• 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

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



BS as my post #446 illustrated

Even if your propaganda site is true. Hunters continually service the park year after year dropping siginifcant money. 30,000 bucks, 3% is still almost a grand. Did you contribute a grand directly? That's one hunt, how many are there per year?

So what are you doing to help out? You went on vacation, great! But what else, other than a vacation, are you doing to help curtail these legal hunts? To contribute to the conservation of these animals? Anything

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

There's no hypocrisy. I'm just pointing out that while you're sitting there being all mad bro at these hunters, that they're actually doing more for conservation than you are. You want to protect these animals, then go do it. Do something. It's easy to sit there and talk about your vacation you had and how the animals are great and oh how they should be protected. But you don't do anything to help protect them, and then you have the gall to wish for the DEATH of a human because she hunts.

Talk about morally bankrupt. Sloth is no way to accomplish a goal. Why don't you take a break from your keyboard warrior arguments and do something about the problem? Or is bitching about other people and wishing for their deaths about the only thing that you can manage to accomplish here?

Oh, and here:

http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/

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.

Is there such evidence? 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.

In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors.
 
Last edited:
Even if your propaganda site is true.

National Geographic confirms it, or is that just another propaganda site too ?

Opinion: Why Are We Still Hunting Lions?

Trophy hunting is also counter-evolutionary, as it's based on selectively taking the large, robust, and healthy males from a population for a hunter's trophy room. These are the same crucial individuals that in a natural system would live long, full lives, protecting their mates and cubs and contributing their genes to future generations.

Despite the wild claims that trophy hunting brings millions of dollars in revenue to local people in otherwise poor communities, there is no proof of this. Even pro-hunting organizations like the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation have reported that only 3 percent of revenue from trophy hunting ever makes it to the communities affected by hunting. The rest goes to national governments or foreign-based outfitters.

Hunters continually service the park year after year dropping siginifcant money. 30,000 bucks, 3% is still almost a grand. Did you contribute a grand directly? That's one hunt, how many are there per year?

The far larger non lethal tourist market doesn't pay to see dead animals

So what are you doing to help out? You went on vacation, great!

Yes it was thanks. I'm sure my money and that of the millions of others like me help keep the entire Kenyan economy afloat each year. Once your lot stop helping to empty the Savannahs for future tourists to enjoy it will doubtless do better still

But what else, other than a vacation, are you doing to help curtail these legal hunts? To contribute to the conservation of these animals? Anything

Well a lot more than you have already :lol:

There's no hypocrisy.

I'm not the one attempting to defend the indefensible :roll:
 
Last edited:
National Geographic confirms it, or is that just another propaganda site too ?

Opinion: Why Are We Still Hunting Lions?

Trophy hunting is also counter-evolutionary, as it's based on selectively taking the large, robust, and healthy males from a population for a hunter's trophy room. These are the same crucial individuals that in a natural system would live long, full lives, protecting their mates and cubs and contributing their genes to future generations.

Despite the wild claims that trophy hunting brings millions of dollars in revenue to local people in otherwise poor communities, there is no proof of this. Even pro-hunting organizations like the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation have reported that only 3 percent of revenue from trophy hunting ever makes it to the communities affected by hunting. The rest goes to national governments or foreign-based outfitters.



The far larger non lethal tourist market doesn't pay to see dead animals



Yes it was thanks. I'm sure my money and that of the millions of others like me help keep the entire Kenyan economy afloat each year. Once your lot stop helping to empty the Savannahs for future tourists to enjoy it will doubtless do better still



Well a lot more than you have already :lol:



I'm not the one attempting to defend the indefensible :roll:

That's an OPINION article written last year, mine is a study written this year. There's a difference between OPINION and STUDY.

I'm not defending the indefensible, you are wishing for the deaths of humans because they hunt. That is indefensible. You go on vacation and claim that you are helping out, but the numbers (again STUDY, not OPINION) show that facilities and populations can be upheld and expanded through the inclusion of limited, regulated trophy hunting.

You refuse all data, you refuse all evidence. You cite nothing but opinion and try to claim some moral superiority, but that evaporates the minute you wish for the deaths of human beings.
 
Something I've always wondered is why hunters wear t-shirts depicting living animals. Is it that they imagine how cool it would be to shoot it? Sincerely curious.
 
That's an OPINION article written last year, mine is a study written this year. There's a difference between OPINION and STUDY.
Wrong it was citing a 2013 report by the Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation

I'm not defending the indefensible, you are wishing for the deaths of humans because they hunt. That is indefensible.

I'm wishing for them to just stop comitting these disgusting and cowardly acts against ever diminishing African wildlife

You go on vacation and claim that you are helping out, but the numbers (again STUDY, not OPINION) show that facilities and populations can be upheld and expanded through the inclusion of limited, regulated trophy hunting.

According to the same report only 1.8% of tourist revenues to sub Saharan Africa are generated by trophy hunters. What damage their hideous pursuit is doing to the other 98.2% is open to debate but emptying the area of its wildlife can hardly be conducive
 
Wrong it was citing a 2013 report by the Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation



I'm wishing for them to just stop comitting these disgusting acts



According to the same report only 1.8% of tourist revenues to sub Saharan Africa are generated by trophy hunters. What damage their hideous pursuit is doing to the other 98.2% is open to debate but emptying the area of its wildlife can hardly be conducive

What damage are they doing?

a 2000 report from TRAFFIC, an organization that works with the WWF, IUCN, and CITES to track the international trade of wildlife, describes how Namibia alone was the site of almost 16,000 trophy hunts that year. Those 16,000 animals represent a wide variety of species – birds, reptiles, mammals, and even primates – both endangered and not. They include four of the so-called “big five” popular African game: lion, Cape buffalo, leopard, and rhinoceros. (Only the elephant was missing.) The hunters brought eleven million US dollars with them to spend in the Namibian economy. And that doesn’t include revenue from non-trophy recreational hunting activities, which are limited to four species classified as of “least concern” by the IUCN: Greater Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok and Warthog.

You mean bringing in eleven million US dollars? Or

745 rhinos were killed due to illegal poaching in 2012 in Africa, which amounts to approximately two rhinos each day, mostly for their horns. In South Africa alone, 461 rhinos were killed in just the first half of 2013. Rhino horns are valued for their medicinal uses and for their supposed cancer-curing powers. Of course, rhino horns have no pharmacological value at all, making their harvest even more tragic. The five non-breeding rhinos that Namibia allows to be hunted each year seem paltry in comparison, especially since they are older males who can no longer contribute to population growth.

The 5 rhinos that are past reproduction age that they hunt? Or

“Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.”

The ability for preserves to manage increased land areas that also helps prevent poaching? Those damages?

Where's the 1.3% number come from in your OPINION piece?

Let me show you the difference between you OPINION piece and the STUDY I listed

Leader-Williams N., Milledge S., Adcock K., Brooks M., Conway A., Knight M., Mainka S., Martin E.B. & Teferi T. (2005). Trophy Hunting of Black Rhino: Proposals to Ensure Its Future Sustainability, Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 8 (1) 1-11. DOI: 10.1080/13880290590913705

Lindsey P.A., Alexander R., Frank L.G., Mathieson A. & Romanach S.S. (2006). Potential of trophy hunting to create incentives for wildlife conservation in Africa where alternative wildlife-based land uses may not be viable, Animal Conservation, 9 (3) 283-291. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00034.x

Leader-Williams N. Elephant Hunting and Conservation, Science, 293 (5538) 2203b-2204. DOI: 10.1126/science.293.5538.2203b

See that? Those are called sources. Those are peer-reviewed scientific studies. What does your OPINION piece have?

Again, you wish for the death of human beings based on nothing more than your opinion and you cannot counter any of the measured facts. Sick to go so far as to wish death on others because of your holier than thou crusade that you won't even get up off of your computer to significantly contribute to.
 
What damage are they doing?

Good grief !!

You mean bringing in eleven million US dollars? Or

Threatening the $ 18 BILLION tourist dollars spent annually by people coming to view the living wildlife is not a good idea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_tourism_by_country


The 5 rhinos that are past reproduction age that they hunt? Or

Do you think tourists on Safari holiday are going to care about the reproductive age of the live Rhino they are watching ?

The ability for preserves to manage increased land areas that also helps prevent poaching? Those damages?

By all means let those big hearted trophy hunting conservationists send their money to pay for many extra game wardens to help police that poaching
 
Threatening the $ 18 BILLION tourist dollars spent annually by people coming to view the living wildlife is not a good idea

African tourism by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How are they threatening it? These legal hunts work in coordination with conservation methods. If anything, they are PROTECTING it. You haven't been able to state anything with verifiable fact that these hunts, which are limited and extremely regulated, are causing collapse of species populations. Those are ASSUMPTIONS you are making. Where's the facts? Also, how much of that 18 billion go to conservation programs?

Do you think tourists on Safari holiday are going to care about the reproductive age of the live Rhino they are watching ?

No, which is why this won't matter at all.

By all means let those big hearted trophy hunting conservationists send their money to pay for many extra game wardens to help police that poaching

They already do, done deal. Millions of dollars and greatly expanded preservers all due to big game hunters.

So you're calling for the death of humans for their positive effects on conservation methods. Sounds pretty sick, IMO.
 
How are they threatening it? These legal hunts work in coordination with conservation methods. If anything, they are PROTECTING it. You haven't been able to state anything with verifiable fact that these hunts, which are limited and extremely regulated, are causing collapse of species populations. Those are ASSUMPTIONS you are making. Where's the facts? Also, how much of that 18 billion go to conservation programs?

Conservation my back side. To give just and example of that hypocrisy. The auction of black Rhino kills last year

Despite the Dallas Safari Clubs 's effort to pass off the rhino auction as a conservation initiative, they have since hinted that they will withdraw their conservation funding pledge if they are denied a permit to bring the trophy from the hunt back to the U.S., thereby stripping away the conservation rhetoric and showing it to be merely the blood-sport safari that most people suspected it always was.


Stop senseless trophy hunting | IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare

They already do, done deal. Millions of dollars and greatly expanded preservers all due to big game hunters.

Threatening the tens of billions of tourist dollars so that a few cowards can decimate rare African wildlife even further in order to massage their ego's is not a good way to go for either the animals or the countries involved

So you're calling for the death of humans for their positive effects on conservation methods. Sounds pretty sick, IMO.

I'm calling for the banning of the disgusting practice trophy hunting in Africa
 
Last edited:
Conservation my back side. To give just and example of that hypocrisy. The auction of black Rhino kills last year

Despite the Dallas Safari Clubs 's effort to pass off the rhino auction as a conservation initiative, they have since hinted that they will withdraw their conservation funding pledge if they are denied a permit to bring the trophy from the hunt back to the U.S., thereby stripping away the conservation rhetoric and showing it to be merely the blood-sport safari that most people suspected it always was.


Stop senseless trophy hunting | IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare

Another propaganda OPINION article. Where's the data? Where's the statistic? Where's the measurement? Anyone can write an opinion piece and not back anything up. I gave you a study citing scientific, peer-reviewed journal. Where's your proof of any of these accusations? You don't have it, you have nothing from peer-reviewed sources. I swear, I don't understand anti-science religious folk, and I hope I never do.

Threatening the tens of billions of tourist dollars so that a few cowards can decimate rare African wildlife even further in order to massage their ego's is not a good way to go for either the animals or the countries involved

HOW? How is it threatening this? I've asked you several times now, and all you can do is dodge. How is it "decimating rare African wildlife"? Where are your numbers? Where is your proof? Where is the evidence? I don't want your tired propaganda, I don't want any more of your continual intellectually dishonest posts and argument. I want the MEASUREMENT. Produce the numbers, cite scientific journal. I did, can you?

I'm calling for the banning of the disgusting practice trophy hunting in Africa

What you said was:

No it was about a trophy hunter being killed by an elephant in Africa. What a pity it wasn't this one

Wishing for the death of another human being because they partake in an activity you disagree from is immoral and sick. Furthermore, article after article, statistic and measurement showing that these big trophy hunts feed the poor, bring in millions of dollars to conservation movements, help protect the herds, help expand the land the preserves can operate have been listed and you have not once been successful in combating that. You can only list opinion pieces to justify your bloodlust against human beings.

What a depraved position to take.
 
Another propaganda OPINION article. Where's the data? Where's the statistic? Where's the measurement? Anyone can write an opinion piece and not back anything up. I gave you a study citing scientific, peer-reviewed journal. Where's your proof of any of these accusations? You don't have it, you have nothing from peer-reviewed sources. I swear, I don't understand anti-science religious folk, and I hope I never do.

I take it that you haven't ever heard of organisations like the WWF etc. Which species would you like to talk about ?

Banding together to ban trophy hunting | IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare

Countries worldwide are noticing the detrimental effects trophy hunting has on already decimated wildlife populations.

Last month, Zambia’s Minister of Tourism and Arts, Sylvia T. Masebo, announced that specific hunting licenses would be suspended as they had “been abused to the extent they threatened animal populations.”

Now, the response of the Zambian government is escalating.

This week the government took the necessary action to ban lion and leopard hunting, citing that populations have abruptly declined in recent years.

Botswana has a similar stance. In this nation, a country-wide ban on sport hunting will begin on January 1, 2014.

As President Ian Khama noted, “The shooting of wild game for sport and trophies is no longer compatible with our commitment to preserve local fauna.”


HOW? How is it threatening this? I've asked you several times now, and all you can do is dodge.

Because if the animals are dead the tourists wont come ! . Why do you need dragged kicking and screaming towards a recognition of the obvious ? :roll:

How is it "decimating rare African wildlife"?

Because I can count

Where are your numbers? Where is your proof?

Lion numbers 1965 around 120,000 today at most 32,000
Rhinos all species 1900 around 500,000 today 29,000
Shall I continue ....

Where is the evidence? I don't want your tired propaganda, I don't want any more of your continual intellectually dishonest posts and argument. I want the MEASUREMENT. Produce the numbers, cite scientific journal. I did, can you?

I just cited statements by both Zambian and Botswanan governments to that effect

Wishing for the death of another human being because they partake in an activity you disagree from is immoral and sick.

Perhaps I just don't like sick human beings

Furthermore, article after article, statistic and measurement showing that these big trophy hunts feed the poor, bring in millions of dollars to conservation movements, help protect the herds, help expand the land the preserves can operate have been listed and you have not once been successful in combating that. You can only list opinion pieces to justify your bloodlust against human beings.

Of course its bloodlust otherwise why would anyone want to do it in the first place. Kenya has had an outright trophy hunting ban since 1977 and its wildlife tourism is thriving to the tune of almost a billion dollars per annum
 
Last edited:
You know those people who watch WWII documentaries and cheer when the Nazis get killed?

I'm one of those people.

Watching Hitler smile and then hearing the words "committed suicide in his underground bunker" is almost orgasmic.
 
Watching Hitler smile and then hearing the words "committed suicide in his underground bunker" is almost orgasmic.

I'd have been even happier to see what the Soviets would have done to him if they caught him :cool:
 
I take it that you haven't ever heard of organisations like the WWF etc. Which species would you like to talk about ?

Banding together to ban trophy hunting | IFAW - International Fund for Animal Welfare

Countries worldwide are noticing the detrimental effects trophy hunting has on already decimated wildlife populations.

Last month, Zambia’s Minister of Tourism and Arts, Sylvia T. Masebo, announced that specific hunting licenses would be suspended as they had “been abused to the extent they threatened animal populations.”

Now, the response of the Zambian government is escalating.

This week the government took the necessary action to ban lion and leopard hunting, citing that populations have abruptly declined in recent years.

Botswana has a similar stance. In this nation, a country-wide ban on sport hunting will begin on January 1, 2014.

As President Ian Khama noted, “The shooting of wild game for sport and trophies is no longer compatible with our commitment to preserve local fauna.”




Because if the animals are dead the tourists wont come ! . Why do you need dragged kicking and screaming towards a recognition of the obvious ? :roll:



Because I can count



Lion numbers 1965 around 120,000 today at most 32,000
Rhinos all species 1900 around 500,000 today 29,000
Shall I continue ....



I just cited statements by both Zambian and Botswanan governments to that effect



Perhaps I just don't like sick human beings



Of course its bloodlust otherwise why would anyone want to do it in the first place. Kenya has had an outright trophy hunting ban since 1977 and its wildlife tourism is thriving to the tune of almost a billion dollars per annum

The animals are not all dead. That's what you seem to be missing. While it is certain that, given the amount of money these hunts bring in, that there is potential for abuse, there is no doubt that these hunts bring in many funds to preserves. In fact, Zimbabwe has to sell elephants to foreign zoos to make up for the short fall caused by their ban

Zimbabwe plans to sell young elephants – to compensate for funds lost from ban on trophy hunters - Telegraph

But I'm sure the elephant trade is all great for you. I mean, tourists love to see those animals....oh wait, they'll be in other country's zoos. I'm sure they'll be treated OK.

In December Pierce Brosnan, a long-standing campaigner for animal rights, criticised the "gruesome" announcement that 36 baby elephants had been taken from their mothers and were awaiting shipment "to the UAE and possibly China".

"A number of baby elephants died in China the last time we exported there. I suppose export is the best of two evils.

Also while you say

Lion numbers 1965 around 120,000 today at most 32,000
Rhinos all species 1900 around 500,000 today 29,000
Shall I continue ....

Yes, continue. Show that drop is due to these licensed, regulated hunts and not poachers. Again, show the measurement, show the data, cite peer-reviewed scientific journal. Hell, you have things from the early 1900's, but the restrictions on hunting and these regulated hunts didn't exist back then. It doesn't demonstrate that these hunts had an impact, it doesn't demonstrate that these hunts cannot be conducted within conservation guidelines.

And a human that wishes for the death of other humans merely because of the legal hobby they engage in IS a sick human.
 
The animals are not all dead. That's what you seem to be missing. While it is certain that, given the amount of money these hunts bring in, that there is potential for abuse, there is no doubt that these hunts bring in many funds to preserves.

You keep trying to ascribe altruistic motive to a disgusting 'hobby'. As I've said before if altruism and conservation were really their motives they can send a cheque to pay for extra veterinarians and anti poaching game wardens. A darned sight more animals would then still be alive. I really don't buy this argument that killing them saves them. It sounds a bit like the US policy during the Vietnam war and that was bogus too. Its a pretty feeble excuse in order to kill for fun.

, Zimbabwe has to sell elephants to foreign zoos to make up for the short fall caused by their ban

Zimbabwe is also one of the most corrupt regimes in Africa so its hardly a shining example of conservation or anything else for that matter.

Yes, continue. Show that drop is due to these licensed, regulated hunts and not poachers. Again, show the measurement, show the data, cite peer-reviewed scientific journal.

When a species is hanging on to survival by its fingernails you don't let people pay to jump up and down on its fingers

Hell, you have things from the early 1900's, but the restrictions on hunting and these regulated hunts didn't exist back then. It doesn't demonstrate that these hunts had an impact, it doesn't demonstrate that these hunts cannot be conducted within conservation guidelines.

So killing for fun in order to reduce the numbers still further is a good thing then ? :roll:
 
You keep trying to ascribe altruistic motive to a disgusting 'hobby'. As I've said before if altruism and conservation were really their motives they can send a cheque to pay for extra veterinarians and anti poaching game wardens. A darned sight more animals would then still be alive. I really don't buy this argument that killing them saves them. It sounds a bit like the US policy during the Vietnam war and that was bogus too. Its a pretty feeble excuse in order to kill for fun.



Zimbabwe is also one of the most corrupt regimes in Africa so its hardly a shining example of conservation or anything else for that matter.

Also while you say

Lion numbers 1965 around 120,000 today at most 32,000
Rhinos all species 1900 around 500,000 today 29,000
Shall I continue ....



When a species is hanging on to survival by its fingernails you don't let people pay to jump up and down on its fingers



So killing for fun in order to reduce the numbers still further is a good thing then ? :roll:

If the animals you are hunting are past reproduction age, then yes, killing them will maintain herd health and will not impact the numbers of future generations.

So here we have the sale Elephants to make up for the money lost by banning trophy hunting and that's a good thing apparently. Not only that, but the complete turnaround you have to do to your argument. You used Zimbabwe as an example of how trophy hunting hurts tourism, but when faced with the fact that they are losing money from the ban and have to sell elephants, you just claim that Zimbabwe is corrupt and not an example of conservation. So what is it? Is it invested enough in conservation that we can say its closing of trophy hunts was for the protection of animals and conservation, that the trophy hunts didn't contribute to it. Or is it corrupt and not a good example of conservation?

And you still have no defense against the measured facts that these trophy hunts provide food for the poor, money for the preserve, aid in conservation efforts, and benefit the overall health of the animal population.

You ain't sending no checks, so someone else has to. Maybe if you pulled your weight in this topic, other places wouldn't need to turn to trophy hunting.
 
I'd have been even happier to see what the Soviets would have done to him if they caught him :cool:

Yeah but Stalin killed more people in a couple years than Hitler did in nearly a decade :/

But yeah, that'd be one hell of a good show. :D
 
I'd have been even happier to see what the Soviets would have done to him if they caught him :cool:

Why do you think he killed himself?
 
If the animals you are hunting are past reproduction age, then yes, killing them will maintain herd health and will not impact the numbers of future generations.

And of course they won't therefore still be there for the tourists to see. How do you think Kenya has managed by having a trophy hunting ban in place for nearly 40 years ?

So here we have the sale Elephants to make up for the money lost by banning trophy hunting and that's a good thing apparently.

No we have the sale of elephants because the regime in Zimbabwe is so corrupt and dangerous to foreigners that its tourism revenue is virtually non existent

And you still have no defense against the measured facts that these trophy hunts provide food for the poor, money for the preserve, aid in conservation efforts, and benefit the overall health of the animal population.

So why are Botswana and Zambia now using the Kenyan model of non lethal tourism and have recently banned trophy hunting ? I'll remind you

Zambia’s Minister of Tourism and Arts, Sylvia T. Masebo, announced that specific hunting licenses would be suspended as they had “been abused to the extent they threatened animal populations.”

Now, the response of the Zambian government is escalating.

This week the government took the necessary action to ban lion and leopard hunting, citing that populations have abruptly declined in recent years.


You ain't sending no checks, so someone else has to. Maybe if you pulled your weight in this topic, other places wouldn't need to turn to trophy hunting.

BS . These guys have the money to make a difference other than paying to massage their egos by securing bragging rights for killing the most endangered species unfortunately I don't
 
Last edited:
And of course they won't therefore still be there for the tourists to see. How do you think Kenya has managed by having a trophy hunting ban in place for nearly 40 years ?



No we have the sale of elephants because the regime in Zimbabwe is so corrupt and dangerous to foreigners that its tourism revenue is virtually non existent



So why are Botswana and Zambia now using the Kenyan model of non lethal tourism and have recently banned trophy hunting ? I'll remind you

Zambia’s Minister of Tourism and Arts, Sylvia T. Masebo, announced that specific hunting licenses would be suspended as they had “been abused to the extent they threatened animal populations.”

Now, the response of the Zambian government is escalating.

This week the government took the necessary action to ban lion and leopard hunting, citing that populations have abruptly declined in recent years.




BS . These guys have the money to make a difference other than paying to massage their egos by securing bragging rights for killing the most endangered species unfortunately I don't

The article I posted clearly states that the sale of elephants is in response to reduced revenue lost by the ban on trophy hunting. And who knows why they went that route, I mean, Zimbabwe is so corrupt it cannot be used as a model of conservationism, right? That's what you said.
 
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.

Just to point out.. you aren't "strolling up" to a 3-4 ton animal with a bad temper and the means to crush you. The reason that the shots are that close are two reasons... number one... often the territory they are in dictates that you have to get close to get a good shot through the foliage... and quite frankly, the energy needed to get a hit to the heart or the head and make a clean kill means you have to be up close.
 
It turns out that I made the mistake in posting my first Rhino picture. My bad

This is in fact the one she shot dead and was her first kill .... at the age of 13 !!!

View attachment 67183501

If anything this makes it even worse. Why would any child want to do this ? :(

Because she likes to hunt? Why do fishermen like to fish?

Depending on where that animal was taken, the hunting of rhinos has absolutely saved the population of rhinos in parts of the world. The hunt is sanctioned, bid, the money goes to conservation funds, and the herd has thrived.
 
Back
Top Bottom