• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Game Hunter Trampled To Death By Elephant

So let them send their money and spare the animals

You didn't answer me . What do you contribute ?

I don't contribute anything, I'm not the one up in arms about people hunting in a sustained manner that is in line with conservation of a species.

Maybe if you and your buddy, Ricky Gervais, contributed more money, these preserves wouldn't have to turn to big game hunters for conservation funds. You seem to have a problem, so why don't you contribute and work on a solution? Or is it just better to sit on the internet and wish for these hunters to die than it is to actually do something?
 
Last edited:
I don't contribute anything,

So you are in no position to criticise

I'm not the one up in arms about people hunting in a sustained manner that is in line with conservation of a species.

If they are truly worried about conservation they can give their money to the various wildlife charities without killing anything. Ascribing altruistic motives to trophy hunters is laughable
 
So let them send their money and spare the animals

You didn't answer me . What do you contribute ?

The science.. which you keep ignoring shows that "sparing the animals".. has been shown to be ineffective.

Hunting which includes the death of the animal is an extremely valuable management tool. You keep advocating for something the science overwhelmingly shows to be ineffective.
 
So you are in no position to criticise



If they are truly worried about conservation they can give their money to the various wildlife charities without killing anything. Ascribing altruistic motives to trophy hunters is laughable

Again... you are completely ignoring that the harvesting of the game animal is a valuable management tool in developing, and maintaining a healthy animal population. The science is well established on this point.
 
If they are truly worried about conservation they can give their money to the various wildlife charities without killing anything. Ascribing altruistic motives to trophy hunters is laughable

They give their money to conservation programs and facilities though. So already done.

You're just upset that they hunt, even when the meat gets consumed and the hunting is in line with conservation. You have no rational objection, you just don't like it and you don't want to do anything about it other than wish for the death of humans who contribute more towards the conservation of African wildlife than you do.
 
The science.. which you keep ignoring shows that "sparing the animals".. has been shown to be ineffective.

Hunting which includes the death of the animal is an extremely valuable management tool. You keep advocating for something the science overwhelmingly shows to be ineffective.

So those trophy hunters just do it out of the goodness of their hearts because of their solid science and conservation ethics then ...... uh huh

I've got a bridge I could sell you .... :lol:
 
So those trophy hunters just do it out of the goodness of their hearts because of their solid science and conservation ethics then ...... uh huh

I've got a bridge I could sell you .... :lol:

They're doing more for conservation of African wildlife than you.
 
Do you want to be seen as credible? If so, then stop falsely accusing me. I'm most certainly not anti-hunter, though it makes it easier to advance your argument accusing me so. I've already told you I go to the deer woods every year, I also told you I kill a host of nuisance animals on my ranch, regularly. I also would point out that Texas is a model state when it comes to evidence that regulated hunting improves game numbers. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. took a sluggish deer population and built the largest herd of any state, with good management.

But the African elephant is unique, and it's under heavy pressure from illegal poaching which must be fixed before hunting can be effective.

Horse poop

you are in no position to claim that the hunting of elephant is improper.

lets hunt poachers? I wonder what the bag limit should be or is there a bounty on them like coyotes?
 
Game Hunter Trampled To Death By Elephant

Serves him right.

Bambists tend to love animals while hating humans
 
They're doing more for conservation of African wildlife than you.

Yes yes . And of course out of the goodness of their trophy hunting hearts they are only going over there to kill the wildlife for its own good and then feed the helpless starving locals with it .....

Catch a whiff of what you are shovelling :doh
 
Last edited:
Yes yes . And of course out of the goodness of their trophy hunting hearts they are only going over there to kill the wildlife for its own good and then feed the helpless starving locals with it .....

:doh

Doesn't matter why they're going over there, just that they've contributed far more money and engaged in activities beyond your arguments here that serve conservation measures for African Wildlife. I mean, if they were stuck with your contributions, poachers would have killed most of those herds by now. Thankfully these hunters contribute significantly to the conservation of herds and species, so these preserves can continue to exist and have the staff necessary to protect the animals.

How many starving villagers have you fed? It's easy to sit there from behind your keyboard denigrating these people and wishing for their deaths, but functionally they do far more towards conservation than you. Maybe it's time to get up from the keyboard, get out there and maybe do something, yes?
 
Doesn't matter why they're going over there, just that they've contributed far more money and engaged in activities beyond your arguments here that serve conservation measures for African Wildlife. I mean, if they were stuck with your contributions, poachers would have killed most of those herds by now. Thankfully these hunters contribute significantly to the conservation of herds and species, so these preserves can continue to exist and have the staff necessary to protect the animals.

How many starving villagers have you fed? It's easy to sit there from behind your keyboard denigrating these people and wishing for their deaths, but functionally they do far more towards conservation than you. Maybe it's time to get up from the keyboard, get out there and maybe do something, yes?

They can send a cheque then which I'm sure would go a whole lot further.
 
So those trophy hunters just do it out of the goodness of their hearts because of their solid science and conservation ethics then ...... uh huh

I've got a bridge I could sell you .... :lol:

Nope.. that's only one reason.. they also do it because hunting is an enjoyable and rewarding lifestyle. As I and others have said all along. So its a great lifestyle, its a lot of fun, and it helps the environment and habitat and provides excellent, healthy meat for my family and others.

Whats not to like?..
 
They can send a cheque then which I'm sure would go a whole lot further.

Actually no it won't because hunting is a valuable management tool for herd management. Sorry sir.. but can't get around the facts.
 
Nope.. that's only one reason.. they also do it because hunting is an enjoyable and rewarding lifestyle. As I and others have said all along. So its a great lifestyle, its a lot of fun, and it helps the environment and habitat and provides excellent, healthy meat for my family and others.

Whats not to like?..
Having seen these rare and magnificent creatures up close in the wild, the very fact that there are those out there who see them as simply targets to be killed for 'fun' is utterly shameful and morally repugnant. Trying to ascribe atruistic motivations for it in an attempt to whitewash that reality is even more so because it tacitly suggests that you know that too
 
Last edited:
Having seen these rare and magnificent creatures up close in the wild, the very fact that there are those out there who see them as simply targets to be killed for 'fun' is utterly shameful and morally repugnant. Trying to ascribe atruistic motivations for it in an attempt to whitewash that reality is even more so because it tacitly suggests that you know that too

I agree with a lot of that. Just for fun I looked around at hunting safaris last night. One outfit reported that the average shot to kill an elephant is 20-30 yards. That's just not "hunting" - that's a slaughter. No surprise, they advertise success rates approaching 100%. I'd think so if hunters can stroll to within 20 yards of the animal.

But as counter intuitive as it is, the motivations don't matter all that much. The tag or license for killing one elephant is something like $30,000 and that hunter will spend quite a bit more for guides, cooks, drivers, taxidermy, food, lodging to and fro hunting grounds, etc. And the economic value of the animals for hunting provides an economic incentive for the impoverished locals to protect the habitat and crack down on poachers who would otherwise gladly kill the elephant, saw off the tusks, and let the carcass rot in the field.

From what I've read lots of these places are doing a good job of promoting photography safaris and that's replacing some of the need for hunting, but there's no reason as far as the health of the animal population that both can't coexist, and there is no doubt that controlled, regulated hunting doesn't pose any threat to long term outlook for the species. The more and diverse the interests who have an interest in the health of the wildlife, the better the odds the locals will make the efforts to preserve the habitat and protect the animals from poaching. Hunters and photographers looking after the populations and paying big money to see them/kill them is better (at least as we speak) than just photographers.

Even here in N.America, I don't hunt much anymore, but I've been a member of Ducks Unlimited at various times. The members are roughly 100% duck hunters, but a lot of money from DU goes into buying up leases in nesting grounds in Canada, restoring wetlands, etc. It's basically to ensure a healthy duck population so hunters can kill more of them, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they're spending a lot of money and have a lot of people invested here across their range in healthy nesting areas and healthy wetlands. In my state the TWRA funded by hunting and fishing licenses manages (with the Feds) several waterfowl refuges for migrating ducks that are protected from development in part to provide migrating waterfowl with a place to rest along the way to their wintering grounds. Heck, I never saw a turkey in Tennessee till I was 20 or so, but TWRA with fees from hunting licenses and prodded by turkey hunters tired of having to go to Alabama or Virginia has reintroduced them and now they're common throughout their former range. I see them biking nearly every trip.
 
They can send a cheque then which I'm sure would go a whole lot further.

But them participating and helping to feed people goes so much further than anything your doing. I mean, you're the one upset that they're hunting. Why don't YOU send a check?
 
Having seen these rare and magnificent creatures up close in the wild, the very fact that there are those out there who see them as simply targets to be killed for 'fun' is utterly shameful and morally repugnant. Trying to ascribe atruistic motivations for it in an attempt to whitewash that reality is even more so because it tacitly suggests that you know that too

Too bad you're not motivated enough to actually do anything about their conservation. These big trophy hunters, on the other hand, are doing quite a bit for herd health, contributing to facilities and faculty to run the preserves, feeding the poor. What have you done other than pound keys on a keyboard? Talking big on the internet about why it's too bad some girl didn't die because she hunts.

You deny humanity of others to rage about conservation of animals all while doing NOTHING about the conservation of these animals. Get up, go outside, and do something about it then if you're so pissed off. Otherwise, you have no room to talk.
 
I agree with a lot of that. Just for fun I looked around at hunting safaris last night. One outfit reported that the average shot to kill an elephant is 20-30 yards. That's just not "hunting" - that's a slaughter. No surprise, they advertise success rates approaching 100%. I'd think so if hunters can stroll to within 20 yards of the animal.

In Kenya I had a whole great family of African elephants around our Land Rover. Giraffe's too seem mildly curious about vehicles in the plains and will generally walk towards you so not much hunting skill required there either. Of the big cats I only saw lions out there and got within 50 yards of them shading themselves under a tree. Zebras Gazelle and the like seem fairly ambivalent to safari vehicles too in my experience. The point I'm making is that there isn't really any hunting actually involved here for the most part. Just killing for fun

But as counter intuitive as it is, the motivations don't matter all that much. The tag or license for killing one elephant is something like $30,000 and that hunter will spend quite a bit more for guides, cooks, drivers, taxidermy, food, lodging to and fro hunting grounds, etc.

Were that those benefits you allude to actually realised

Meanwhile, as pleasure-seeking hunters are having a morbid thrill, others are paying the price, and not only the animals themselves. The pro-hunting organization International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation reports that only about 3 percent of revenue from these hunts go on to improve the local communities The rest goes to national governments or foreign-based outfitters.

https://www.thedodo.com/killing-for-fun-how-trophy-hun-611573902.html

And the economic value of the animals for hunting provides an economic incentive for the impoverished locals to protect the habitat and crack down on poachers who would otherwise gladly kill the elephant, saw off the tusks, and let the carcass rot in the field.
Theres a lot more money for those communities in live animals than there is in dead ones too. The money that does come into Africa from hunting pales in comparison to the multimillions generated from tourists who come just to watch wildlife. If lions and other animals continue to disappear from Africa, this vital source of income—nonconsumptive tourism—will end, adversely impacting people all over Africa.

Jeff Flocken of the International Fund for Animal Welfare points out, the economic boom from foreign trophy hunters is small compared to those paying to see wildlife alive on safaris.


From what I've read lots of these places are doing a good job of promoting photography safaris and that's replacing some of the need for hunting, but there's no reason as far as the health of the animal population that both can't coexist, and there is no doubt that controlled, regulated hunting doesn't pose any threat to long term outlook for the species.

The long term health of most species in Africa is already in pretty poor shape. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the glorification of killing of animals simply for fun sets an offensive and untenable precedent with how we relate with the other creatures. When life is given so little value that it can be taken needlessly, or worse, for an individual’s own pleasure, it dims the outlook of our collective future by suggesting that it’s okay not to care that the world is growing emptier of such creatures by the day.

If we just look at the Lion as an example. In the last five decades alone, lions have declined from over 100,000 across the continent to as few as 25,000. Still, trophy hunters kill roughly 600 of these animals every year, compounding lions’ other threats, like habitat loss and retaliatory killing by villagers, prompting many conservationists to argue that lions should be listed as an endangered species.
 
Last edited:
But big game hunters, that just kill for the sake of it. No sympathy. Cheers to the elephant. I hope they don't kill it as it's not a man hunter, it wasn't hunting man, it was defending itself.

Teddy Roosevelt was a big game hunter. He was also a conservationist:

After he became President in 1901, Roosevelt used his authority to protect wildlife and public lands by creating the U.S. Forest Service and establishing 51 Federal Bird Reservations, 4 National Game Preserves, 150 National Forests, 5 National Parks, and enabling the 1906 American Antiquities Act which he used to proclaim 18 National Monuments. During his presidency,Theodore Roosevelt protected approximately 230,000,000 acres of public land. :)shock: Holy .300 Weatherby, Batman!)

Theodore Roosevelt and Conservation - Theodore Roosevelt National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Guess it was a good thing Teddy wasn't trampled by an elephant.

Anyway, as always, when you look deeper into the subject things tend to get a bit more complicated:

It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.

According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.

Can trophy hunting actually help conservation? - Conservation
 
Too bad you're not motivated enough to actually do anything about their conservation.

I've been there and spent my money. What was you said you'd done again ? Oh yes I remember ...... NOTHING !
 
I've been there and spent my money. What was you said you'd done again ? Oh yes I remember ...... NOTHING !

Oh, you've gone there, and you ASSUME some of your "coin" helped that, what, one time you went. Keep pounding that keyboard while the hunters do more each and every year for animal conservation in Africa than you'll ever do.

And I don't have to contribute, I'm not the one who is pissed off about it.
 
Oh, you've gone there, and you ASSUME some of your "coin" helped that, what, one time you went.

Well given it was spent in the Masai Mara and Tsavo East national parks on the TWICE I've visited then yes I do. And I didn't kill a thing doing it either

Keep pounding that keyboard while the hunters do more each and every year for animal conservation in Africa than you'll ever do.

BS as my post #446 illustrated

And I don't have to contribute, I'm not the one who is pissed off about it.

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking given having contributed nothing yourself you feel you are in a position to criticise others who have :roll:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom