• 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

Does a prairie dog mourn its dead? Is a prairie dog capable of empathy and every single emotion we human's experience? As I stated earlier, I grew up hunting, damn near everyone in my family hunts, but killing a creature that is nearly as smart as we are, that deeply mourns its dead, and that experiences every single emotion that we experience just aint right. Its wrong. Its not comparable to killing prairie dogs, or whitetail deer, or rabbits, or squirrel or any of the animals we hunt over here.

First... most animals have some time of feeling for others of their family or kind. Deer will hang around and try to get up dead calves.. and will stand over and defend them against predators. Prairie dogs will come over and nose up dead in their family group. So on and so forth. If you watch animals as long as I have as a hunter, you will see that animals have all sorts of behaviors that humans can call "emotion".. whether its emotion or not? that's humans putting their own twist on things. Cows will defend a dead calf.. and no leave the calfs sides. I have seen cows develop what appears to be friendships with other cows.. they will nurse their friends calves and watch over them while their friends eat.

Do you eat beef?
 
And you weekend Marlboro men know better right ? :roll:

First.. don't smoke.. never smoked. Second, I live a hunting lifestyle. Do I know better? Absolutely. As do the vast majority of hunters. That's why the actual effective conservation that has been done in this country over the past 150 years has been done by hunters.. and is still done today. Not just for species that are hunted but for all species since the ecosystem is just that.. a system. Of which humans are a part of. And we understand that because we participate in it. We understand it and respect it. and we want to continue to see the environment thrive.

We realize that the "environment" isn't something that's "out there".. we understand that its all around us.. and the reason that we need to protect the environment is because we are a part of it..

We understand that because we are active participants in it.
 
I cannot post the programme in question because its copywrited. It was called Louis Theroux African Hunting Party and it was broadcast on the BBC back in 2007

And I posted the South African hunting regulations. According to that.. what you say happened was illegal. And no hunting show, marketed to hunters would show such a thing. A tied animal? There would be such and uproar in the hunting community that the show producers would never work in the hunting industry again.

What most likely happened.. if what you say is even true.. is that it was a propaganda video.. that documented illegal and unethical behavior, and called it "hunting".. to cause ignorant folks like yourself to get worked up about hunting.
 
First.. don't smoke.. never smoked. Second, I live a hunting lifestyle. Do I know better? Absolutely. As do the vast majority of hunters. That's why the actual effective conservation that has been done in this country over the past 150 years has been done by hunters.. and is still done today. Not just for species that are hunted but for all species since the ecosystem is just that.. a system. Of which humans are a part of. And we understand that because we participate in it. We understand it and respect it. and we want to continue to see the environment thrive.

We realize that the "environment" isn't something that's "out there".. we understand that its all around us.. and the reason that we need to protect the environment is because we are a part of it..

We understand that because we are active participants in it.

No you use the term 'conservation' to whitewash what you are really doing and therefore pass it off as morally legitimate thats all.

We are not all so easily fooled :(
 
You are applying rational thought to emotional psychobabble. NO matter how much proof is presented that legal hunters actually promote the continued survival of a game species, the anti hunters-who almost always are left-wingers, will project Bambist views onto these animals and ignore logic

So true... but without us hunters sticking up for logic and facts.. the only voice heard is the anti hunters voice. For far to long we have been quiet when we hear such ignorance.. not wanting to start a rile up in polite company.
 
This is nothing to do with the love of hunting or conservation and everything to do with a love of killing. Having seen elephants and giraffes in the wild in Kenya there is no hunting involved in finding them because they are large easy to find and dont tend to run away :roll:



A truly clueless statement.


Hunting isn't about the killing, at least not for most. The killing is almost incidental.

It's about a lot of things.... probably as many different things as there are hunters. For many, there is a love of nature (and nature itself is often harsh and predatory, in many areas if hunters didn't thin herds mass starvation would result), getting in touch with your roots as your distant ancestors hunted for game, the pitting of man's wits vs animal's senses and cunning, the long slow stalk or the long silent time spent observing, the challenge of making the shot... many things.

For big game hunters, the risk is a factor as well. A positive factor.

The kill itself is just the culmination of the hunt, but it is far from being the ultimate reason for hunting. The whole experience is the reason... especially since (as another poster pointed out) most hunts don't even end with a kill.


One of the most avid hunters I've ever known personally is also an avid wildlife photographer, spending a great deal of time on that hobby outside of hunting season.
 
No you use the term 'conservation' to whitewash what you are really doing and therefore pass it off as morally legitimate thats all.

We are not all so easily fooled :(

No sir.. you are easily fooled. by those that are anti hunters.. and their rhetoric.

I presented cold hard facts. The success rate on hunting elk in my region is about 14%, Deer hunting is 18-20% on average. If it was "all about killing"... then why would we participate in hunting that has such an abysmal success rate.

Here.. let me really educate you. Here is a research study done on bear hunting with hounds... probably the most maligned hunting by you anti-hunters.

On average, bears were chased in 65% of hunts; 24%
of bears chased were treed, and a bear was harvested in
5% of all hunts
(Tables 3, 5).


http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_13/Higgins_Inman_Vaughan_13.pdf


5% of all hunts... hardly a success rate that indicates that hunting is all about killing.

Some more facts:

Reason No. 1 why Hunting Is Conservation: In 1907, only 41,000 elk remained in North America. Thanks to the money and hard work invested by hunters to restore and conserve habitat, today there are more than 1 million.
Reason No. 2 why Hunting Is Conservation: In 1900, only 500,000 whitetails remained. Thanks to conservation work spearheaded by hunters, today there are more than 32 million.

Reason No. 3 why Hunting Is Conservation: In 1900, only 100,000 wild turkeys remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are over 7 million.

Reason No. 4 why Hunting Is Conservation: In 1901, few ducks remained. Thanks to hunters’ efforts to restore and conserve wetlands, today there are more than 44 million.

Reason No. 5 why Hunting Is Conservation: In 1950, only 12,000 pronghorn remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are more than 1.1 million.

Reason No. 6 why Hunting Is Conservation: Habitat, research and wildlife law enforcement work, all paid for by hunters, help countless non-hunted species.

Reason No. 7 why Hunting Is Conservation: Through state licenses and fees, hunters pay $796 million a year for conservation programs.*

Reason No. 8 why Hunting Is Conservation: Through donations to groups like RMEF, hunters add $440 million a year to conservation efforts.*

Reason No. 9why Hunting Is Conservation: In 1937, hunters actually requested an 11% tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows to help fund conservation. That tax, so far, raised more than $7.2 billion for wildlife conservation.*

Reason No. 10 why Hunting Is Conservation: An 11% tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows generates $371 million a year for conservation.*

Reason No. 11 why Hunting Is Conservation: All together, hunters pay more than $1.6 billion a year for conservation programs. No one gives more!*

Reason No. 12 why Hunting Is Conservation: Three out of four Americans approve of hunting, partly because hunters are America’s greatest positive force for conservation.
 
Hunting isn't about the killing, at least not for most. The killing is almost incidental.

It's about a lot of things.... probably as many different things as there are hunters. For many, there is a love of nature (and nature itself is often harsh and predatory, in many areas if hunters didn't thin herds mass starvation would result), getting in touch with your roots as your distant ancestors hunted for game, the pitting of man's wits vs animal's senses and cunning, the long slow stalk or the long silent time spent observing, the challenge of making the shot... many things.

For big game hunters, the risk is a factor as well. A positive factor.

The kill itself is just the culmination of the hunt, but it is far from being the ultimate reason for hunting. The whole experience is the reason... especially since (as another poster pointed out) most hunts don't even end with a kill.

One of the most avid hunters I've ever known personally is also an avid wildlife photographer, spending a great deal of time on that hobby outside of hunting season.

Were all that really so then why not shoot the animal with a camera after using your consummate hunting skills to track it down ? Why would you then want to kill it ? Mother nature was already managing the conservation of most of these animal populations long before man came on the scene. I see the hunting for conservation argument as a load of morally ambiguous whitewash frankly
 
First... most animals have some time of feeling for others of their family or kind. Deer will hang around and try to get up dead calves.. and will stand over and defend them against predators. Prairie dogs will come over and nose up dead in their family group. So on and so forth. If you watch animals as long as I have as a hunter, you will see that animals have all sorts of behaviors that humans can call "emotion".. whether its emotion or not? that's humans putting their own twist on things. Cows will defend a dead calf.. and no leave the calfs sides. I have seen cows develop what appears to be friendships with other cows.. they will nurse their friends calves and watch over them while their friends eat.

Do you eat beef?

I grew up hunting so yes I know that most animals have a biological / instinctual bond to other members of their herd and to their offspring. However, elephants are on an entirely different level. They mourn their dead like we mourn our dead. They are capable of empathising with others, even other species. They experience every single emotion we experience and their intelligence level may well exceed every other member of the animal kingdom with the exception of us. When elephants want to disable an electric fence they have been known to target the fence charger itself. A cow doesn't do that.

I can safely say that any animal that I ever took while hunting or any fish I have ever caught did not have other animals in its group mourning for it the rest of their lives. The same cannot be said for an elephant. Would you hunt an orangatan? How about a bonobo?
 
Were all that really so then why not shoot the animal with a camera after using your consummate hunting skills to track it down ? Why would you then want to kill it ? Mother nature was already managing the conservation of most of these animal populations long before man came on the scene. I see the hunting for conservation argument as a load of morally ambiguous whitewash frankly


Most of us eat what we kill.

The conservation argument is legitimate. Indeed there are some states where there is concern that not enough deer are being hunted to prevent overpopulation and thus starvation (a very nasty way to go, I'd rather be shot any time) may occur.

The natural predators that used to take care of that balance no longer exist in sufficient numbers anymore, because they proved too troublesome to coexist readily with human populations and human agriculture.



Honestly do you know nothing about this topic? That's basic stuff.
 
You are making a blanket statement. There are countries like South Africa where herds do need to be culled at times because they overpopulate for habitat available to them. Then there are countries like Zimbabwe where there is no such need for culling as the herds are collapsing due to poaching and mismanagement. You cannot compare the situation in a country like South Africa and in one of the most corrupt and inept countries on earth, Zimbabwe.

Actually you can. One of the ways to combat the poaching is to give the animals legitimate value to the local populace. Poaching thrives in part because there is no interest in the local population in "preserving" something that's seen as a nuisance at best.. and a threat to their livelihood at worst.
 
Most of us eat what we kill.

I seriously doubt the trophy hunter killed in the OP was just about to do that

The conservation argument is legitimate. Indeed there are some states where there is concern that not enough deer are being hunted to prevent overpopulation and thus starvation (a very nasty way to go, I'd rather be shot any time) may occur.

The natural predators that used to take care of that balance no longer exist in sufficient numbers anymore, because they proved too troublesome to coexist readily with human populations and human agriculture.


Honestly do you know nothing about this topic? That's basic stuff.

Let nature sort it out then as it always does. Defining hunting as some kind of conservational altruism is way too much of a reach to be credible frankly
 
Most of us eat what we kill.

The conservation argument is legitimate. Indeed there are some states where there is concern that not enough deer are being hunted to prevent overpopulation and thus starvation (a very nasty way to go, I'd rather be shot any time) may occur.

The natural predators that used to take care of that balance no longer exist in sufficient numbers anymore, because they proved too troublesome to coexist readily with human populations and human agriculture.



Honestly do you know nothing about this topic? That's basic stuff.

I can't imagine how overpopulated deer would be in much of the East and Midwest if we were not hunting them. We had a 2000 acre heavilly wooded county park in the Kansas City area here that had the highest population density of deer in the country in it. There were well over 200 per square mile in the park. The over population of deer was devistating to the parks over all ecosystem due to their eating all the undergrowth and the insane amount of ticks. The only thing that could be done was bring in sharp shooters to routinely thin the parks herd down.

That said, in Zimbabwe where this happened, the elephant population has been experiencing a rapid decline due to missmanagement and poaching, so there is no reason to be thinning the herd there. This was just some canned hunt on a wildlife reserve gone wrong.
 
I grew up hunting so yes I know that most animals have a biological / instinctual bond to other members of their herd and to their offspring. However, elephants are on an entirely different level. They mourn their dead like we mourn our dead. They are capable of empathising with others, even other species. They experience every single emotion we experience and their intelligence level may well exceed every other member of the animal kingdom with the exception of us. When elephants want to disable an electric fence they have been known to target the fence charger itself. A cow doesn't do that.

I can safely say that any animal that I ever took while hunting or any fish I have ever caught did not have other animals in its group mourning for it the rest of their lives. The same cannot be said for an elephant. Would you hunt an orangatan? How about a bonobo?

Actually a cow will disable a fence charger. A cow will learn to lean against a charged fence, and take the electric pulse, until it can push the fence into something (like a bush or post) that will ground out the wire.. while the other cows jump the grounded out fence.

No offense but you have no idea of what emotions or whether they are emotions that elephants experience.

Would I hunt an orangutan or a bonobo? Interesting question. I don't eat orangutan or bonobo..and would be hesitant to do so for health reasons... so I would be hesitant to hunt one just to hunt one. However, if it was a nuisance animal that needed to be controlled... and the method of hunting was well hunting that required skill? Sure, I would hunt one. Particularly if the meat and hide would be used by the local people.
 
I seriously doubt the trophy hunter killed in the OP was just about to do that



Let nature sort it out then as it always does. Defining hunting as some kind of conservational altruism is way too much of a reach to be credible frankly


You're not listening. I just explained to you why nature's pre-civilization method of population control (predation) no longer functions. You'd prefer the game animals starve? You ARE aware that starvation is a slow and excruciating death right? Starvation can take weeks or months, whereas death by bullet or arrow is usually over in minutes.

If you don't wish to participate, don't. No one is telling you to.

But frankly we'd appreciate it if you refrained from telling us why we do what we do, as if you were some kind of mind-reader, when you clearly are not very well informed on this subject.
 
Actually you can. One of the ways to combat the poaching is to give the animals legitimate value to the local populace. Poaching thrives in part because there is no interest in the local population in "preserving" something that's seen as a nuisance at best.. and a threat to their livelihood at worst.

The elephants are worth more on game reserves for tourism than for canned hunts. The problem with Zimbabwe is that its practically a failed state and thus tourism has suffered a lot.
 
Actually a cow will disable a fence charger. A cow will learn to lean against a charged fence, and take the electric pulse, until it can push the fence into something (like a bush or post) that will ground out the wire.. while the other cows jump the grounded out fence.

No offense but you have no idea of what emotions or whether they are emotions that elephants experience.

That is not what an elephant is doing. Unlike the cow, the elephant is smart enough to know that the fence charger itself is what powers the fence therefor they go after the device that powers the fence itself. Us and elephants are the only animals on earth that are that clever.

As to the intelligence of elephants, scientists are studying them extensively.

The Science Is In: Elephants Are Even Smarter Than We Realized [Video] - Scientific American
Elephant cognition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Would I hunt an orangutan or a bonobo? Interesting question. I don't eat orangutan or bonobo..and would be hesitant to do so for health reasons... so I would be hesitant to hunt one just to hunt one. However, if it was a nuisance animal that needed to be controlled... and the method of hunting was well hunting that required skill? Sure, I would hunt one. Particularly if the meat and hide would be used by the local people.

So you would kill an animal with the intellect of a child. Sorry, but like I say, I am no way anti-hunting. I hunt myself and fish all the time. But I don't think you will find many hunters that will agree with you on this.
 
I can't imagine how overpopulated deer would be in much of the East and Midwest if we were not hunting them. We had a 2000 acre heavilly wooded county park in the Kansas City area here that had the highest population density of deer in the country in it. There were well over 200 per square mile in the park. The over population of deer was devistating to the parks over all ecosystem due to their eating all the undergrowth and the insane amount of ticks. The only thing that could be done was bring in sharp shooters to routinely thin the parks herd down.

That said, in Zimbabwe where this happened, the elephant population has been experiencing a rapid decline due to missmanagement and poaching, so there is no reason to be thinning the herd there. This was just some canned hunt on a wildlife reserve gone wrong.


I am not expert on what goes on in Zimbabwe... I'm not in the economic class that can afford to pay for an African safari. :)

However Jaeger19 seems to have a handle on how this stuff works... that the profits from the hunts encourage and enable the locals to attempt to preserve and manage animals they'd otherwise view as inconvenient or troublesome.
 
No you use the term 'conservation' to whitewash what you are really doing and therefore pass it off as morally legitimate thats all.

We are not all so easily fooled :(

You truly have no idea at all about hunting and responsible hunters. None. Here's a thought: read up on US hunting laws in the various states here, read up on what the fees paid for the privilege of hunting pay for, and then come back and apologize to those of us who engage in responsible hunting here in the US. Otherwise you should quit while you're behind.
 
A truly clueless statement.


Hunting isn't about the killing, at least not for most. The killing is almost incidental.

It's about a lot of things.... probably as many different things as there are hunters. For many, there is a love of nature (and nature itself is often harsh and predatory, in many areas if hunters didn't thin herds mass starvation would result), getting in touch with your roots as your distant ancestors hunted for game, the pitting of man's wits vs animal's senses and cunning, the long slow stalk or the long silent time spent observing, the challenge of making the shot... many things.

For big game hunters, the risk is a factor as well. A positive factor.

The kill itself is just the culmination of the hunt, but it is far from being the ultimate reason for hunting. The whole experience is the reason... especially since (as another poster pointed out) most hunts don't even end with a kill.


One of the most avid hunters I've ever known personally is also an avid wildlife photographer, spending a great deal of time on that hobby outside of hunting season.

serious question.... couldnt you go through the experience and use a paint ball gun ? or a laser pointer to "simulate the shot" and be "scored"...must the animal die?

Im a con, and love the animals and we are their only voice....
 
I am not expert on what goes on in Zimbabwe... I'm not in the economic class that can afford to pay for an African safari. :)

However Jaeger19 seems to have a handle on how this stuff works... that the profits from the hunts encourage and enable the locals to attempt to preserve and manage animals they'd otherwise view as inconvenient or troublesome.

The problem with his argument is that tourists spend far more money to take pictures of elephants than hunters spend to kill them. Even in the United States wildlife watchers spend more money than hunters. Americans Spent a Lot of Money on Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Watching in 2011 | Outside Online

I am not saying that there are times when problem elephants must be killed or herds must be culled due to overpopulation, but that is largely not the case in Zimbabwe.
 
I kill just so I can look like a real man with all the heads I have on my wall. I kill then have rhino horns processed in to aphrodisiac so I can have cool sex. I kill so I can reinforce God's laws that I am made in his image. Last, I kill because animals don't carry guns. I am a vegetarian.
 
serious question.... couldnt you go through the experience and use a paint ball gun ? or a laser pointer to "simulate the shot" and be "scored"...must the animal die?

Im a con, and love the animals and we are their only voice....


If I didn't want the meat, I might do something like that. Sometimes when you go out "scouting" (that is, looking for signs of animals you might hunt later when season is in), you take pictures.

A lot of hunters DO want the meat, though, and since a chance to take a good shot and get it doesn't come along every hunt...

Not killing would also defeat the conservation purpose of thinning the herds so they don't overpopulate and starve...
 
If I didn't want the meat, I might do something like that. Sometimes when you go out "scouting" (that is, looking for signs of animals you might hunt later when season is in), you take pictures.

A lot of hunters DO want the meat, though, and since a chance to take a good shot and get it doesn't come along every hunt...

Not killing would also defeat the conservation purpose of thinning the herds so they don't overpopulate and starve...

I was more talking of the big game. Elephants, tigers, lions...

If you eat deer etc..I dont have as much of an issue and understand..., as Im NOT a vegan and enjoy meat. but Im torn as Im very sensitive to the suffering and plight of animals
 
Back
Top Bottom