Discussion in 'Hunting' started by H&Hhunter, Mar 19, 2006.
It is pretty obvious if you have even the smallest spark in your brain.
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.
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.
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.
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"
I watched it. It was very interesting.
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.
Johnny-come-lately-here, with more info on Africa's "noble savage"...
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:
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.
Here's a third spot of good resolution, less than a mile ESE from the second:
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.
This is what happens when liberal programs collide.
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.
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...
In Africa, the saying is "If the game pays, it stays"
Do you have a link to the entire article? I'd like a copy, if possible.
Link to Article?
I'd like the link too if you have it...
PM H&H. The GRAA newsletter might be hardcopy received via snailmail.
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.
holy macaroni! something to link my vegetarian friend too...
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."
I wonder what the elephant thinks of all of this.
He would tell you........but he doesn't remember.
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.
Website for the Game Rangers association
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!
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.
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
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.
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!
Separate names with a comma.