Another Hunting Thread - How Do You Guys Feel About This?
- Thread starter SumoNinja
- Start date
- Status
I would be just as pissed off. It's not a gender issue at all. It's a "stupid people doing stupid things" issue. Maybe the media wouldnt be as all over it, but it would be equally as despicable.
It's a low hanging fruit for the low info viewer. It feels good to trash someone in public, except of course, the license hunters are not really the problem in Africa.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
I'm sure there are plenty of things you do every day that other people are against. Everyday you probably do something that adds into the destruction of some kind of life. Like I said before in my previous post. People do what is needed and how much money are you spending on these countries that issue permits to hunt? It's real easy to complain and trash people for doing stuff but you are no better in one way or another.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Hello; Very interesting so far. My take is that there are two or three groups of forum members talking past each other.
One group has an emotional response to the killing of the animals in general and I suspect it does not absolutly matter that they are endangered. I see familiar avatars for forum members that also champion dogs when one of those dog bite threads pops up.
Another group sees hunting as a valid part of animal population managment. While I do not hunt, I do have a couple of degrees in Biology and some graduate work in ecology. I must as a matter of fact agree with this group. It may seem unfortunate to some folks but regulated hunting is a valid method of ensuring the overall health of some populations. Culling a population, especially in an area where native resources are compromised, is a way to keep a population within the carrying capacity of the habitat. In some places in would be necessary to hire the culling done if people were not willing to pay for a hunting permit.
Another group is trying to point out that human damage to native habitats is a much bigger issue that regulated hunting. I must also agree with these coments. Even without the hunting and poaching there is great pressure on a multitude of species around the world. The species in the pictures related to this thread are poster animals for likely extinction. I for one would like to see human population numbers reduced but do not expect this to happen. I did my part in remaining childless but so few have taken that path or even kept to the Zero Population Growth (ZPG) of two children per couple. Humans are having the biggest impact on endangered species, but it seems to me not by hunting.
Some of my closest friends over the years have been avid hunters. While I do not have any desire for that particular activity, I do like to go fishing. I would hunt if it became necessary for food but so far have not needed to.
One group has an emotional response to the killing of the animals in general and I suspect it does not absolutly matter that they are endangered. I see familiar avatars for forum members that also champion dogs when one of those dog bite threads pops up.
Another group sees hunting as a valid part of animal population managment. While I do not hunt, I do have a couple of degrees in Biology and some graduate work in ecology. I must as a matter of fact agree with this group. It may seem unfortunate to some folks but regulated hunting is a valid method of ensuring the overall health of some populations. Culling a population, especially in an area where native resources are compromised, is a way to keep a population within the carrying capacity of the habitat. In some places in would be necessary to hire the culling done if people were not willing to pay for a hunting permit.
Another group is trying to point out that human damage to native habitats is a much bigger issue that regulated hunting. I must also agree with these coments. Even without the hunting and poaching there is great pressure on a multitude of species around the world. The species in the pictures related to this thread are poster animals for likely extinction. I for one would like to see human population numbers reduced but do not expect this to happen. I did my part in remaining childless but so few have taken that path or even kept to the Zero Population Growth (ZPG) of two children per couple. Humans are having the biggest impact on endangered species, but it seems to me not by hunting.
Some of my closest friends over the years have been avid hunters. While I do not have any desire for that particular activity, I do like to go fishing. I would hunt if it became necessary for food but so far have not needed to.
I think this is funny because this is all a matter of opinion. Also it is a proven fact that sometimes removing animals from a population is necessary for the well being of said population. Now i have never even remotely studied the role that hunting has, beneficial or not, for endangered species, but i would imagine those species are regulated by research done by biologists and ecologists that have studied those impacts.
It's not a spectrum of opinions on the issue of taking large predators out of the population, IMO. Go look up how many of this planet's large predators are threatened, endangered, or dangling right off the brink.
It's no secret, no more research need be done, into how much an ecosystem suffers when the large predators at the top of the food chain are removed from the food web. And, due to the loss of the vast majority of this planet's large predators... believe me, they dont need us to take individuals out of the population to keep it in check. We've been hacking away at the numbers for centuries. We dont need to take any more. We need to work to protect the remaining individuals.
It's no secret, no more research need be done, into how much an ecosystem suffers when the large predators at the top of the food chain are removed from the food web. And, due to the loss of the vast majority of this planet's large predators... believe me, they dont need us to take individuals out of the population to keep it in check. We've been hacking away at the numbers for centuries. We dont need to take any more. We need to work to protect the remaining individuals.
Hello; In regard to the animals in the photos the young lady this thread hunted, some were herbavors and not top predators.
You are correct in that the removal of top predators can have a serious impact on prey populations. An example I used in classes had to do with white tail deer in an Ohio county USA some decades back. People had essentially removed the main predators of deer. The anti-hunters had managed to have sport hunting of deer banned. The deer population overpopulated the area to the point that food became a limiting factor. Many more deer died from the stress of limited food during winter than would have been culled by the hunters. The deer also became a serious nusance in peoples yards and on the roads.
That said, if you are implying that hunting can be an aditional critical factor in populations already under serious pressure in other ways, that I can agree with. I also would want to know much more about the trade off between the large fees paid to hunt some of the species and if the culling is actually based on sound population managment practice. My uninformed speculation is that perhaps leopard and the rino populations do not actually benefit from the added pressure of the hunts in a strict biological sense. The money from the fees may be the best current hedge against the total loss of the populations. Without the fees there may be not another way to field the rangers to protect what animals they can. It has been a loosing battle for decades and I fear the outcome is in doubt.
You can't fairly compare the evolution of weapons to the evolution of animal defenses. The natural evolution of species DOES NOT keep pace with man-made technological advances. At least with early weapons, the animals stood a chance. When you are using a high powered rifle or elephant gun...the animal always loses (unless you don't know how to shoot). What you are saying is akin to "Ok guys, let's go fishing...I got 10 sticks of dynamite...gonna catch us some fish and blow everything out of the water no matter the collateral damage" (which is devastating if you read about it).
I mean if you are saying that the evolution of technology and weapons used in hunting falls under the category of "WHAT'S FAIR IS FAIR"...then shoot (no pun intended), let's get some drones with heat seeking missiles and go hunting...we can lay out some mines as well and maybe even use some chemical warfare to slow them down. It's evolution RIGHT? It's pretty NATURAL, RIGHT?
As far as your seal and shark analogy...these creatures have evolved in true NATURAL form with their weapons and defenses.
A girl flying half way around the world with her rifles, bullets and facebook app...to shoot down some lions, leopards, rhinos and elephants does not seem NATURAL to me.
I would rather promote the type of safari tour where people can travel to remote regions of the world and SHOOT with their CAMERAS and enjoy these majestic creatures while they are still alive, rather than a 3-second photo-op with a carcass. Hunting is not the only source of funds for the conservation of these animals. A no kill safari is not a cheap vacation which CAN and DOES bring in money to better maintain the conservation programs that exist.
On a side note- it is only the endangered species which I mainly take issue with. If she wants to hunt a wildebeest or water buffalo...go for it. I'm sure they would make for great steaks or burgers.
It's the animals that are already being poached for their beautiful hides, tusks and horns that are in need of help. And this help doesn't come at the end of a barrel.
- Status
