I accept that as a true statement regarding the quoted phrase. which is why i objected.
that definitely made me laff 
1 Like
Ser japhroaig,
I disagree. Deer should not be sent to Pluto.
In my suburban Eugene neighborhood they are pretty tame and even trained by their mothers & humans to leave gardens when bellowed at or even not attempt raids. Over the last 30 years there has been less & less roadkill. Now dead deer in & by the road are very, very rare.
(We also use deer fences & strategic feeding to lead the fckuers away from our gardens.)
The mama deer in my 'hood seem like they should be carrying purses - they yell at their fawns when cars are coming & use sidewalks & crosswalks. This happens in many urban & suburban places in the US & elsewhere - like Hyde Park in London. These yard-dear seem to be self-domesticating.
Now, Mr. J - another reason I donât wish deer to be sent to Pluto. Forget the yard-deer. I agree the wild deer are a nuisance, and assholes - there are more deer in North America now than back in 1776. However - theyâre not so bad - they taste really good, there are a lot of them - lots of fun to hunt - smart & challenging - taste good. They were born to run - the wild deer, they need a top predator to maintain integrity of the species.
Sending deer to Pluto - especially our beloved yard-deer would not at all be right.
Anyway japhroaig - humor aside - deer hunting for the purposes of filling the freezer & culling is appropriate. Iâve only attended deer hunts as a friend & guest of real deer hunters. Any harvest Iâve done - has been set up by real deer hunters - friends/family Iâve tagged long. I agree - stalking is the best part.
Hoping to fill the freezer is a good thing, but with people Iâve tagged along - itâs more about the people, less the deer, like night air, parent child fishing, the Importance of Wasting Time , no cell coverage and etcetera,
Trophy hunting - what this bastard did - itâs not hunting. Given what has surfaced about this guy - and the financial resources he seems to have - I wonder if he has had or has been fixing to go off the deep-end & to hunt or just simply kill another human to make another notch on his bucket list -and/or to posture at whatever cocktail party.
2 Likes
7 billion humans Pretty much all of them I donât like.Why should I get pissed off at this guy or not?
Weâre up to our earholes in assholes killing something. So fucking what! We eliminate the guiniea .worm and weâre heroes Bag a immense covered in meat elephant and yer 14 year old daughter will be handing your stash over to the cops.
1 Like
I once picked up an E91 from Munchen. ps: 
1 Like
This is all hypothetical right? I was no where near the Philadelphia zoo on the night of June the 24th.
I donât even own a chainsaw.
1 Like
I do too. Due to the way you frame your arguements, even when I agree with the points you make, I could simply be called an asshole for owning one. And I have someone like you in my group now, so I am doubly not sure what to think of myself now. Thanks. Iâm out.
The issues here are complex and highly politicized. There are several questions that science canât help address, primary of which is whether or not the money raised from the sale of hunting permits is used for conservation, something often promised by hunting tour operators. But empirical research can help to elucidate several other questions, such as whether hunting can ever help drive conservation efforts.
In 2006, researcher Peter A. Lindsey of Kenyaâs Mpala Research Centre and colleagues interviewed 150 people who either had already hunted in Africa, or who planned to do so within the following three years. Their findings were published in the journal Animal Conservation. A majority of hunters â eighty-six percent! â told the researchers they preferred hunting in an area where they knew that a portion of the proceeds went back into local communities. Nearly half of the hunters they interviewed also indicated that theyâd be willing to pay an equivalent price for a poorer trophy if it was a problem animal that would have had to be killed anyway.
Lindseyâs team also discovered that hunters were more sensitive to conservation concerns than was perhaps expected. For example, they were less willing to hunt in areas where wild dogs or cheetahs are illegally shot, in countries that intentionally surpass their quotas, or with operators who practice âput-and-take hunting,â which is where trophy animals are released onto a fenced-in property just before a hunt. Together this suggests that hunters were willing to place economic pressure on countries and tour companies to operate in as ethical a manner as possible. Approximately nine out of every ten hunters said theyâd be willing to hunt in places that were poor for wildlife viewing or which lacked attractive scenery. That is, they said that they were willing to hunt in areas that would not have otherwise been able to reap an economic benefit from ecotourism.
Itâs 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. Thatâs 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 Zimbabweâs elephants. âImplementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,â thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. âAs 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 Zimbabweâs already large elephant population.â 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.
Still, the elephants of Zimbabwe and the white rhinos of South Africa seem to suggest that it is possible for conservation and trophy hunting to coexist, at least in principle. It is indeed a tricky, but not impossible, balance to strike.
It is noteworthy that the Leader-Williamsâ 2005 paper recommended that legal trophy hunting for black rhinos be focused mainly on older, non-breeding males, or on younger males who have already contributed sufficient genetic material to their breeding groups. They further suggested that revenues from the sale of permits be reinvested into conservation efforts, and that revenues could be maximized by selling permits through international auctions. Namibiaâs own hunting policy, it turns out, is remarkably consistent with scientific recommendations.
Even so, some have expressed concern regarding what the larger message of sanctioned trophy hunts might be. Could the possible negative consequences from a PR perspective outweigh the possible benefits from hunting? Can the message that an auction for the hunting of an endangered species like the black rhino brings possibly be reconciled with the competing message that the species requires saving? This question is probably not one that science can adequately address.
However, it might just be worth having a quick look at some numbers. 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.
2 Likes
Interesting ideas, most of which seem to stress that conservation needs trophy hunting in order to find revenue streams that can then be used for conservation. I disagree on numerous points: trophy hunting doesnât lead to a sustainable, high-value âherdâ because said hunters will want to take the âtrophyâ animal, as opposed to the old and infirm. Also, strong government management would be necessary to properly restrict taking animal X over animal Y, which Africa doesnât have a lot of at the moment given endemic poverty and lack of a jobs. All of which is overshadowed by the fact that big game hunters are primarily wealthy westerners who, despite the first study you mentioned, are not likely to be so big on conservation when theyâre actually in the woods and lacking any oversight or restrictions on what they can take out of the country.
Also, and this can be taken with a grain of salt or not as itâs an emotional idea rather than one of logic, but the global outcry about the taking of this lion isnât coming out of the vacuum, and the feeling that it was, and is, the wrong thing to do is shared by quite a large number of people around the worldâthatâs got to count for something in this regard.
Lastly, hunting shouldnât be the sole reason as to whether something is saved/conserved or notâthere are other revenue streams that could be purposed to that end without doing it simply so people can continue to shoot the animals down.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
