Bottom line is, we don't live in a "natural" world anymore, and managed hunting has a practical purpose in the world we do live in. That's the practical side of it. The intangible side of it is that some of us like to hunt...and the reasons we like to hunt are varied and personal. Having been a non-hunting outdoorsman, I can tell you that I've never felt a deeper connection with--or appreciation for--Nature than when I'm hunting. When I hike and camp I'm an observer, when I hunt I'm a participant. It's a big difference to me. That said, others hunt for different reasons, some that I might pass judgement on. But at the end of the day, we are both expressing our predatory nature, so my judgements don't mean squat to anyone but me. Likewise, I don't begrudge anti's their viewpoint, in fact, while I don't agree with it, I understand it. To each his own, just don't encroach on my rights in your misguided attempt to add meaning to your life.

But regarding preaching to the choir, sure, this thread makes a difference. It gives us a little more education as to what is going on and what to do about it, and might even motivate some of us to do something concrete. But Moosehunt is right, specifically regarding his NRA example. To a large degree the organizations that represent our position are preaching to the choir. But maybe that's the practical reality of funding a congressional lobbying effort -- you have to preach to the people who will donate to keep that lobbying effort rolling.

I think (which is not my specialty) that the biggest difference we can make is on an individual level versus just sending a check to a non-profit (which still needs to be done). Instead of engaging in arguments with radicalized antis (which is fruitless), take time to educate your friends and family who are on the fence. I've got a whole slew of people in my circle who used to be "soft antis" but now want to know when the next delivery of hormone-free, free-range elk meat is going to arrive.

Teaching people how to shoot and hunt, who would otherwise not get the chance, will have a multiplication effect over time. Imagine the power if everyone on this board took on making a marksman out of two disadvantaged kids a year. I've been really impressed with the program at Appleseed Project (www.appleseed.org) and have sent four people to them this year. One of whom was an adult who had never fired a gun before (she promptly went out and bought a pistol and signed up for another Appleseed). I like to imagine that now her kids will now grow up as shooters, or at least not afraid of shooters.

OK, you guys have me motivated, I'm going to look to see if there is an organization that specifically addresses disadvantaged and inner-city youth that promotes shooting and hunting. I know there are several organizations like NSSF's First Shots, but seems to me they tend to operate in areas where shooting and hunting already have a degree of acceptance (i.e. mainly cater to blue collar/middle-class caucasians).

The fight for our hunting and 2nd Amendment rights are one and the same, and it's a fight against ignorance.

TriTone
September 11, 2010, 12:49 AM
Google

CAMPFIRE..
What for? the business group or campfireusa.org? or what? youre print would be much more usefull with more direction. Posts like this also run the risk of coming across as smarta**. Not trying to be rude, seriously, but I googled CAMPFIRE and found it to be of no use. Maybe im missing something obvious, if so please redirect me! :)

As for the OP issue, and somewhat directed at post # 26, I think ivory trade should be reopened but of course needs to be regulated. Unregulated hunting has the potential to wipe out a species. Not because hunters are trying to do that or don't care (though that description might fit poachers), but because there are so darn many of us that without organization we could screw up by accident. Responsible hunters don't want to wipe out a species, we realize the importance of the regulated hunting. The fact is, that in this world, any species with powerful build (big cats, bears, elephants), have the potential to become a dominant species unless we keep them in check using our technology, which in my opinion gives us a right to be the dominant species, even though we are not as "built" as these other creatures. That said, of course it doesn't give a right to be irresponsible with the way we dominate other creatures, and we, responsible hunters, know and understand that. I'm sorry if this comes across as a agressive or upset, but I can't help but be irritated when someone, ( referring to lead counsel ), says something that likens sport hunters to irresponsible idiots out for a joy shoot of other creatures. Check your facts before you post an uninformed opinion, unless you can't learn how to form an informed one by researching.

H&Hhunter
September 13, 2010, 12:42 AM
CAMPFIRE/ Zimbabwe..

And thanks for straightening me out TT I'd hate after nearly 15 years on this and the original TFL to all of a sudden be known as a smart a$$.;)

http://www.resourceafrica.org/documents/1993/1993_campfire_bg.pdf

Robert Wilson
September 13, 2010, 12:57 AM
I have occasionally wondered about the practice of culling. On the surface, it doesn't make sense to me to pay professionals to do something that amateurs would gladly pay to do. It seems akin to hiring people to take food off the shelves of the supermarket rather than let customers pay to take the same food home with them. What am I missing?

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting facts on African hunting, just what PETA doesn't want you to hear!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!