• 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

SouthernDemocrat said:
No, I am saying that the argument you are using that these legal canned hunts are needed to thin the herd is not a valid argument for where this guide was working at in Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...

You are focusing on one single aspect of my statement in one specific area instead of looking at the overall point. The animal also goes to the locals for food, nothing is wasted not even the bone. It also keeps the animals away from human habitation. The money paid by the hunters goes to conservation of the animals as well.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I grew up hunting, everyone in my family hunts. I fish all the time but seldom hunt anymore. I agree there are areas in Africa that are true wilderness, but this guide was on a luxury game reserve where you spend nearly 2 grand a day just to stay there.
Click to expand...

Well, he died happy I suppose. There are all kinds of venues available in Africa. I have no problem with controlled hunting there - I prefer that to the uncontrolled poaching over wide swaths of the continent. I don't highly respect those who engage in and support such hunting, but that's my preference and view of what hunting is - or should be. Too bad it cost him his life, but sometimes things manage to reach a moral equilibrium for all involved.
 
Black Dog said:
You are focusing on one single aspect of my statement in one specific area instead of looking at the overall point. The animal also goes to the locals for food, nothing is wasted not even the bone. It also keeps the animals away from human habitation. The money paid by the hunters goes to conservation of the animals as well.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

My argument has nothing to do with specific places... it is about the hunting in general, not poaching or where.

You are trying to take your own initial blanket statement that I responded to...

SouthernDemocrat said:
But in my opinion a creature like an elephant ought to enjoy every right to life that we enjoy. If you experience the same emotions, family ties, and mourn your dead just like we humans do, then you ought to have the same right to life that we humans enjoy and unless that elephant is a clear danger to people, it shouldn't be killed.
Click to expand...

And make it about something it's not.

Nice straw man.
 
joko104 said:
Vacuum cleaners are machines of genocide. :lol:
Click to expand...

I don't believe a vacuum cleaner kills dust mites, it just moves them from one location to another.
 
Montecresto said:
I think I've told you repeatedly now that I think hunting the endangered elephant should be illegal, they shouldn't be hunted for sport. I've never talked about poaching, that's already illegal.
Click to expand...

and what you fail to understand is that legal hunting perpetuates the species while poaching threatens it
 
flogger said:
Slavery was once legal and represented a economic resource too. That didn't make it right either :(
Click to expand...

another completely silly comment that has no relevance. You'd be better off comparing the "enslavement" of domesticated livestock
 
Montecresto said:
No, it is a crime, just like many things that once were legal and have finally been recognized for what they were. And killing an animal that is on the endangered list just for sport is a crime. There's nothing political about it.
Click to expand...

your opinion as to what is a crime has ZERO relevance in this discussion. You are just complaining and since your complaints are not factually based, you try to jack up the weight of your complaint by using a term that is improper but emotionally powerful
 
TurtleDude said:
another completely silly comment that has no relevance. You'd be better off comparing the "enslavement" of domesticated livestock
Click to expand...

Actually I think its a pretty good analogy. Killing these kind of animals for fun is positively neanderthal despite the various lame excuses used to justify it
 
flogger said:
Because they endanger nothing but themselves. If stupid people want to voluntarily endanger themselves who am I to argue
Click to expand...

Actually.. again that's not true.

First of all, mountain climbing has environmental impacts. All those people climbing causes soil erosion, it causes habitat destruction to a degree, in heavy use areas.. you almost invariably have garbage and it disrupts the animals in the area.. and at certain times, that can have a significant impact during critical times (like birthing times). In addition.. as someone that has been part of search and rescue.. when mountain climbers get in trouble.. or lost, etc.... they can often put rescuers had significant risk.
 
TurtleDude said:
I understand some people-especially those who think BAMBI was a documentary-have an irrational and emotional hatred of hunting but to be happy someone died is actually to be expected from the far left
Click to expand...

Travis007 said:
Im glad the guy was trampled...I cry for the Elephant...
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
MrVicchio said:
You have your opinion, others have theirs. Ever been on a big game hunt?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't.

I have hunted for things I would eat that have healthy populations, though. That is why I said, "trophy hunting".
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually.. again that's not true.

First of all, mountain climbing has environmental impacts. All those people climbing causes soil erosion, it causes habitat destruction to a degree, in heavy use areas.. you almost invariably have garbage and it disrupts the animals in the area.. and at certain times, that can have a significant impact during critical times (like birthing times). In addition.. as someone that has been part of search and rescue.. when mountain climbers get in trouble.. or lost, etc.... they can often put rescuers had significant risk.
Click to expand...

Never heard of a mountain climber that deliberately set out to kill.
 
flogger said:
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:
Click to expand...

Except you are wrong. First of all,,, when it comes to hunting success rates are generally extremely low. And elk hunter in my region has about a 14% success rate. If it was "love of killing". then why would you do something that killing was something that occurred about 14% of time?. Yet thousands of hunters hunt elk in my region. The same with elephants and giraffes etc. the success rates are not 100%.. and again.. if it was just about killing.. then bull, calf, cow.. would not matter. Yet it does... hunters will pay 50,000 dollars to hunt that big bull. And pass up other bulls, and so on... and they will go home without making a kill, simply because they didn't feel that the bull was big enough. Or that they never got an ethical shot off.

By the way... most likely in the region that you were watching elephants... they were likely not hunted and therefore have lost their fear of man and often associate humans and food . That's in large part what makes them such easy targets for poachers that venture into these game parks and makes them nuisances to farmers when they wander out of the reserves protected areas and into farmland.
 
flogger said:
No it was quite legal in South Africa and broadcast on the BBC on the Louis Theroux show if memory serves
Click to expand...

I call BS..

From the South African rules and regulations:

Enclosures, drugs -- No hunting of an animal which is tranquilized or immobilized
by drugs or trapped against a fence or in a small enclosure where the animal does
not have a fair chance to evade the hunter
o [note: “small enclosure” is not defined]
Click to expand...
 
flogger said:
Actually I think its a pretty good analogy. Killing these kind of animals for fun is positively neanderthal despite the various lame excuses used to justify it
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less. your sense of values are not consistent with that of free Americans
 
jaeger19 said:
Except you are wrong. First of all,,, when it comes to hunting success rates are generally extremely low. And elk hunter in my region has about a 14% success rate. If it was "love of killing". then why would you do something that killing was something that occurred about 14% of time?. Yet thousands of hunters hunt elk in my region.
Click to expand...

What have Elk got to do with my post ? Elephants and giraffes are not Elk

The same with elephants and giraffes etc. the success rates are not 100%.. and again.. if it was just about killing.. then bull, calf, cow.. would not matter. Yet it does... hunters will pay 50,000 dollars to hunt that big bull. And pass up other bulls, and so on... and they will go home without making a kill, simply because they didn't feel that the bull was big enough. Or that they never got an ethical shot off.
Click to expand...

Its why anyone would want to do such a thing in the first place that I take issue with. In this day and age Its quite barbaric frankly.
 
jaeger19 said:
Except you are wrong. First of all,,, when it comes to hunting success rates are generally extremely low. And elk hunter in my region has about a 14% success rate. If it was "love of killing". then why would you do something that killing was something that occurred about 14% of time?. Yet thousands of hunters hunt elk in my region. The same with elephants and giraffes etc. the success rates are not 100%.. and again.. if it was just about killing.. then bull, calf, cow.. would not matter. Yet it does... hunters will pay 50,000 dollars to hunt that big bull. And pass up other bulls, and so on... and they will go home without making a kill, simply because they didn't feel that the bull was big enough. Or that they never got an ethical shot off.

By the way... most likely in the region that you were watching elephants... they were likely not hunted and therefore have lost their fear of man and often associate humans and food . That's in large part what makes them such easy targets for poachers that venture into these game parks and makes them nuisances to farmers when they wander out of the reserves protected areas and into farmland.
Click to expand...

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
 
flogger said:
Never heard of a mountain climber that deliberately set out to kill.
Click to expand...

So... the end result is what matters. That's the problem with you non hunters. You have absolutely no understanding of the wilderness. NONE...

You think because you don't pull a trigger.. that you have no effect on wildlife populations. You have no understanding that the greatest threat to wildlife, is habitat destruction. When thousands of mountain climbers wander through the mountains.. the breeding and calving grounds of native wildlife... especially in the spring. Tramping along.. making noise, creating trails etc. You have no understanding that can have a detrimental effect on animal populations. They get pushed off good habitat and onto marginal habitat.. or out into areas that makes them more susceptible to predation. That the trails that are created.. can cause soil erosion, and as water now flows fast down these trails, it ends up in streams that have critical habitat for fish.. and the silt covers up eggs and causes them to die.

You have no idea that even if you don't go out into the wilderness that you have an impact on wildlife populations. Where you live? Animals used to use that as habitat? And if you are a vegetarian? You have an even greater detrimental effect on the wilderness, because you have to get your protein from intensive farming practices.

No clue.. and its sad.
 
jaeger19 said:
I call BS..

From the South African rules and regulations:
Click to expand...

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
 
jaeger19 said:
So... the end result is what matters. That's the problem with you non hunters. You have absolutely no understanding of the wilderness. NONE...
Click to expand...

And you weekend Marlboro men know better right ? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom