Animal Lovers

by alive555 Sat 23 Nov 2013, 6:25 am

This is pretty out of order

Animal Lovers 1b63aca48eac49849afa35ab429e1014

by aucklandlaurie Sat 23 Nov 2013, 6:32 am

This what I just dont get, The French eat horse and no one binks an eyelid.

by **Biltong** Sat 23 Nov 2013, 6:36 am

South africans hunt.

What you need to understand is that hunting in SA happens in controlled environments.

There are game farms specifically for this purpose and the conservation of wildlife in Africa has a lot to thank for this practice as it finances the sustainability of protecting our wildlife species.

It is not just a case of shooting anything that moves. By controlling the number of wild animals hunted it prevents the extinction of a specie.

South African Hunters Association

by Guest Sat 23 Nov 2013, 7:13 am

Biltong wrote:By controlling the number of wild animals hunted it prevents the extinction of a specie[s].

That does sound a bit "we must go to war to fight for peace". I watched a Louis Theroux documentary only two days ago on this, I didn't think conservation was top of the agenda in that instance, and that's understandable when people earn their livelihoods from such farms. There's definitely some interesting notion of "exoticism" going on here though, and how the 'beastly' Africans are wrong to do this, yet horses are commonly eaten in Europe (and Britain...?) with no moral scruple. Or indeed that deer and birds of prey were commonly shot until very recently in our own country with the full backing of the law.

I personally don't buy into the notion that you're upholding a pioneering, hunting past by taking out a beast in its natural, or semi-natural, habitat with the aid of a highly complex, modern, laser guided weapon (see Sarah Palin), but that's undoubtedly a product of coming from wimpy Blighty, and perhaps I'd think differently if I was a Saffa or an Alaskan. The posing with the animal makes it a trophy, and that certainly rankles. I'm sure everyone is more than aware of the American woman who has had some infamy this week with her picture taken next to a dead African Lion. That's where it becomes less about conservation and more about entertainment, the animal's life a commodity which can be sold for profit. Whether they are professional rugby players or not has little to do with it, although I suppose it probably affords (no pun intended) the above two players the economic strength to be able to purchase the licenses.

by Guest Sat 23 Nov 2013, 7:17 am

In another interpretation, it's the weirdest Father/Son photo of all time...?

by funkymonkey Sat 23 Nov 2013, 7:27 am

miaow wrote:
Biltong wrote:By controlling the number of wild animals hunted it prevents the extinction of a specie[s].
That does sound a bit "we must go to war to fight for peace". I watched a Louis Theroux documentary only two days ago on this, I didn't think conservation was top of the agenda in that instance, and that's understandable when people earn their livelihoods from such farms. There's definitely some interesting notion of "exoticism" going on here though, and how the 'beastly' Africans are wrong to do this, yet horses are commonly eaten in Europe (and Britain...?) with no moral scruple. Or indeed that deer and birds of prey were commonly shot until very recently in our own country with the full backing of the law.

I personally don't buy into the notion that you're upholding a pioneering, hunting past by taking out a beast in its natural, or semi-natural, habitat with the aid of a highly complex, modern, laser guided weapon (see Sarah Palin), but that's undoubtedly a product of coming from wimpy Blighty, and perhaps I'd think differently if I was a Saffa or an Alaskan. The posing with the animal makes it a trophy, and that certainly rankles. I'm sure everyone is more than aware of the American woman who has had some infamy this week with her picture taken next to a dead African Lion. That's where it becomes less about conservation and more about entertainment, the animal's life a commodity which can be sold for profit. Whether they are professional rugby players or not has little to do with it, although I suppose it probably affords (no pun intended) the above two players the economic strength to be able to purchase the licenses.

well said

this crazed lunatic, NMelissa Bachman has hit the news recently. she had her trip organised by another of SA "conservation safaris"

shes whats called a trophy hunter. the photo she posted online and the disgusting gloating has got her 500,000 signatures in 72 hrs calling from her to be banned from SA.

Animal Lovers HT_melissa_bachman_with_lion_jt_131116_16x9_992

Animal Lovers HT_melissa_bachman_with_lion_jt_131116_16x9_992

by Mr Fishpaste Sat 23 Nov 2013, 7:29 am

The truth is that game parks cull thousands of animals every year anyway to control their numbers. This is because the natural food-chain/ migration routes have been interrupted by park fences etc. If you banned hunting it wouldn't stop the shooting of animals, it would just stop a very important revenue stream for game parks! You might argue that many private game-reserves are then motivated by hunting-profit rather than conservation and you'd probably be right but it has resulted in a lot more game reserves in SA. I've heard that nearly 30% of SA's land area is game-park, and this is largely due to the expansion of the private game-reserve business. Also because animals are so expensive to buy at auction, game reserves won't just let you shoot anything you like. You can only shoot very specific animals at certain times so as to ensure that the park's animal numbers are sustained and the herds/prides are not destroyed.

This said, I do find the notion of killing an animal for entertainment a little bit bizarre, so I wouldn't hunt myself even though I'm not against the killing of animals for sustenance/ environmental control etc.

by Guest Sat 23 Nov 2013, 7:32 am

Don't think anyone has suggested the banning of hunting/killing these animals, not even the OP.

by Mr Fishpaste Sat 23 Nov 2013, 7:35 am

Well if you have pictures of hunters with their trophies calling them crazed lunatics and stating that their actions are out of order then it is not a big step to interpret the implication that this practice should be banned.

by Guest Sat 23 Nov 2013, 7:49 am

I think you're gleaning something that isn't there. Perhaps it's to do with people in the public eye, or the public themselves, having access to such an activity. Perhaps it's the documentation or glorification via celebratory photos next to the kill that the OP thought out of order. Either way I think you were the first to bring up the idea of legislation.

by Guest Sat 23 Nov 2013, 7:57 am

It's just differences in culture and cultural practices. Hunting is culturally accepted in some countries and not others, as is eating horse and dogs in some countries while we find it strange. There'll be a number of countries looking at pictures of our players drinking alcohol and thinking that they're crazed lunatics too for drinking that poison.

As long as they're not breaking any laws then it's hard to criticise it. We can only have our own viewpoint which, as we know all too well just from discussions about rugby on this site, can vary wildly.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 23 Nov 2013, 8:07 am

I thought I read somewhere a couple of years ago that one of the big English Supermarket chains were making horse pies, and the public couldnt get enough of them.

by Guest Sat 23 Nov 2013, 8:14 am

You can read Laurie?!

by Guest Sat 23 Nov 2013, 10:01 am

Hunting culture probably has a 'small' contribution as to why SA and NZ are good at rugby. I always stick it on the list of reasons down the bottom somewhere.

by ChequeredJersey Sat 23 Nov 2013, 10:43 am

Surely by definition the hunting of an animal as endangered as a lion I zebra cannot possibly have a positive effect on their numbers? It's not like the reason for their near extinction is lack of resources and competition: I was under the impression that the reason was hunting. The fact that a zebra looks like and is related to a horse is not an issue. The fact that it's already endangered is

by **Biltong** Sat 23 Nov 2013, 10:59 am

There is a balance that must be kept in check in the wildlife reserves of South Africa.

Too many antelope, then they kill of the savannas and thorn trees which means starvation. Too many Lions then they eat all the Antelope.

The animals that are hunted are used for food, whether it becomes game meat, biltong etc.

Exactly the same as slaughtering a cow for sustainance.

I would suggest some research would be in order before coming to conclusions about whether hunting is morally incorrect or not.

The hunting of antelope and other wild animals has been a way of feeding the San people for centuries, the same with any other indeginous tribe or culture in Africa.

Culling is part of balancing the natural resources, and balance between predator and pray in Africa.

Hunting creates jobs, food and is lart of the Suth African economy.

Endangered species are not hunted, like the Black Rhino.

by Barney McGrew did it Sat 23 Nov 2013, 11:07 am

funkymonkey wrote:
miaow wrote:
Biltong wrote:By controlling the number of wild animals hunted it prevents the extinction of a specie[s].
That does sound a bit "we must go to war to fight for peace". I watched a Louis Theroux documentary only two days ago on this, I didn't think conservation was top of the agenda in that instance, and that's understandable when people earn their livelihoods from such farms. There's definitely some interesting notion of "exoticism" going on here though, and how the 'beastly' Africans are wrong to do this, yet horses are commonly eaten in Europe (and Britain...?) with no moral scruple. Or indeed that deer and birds of prey were commonly shot until very recently in our own country with the full backing of the law.

I personally don't buy into the notion that you're upholding a pioneering, hunting past by taking out a beast in its natural, or semi-natural, habitat with the aid of a highly complex, modern, laser guided weapon (see Sarah Palin), but that's undoubtedly a product of coming from wimpy Blighty, and perhaps I'd think differently if I was a Saffa or an Alaskan. The posing with the animal makes it a trophy, and that certainly rankles. I'm sure everyone is more than aware of the American woman who has had some infamy this week with her picture taken next to a dead African Lion. That's where it becomes less about conservation and more about entertainment, the animal's life a commodity which can be sold for profit. Whether they are professional rugby players or not has little to do with it, although I suppose it probably affords (no pun intended) the above two players the economic strength to be able to purchase the licenses.
well said

this crazed lunatic, NMelissa Bachman has hit the news recently. she had her trip organised by another of SA "conservation safaris"

shes whats called a trophy hunter. the photo she posted online and the disgusting gloating has got her 500,000 signatures in 72 hrs calling from her to be banned from SA.

The photo would look better the other way round.

by whocares Sat 23 Nov 2013, 11:43 am

Even in western europe, hunting is important and prevents wild boar overpopulation for instance.

I dont get what's wrong with eating horse (if you are not a veggie). Sometimes it is better than beef as well (in tartare ir seasoned raw meat for instance). Must be one this weird cultural thing like not eating rabbit.

by funkymonkey Sat 23 Nov 2013, 12:02 pm

Biltong wrote:There is a balance that must be kept in check in the wildlife reserves of South Africa.

Too many antelope, then they kill of the savannas and thorn trees which means starvation. Too many Lions then they eat all the Antelope.

The animals that are hunted are used for food, whether it becomes game meat, biltong etc.

Exactly the same as slaughtering a cow for sustainance.

I would suggest some research would be in order before coming to conclusions about whether hunting is morally incorrect or not.

The hunting of antelope and other wild animals has been a way of feeding the San people for centuries, the same with any other indeginous tribe or culture in Africa.

Culling is part of balancing the natural resources, and balance between predator and pray in Africa.

Hunting creates jobs, food and is lart of the Suth African economy.

Endangered species are not hunted, like the Black Rhino.

u can buy rights to kill black rhino in SA . stop making things up. Suggest you do some research yourself picard

by belovedfrosties Sat 23 Nov 2013, 12:19 pm

Being a conservation biologist i would just like to point out a few things.

Hunting to control populations is only necessary when there has already been human intervention. In a natural environment the population levels of all species finds it own dynamic balance as there are only sufficient resources (the carrying capacity) to maintain a certain number of each species. Biltongs example of killing antelopes to stop them eating all the vegetation is accurate up to a point. What will normally happen is that antelope may find extra plants to eat (due to increased rainfall or whatever factor). Their population would explode because they have an abundance of food, this means that they need to find more plants to eat which in theory would endanger the plant species. However at the same time as this, there is now an abundance of antelopes available for predator species, these species then explode as well and need to eat more antelope to survive, driving down the antelope population. This then removes the threat to the plants that they eat allowing them to recover. At the same time the now lack of antelope (due to the over-hunting by the lions) causes the lion population to crash allowing the antelope population to recover, followed by the lion population as their food source increases.

Where management is needed (eg the hunting of boars in eastern europe, or the culling of deer in scotland) is due to man removing the climax predator, in both of those examples its the wolf. If you have all key species in an environment (or nature park) they will manage themselves, its mans interference that screws it all up.

Re the photo, that's a plains zebra and couldn't be further from endangered. I'm not particularly fond of hunting, but you do have to be pragmatic in these situations. Nature parks don't make much money and they need huge amounts of upkeep and man power. If letting some rich person kill a common as muck animal for a big profit then its an acceptable evil in my book. Though I do find that Melissa Bachmann an abhorrent human being.

by **Biltong** Sat 23 Nov 2013, 12:55 pm

funkymonkey wrote:
Biltong wrote:There is a balance that must be kept in check in the wildlife reserves of South Africa.

Too many antelope, then they kill of the savannas and thorn trees which means starvation. Too many Lions then they eat all the Antelope.

The animals that are hunted are used for food, whether it becomes game meat, biltong etc.

Exactly the same as slaughtering a cow for sustainance.

I would suggest some research would be in order before coming to conclusions about whether hunting is morally incorrect or not.

The hunting of antelope and other wild animals has been a way of feeding the San people for centuries, the same with any other indeginous tribe or culture in Africa.

Culling is part of balancing the natural resources, and balance between predator and pray in Africa.

Hunting creates jobs, food and is lart of the Suth African economy.

Endangered species are not hunted, like the Black Rhino.
u can buy rights to kill black rhino in SA . stop making things up. Suggest you do some research yourself

Let me know where you can buy rights to hunt a blak rhino, then I can forward it to the appropriate authorities.

by Mr Fishpaste Sat 23 Nov 2013, 1:09 pm

funkymonkey wrote:
Biltong wrote:There is a balance that must be kept in check in the wildlife reserves of South Africa.

Too many antelope, then they kill of the savannas and thorn trees which means starvation. Too many Lions then they eat all the Antelope.

The animals that are hunted are used for food, whether it becomes game meat, biltong etc.

Exactly the same as slaughtering a cow for sustainance.

I would suggest some research would be in order before coming to conclusions about whether hunting is morally incorrect or not.

The hunting of antelope and other wild animals has been a way of feeding the San people for centuries, the same with any other indeginous tribe or culture in Africa.

Culling is part of balancing the natural resources, and balance between predator and pray in Africa.

Hunting creates jobs, food and is lart of the Suth African economy.

Endangered species are not hunted, like the Black Rhino.
u can buy rights to kill black rhino in SA . stop making things up. Suggest you do some research yourself

Nevertheless, because private game-reserves run as a business, they will ensure that they maintain their own populations of animals. It is not in the interest of the game reserve owner to hunt his own animals to extinction. Therefore, even if they did permit one to shoot a rhino on their own land, it would be a rhino that they have bought, or bred, and they would ensure that it would not interfere with sustaining the overall population of rhino in their reserve. It would not be in their interests to shoot all the rhino in their own reserve!

by **Biltong** Sat 23 Nov 2013, 1:15 pm

Mr Fishpaste, best to leave it, the holier than though attitude about another country's culture and practices are easier to judge out of hand, rather than attempting to understand the full scope of the sustainability of our eco system and economy.

Lest we tell them where the annihilation of our fauna began.

by Guest Sat 23 Nov 2013, 2:02 pm

belovedfrosties wrote:Being a conservation biologist i would just like to point out a few things.

Hunting to control populations is only necessary when there has already been human intervention. In a natural environment the population levels of all species finds it own dynamic balance as there are only sufficient resources (the carrying capacity) to maintain a certain number of each species. Biltongs example of killing antelopes to stop them eating all the vegetation is accurate up to a point. What will normally happen is that antelope may find extra plants to eat (due to increased rainfall or whatever factor). Their population would explode because they have an abundance of food, this means that they need to find more plants to eat which in theory would endanger the plant species. However at the same time as this, there is now an abundance of antelopes available for predator species, these species then explode as well and need to eat more antelope to survive, driving down the antelope population. This then removes the threat to the plants that they eat allowing them to recover. At the same time the now lack of antelope (due to the over-hunting by the lions) causes the lion population to crash allowing the antelope population to recover, followed by the lion population as their food source increases.

Where management is needed (eg the hunting of boars in eastern europe, or the culling of deer in scotland) is due to man removing the climax predator, in both of those examples its the wolf. If you have all key species in an environment (or nature park) they will manage themselves, its mans interference that screws it all up.

Re the photo, that's a plains zebra and couldn't be further from endangered. I'm not particularly fond of hunting, but you do have to be pragmatic in these situations. Nature parks don't make much money and they need huge amounts of upkeep and man power. If letting some rich person kill a common as muck animal for a big profit then its an acceptable evil in my book. Though I do find that Melissa Bachmann an abhorrent human being.

One of the most interesting and informative posts I've read on this site. The fact that it's not about rugby unfortunately says a lot of about the other posts on here!

by RDSguru Sat 23 Nov 2013, 2:04 pm

belovedfrosties wrote:Being a conservation biologist i would just like to point out a few things.

Hunting to control populations is only necessary when there has already been human intervention. In a natural environment the population levels of all species finds it own dynamic balance as there are only sufficient resources (the carrying capacity) to maintain a certain number of each species. Biltongs example of killing antelopes to stop them eating all the vegetation is accurate up to a point. What will normally happen is that antelope may find extra plants to eat (due to increased rainfall or whatever factor). Their population would explode because they have an abundance of food, this means that they need to find more plants to eat which in theory would endanger the plant species. However at the same time as this, there is now an abundance of antelopes available for predator species, these species then explode as well and need to eat more antelope to survive, driving down the antelope population. This then removes the threat to the plants that they eat allowing them to recover. At the same time the now lack of antelope (due to the over-hunting by the lions) causes the lion population to crash allowing the antelope population to recover, followed by the lion population as their food source increases.

Where management is needed (eg the hunting of boars in eastern europe, or the culling of deer in scotland) is due to man removing the climax predator, in both of those examples its the wolf. If you have all key species in an environment (or nature park) they will manage themselves, its mans interference that screws it all up.

Re the photo, that's a plains zebra and couldn't be further from endangered. I'm not particularly fond of hunting, but you do have to be pragmatic in these situations. Nature parks don't make much money and they need huge amounts of upkeep and man power. If letting some rich person kill a common as muck animal for a big profit then its an acceptable evil in my book. Though I do find that Melissa Bachmann an abhorrent human being.

by Scratch Sun 24 Nov 2013, 7:26 pm

1. Bachmann, take the rifle away and the boot would be on the other foot (paw)

2. I have hunted game on two SA farms created for that purpose, and shot a kudu that I then butchered and it was given to the locals. i was proud of that kill because it provided food and for me that is the justification. i find it utter hypocrisy that people who eat meat whine about killing animals…..except in the following case

3. Bachmann and her disgusting kind. Trophy hunting is a disgraceful anachronism and should be banned…it's about as 'cultural' as using the guillotine.

4. I don't buy the cultural argument entirely when it is used to disguise the truth, because not all aspects of culture are justifiable: because we do it historically doesn't mean we should have a god given right. I think SA game farmers use the cultural tag do defend what they are doing when it is clear that these are farms and this is big big business. That said in the west we love to stand judge on everyone else's culture because we don't think it's right….take sharks, the Japanese love their fins but we think it is unacceptable.

by TJ Sun 24 Nov 2013, 7:37 pm

Bachman did not shoot a wild lion. She shot a cage reared human habituated lion bred for the purpose. Morrally deficient yes - but no effect on wild numbers and this sort of "hunting" (it is not real hunting at all) will bring a lot of money into the country.

by Guest Sun 24 Nov 2013, 7:54 pm

Isn't it more the changes to the environment or ecosystem that is causing many animals to become increasingly more endangered rather than hunting?

It's more the wide-scale effects on overall populations (affected migration routes, food scarcity, disease, breeding success, pests, in-breeding, low gene pool, mass poaching, etc) rather than the killing of selected individuals by hunters that will wipe species out.

by Looseheaded Sun 24 Nov 2013, 8:12 pm

Biltong wrote:There is a balance that must be kept in check in the wildlife reserves of South Africa.

Too many antelope, then they kill of the savannas and thorn trees which means starvation. Too many Lions then they eat all the Antelope.

The animals that are hunted are used for food, whether it becomes game meat, biltong etc.

Exactly the same as slaughtering a cow for sustainance.

I would suggest some research would be in order before coming to conclusions about whether hunting is morally incorrect or not.

The hunting of antelope and other wild animals has been a way of feeding the San people for centuries, the same with any other indeginous tribe or culture in Africa.

Culling is part of balancing the natural resources, and balance between predator and pray in Africa.

Hunting creates jobs, food and is lart of the Suth African economy.

Endangered species are not hunted, like the Black Rhino.

I agree with Bilt. Hunting with proper measures and regulations is perfectly fine, whilst I dont like the idea of trophy hunting and in many ways struggle to comprehend why somebody would choose to go to a artificial environment set up to make the hunt easy for them only to brag about killinga beast, there are benefits to the farms set up for hunters.

it's common sense, if an animal has value, it will be treated delicately and in a way that will enocurage the survival of the species. If pigs had no value they'd be extinct, and in many cases unfortunately species are disappearing due to the lack of regulation over their hunting and because there is nobody at the other end benefitting from the kill, only the hunters. It's basic capitalism really, agree with it or not, thats the world we live in. If something doesnt contribute to someone financially enough to make their existence worthwhile then they will struggle to survive. It's disgusting but its how it happens.

essentially whilst i question the posing and mindset of the hunter, the practice is not an evil or bad one, and though the conservationism is not key to those partaking or involved, it is a positive side effect of this phenomenon.

Jaysus, all this coming from a vegetarian.

by MMaaxx Sun 24 Nov 2013, 8:18 pm

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2013-11-19-in-defence-of-a-lion-killer/#.Uo-xUpkgHCQ

This article sums things up well.

My family own a couple of hunting farms in the Northern Cape. They are all genuine nature lovers, qualified ecologists, qualified nature guides / game rangers.

by kingjohn7 Sun 24 Nov 2013, 8:23 pm

Scratch wrote:1. Bachmann, take the rifle away and the boot would be on the other foot (paw)

2. I have hunted game on two SA farms created for that purpose, and shot a kudu that I then butchered and it was given to the locals. i was proud of that kill because it provided food and for me that is the justification. i find it utter hypocrisy that people who eat meat whine about killing animals…..except in the following case

3. Bachmann and her disgusting kind. Trophy hunting is a disgraceful anachronism and should be banned…it's about as 'cultural' as using the guillotine.

4. I don't buy the cultural argument entirely when it is used to disguise the truth, because not all aspects of culture are justifiable: because we do it historically doesn't mean we should have a god given right. I think SA game farmers use the cultural tag do defend what they are doing when it is clear that these are farms and this is big big business. That said in the west we love to stand judge on everyone else's culture because we don't think it's right….take sharks, the Japanese love their fins but we think it is unacceptable.

I agree with most of what you say but the chinese shark-fin soup fishing practice is absolutely disgraceful IMO.
I dont get the lure of the trophy hunting, but would like the experience of having to hunt down an animal for my food(even though the only thing ive shot is my mate hand with a bb).

by Guest Sun 24 Nov 2013, 8:27 pm

So true loosehead. There's the theory that if you want a marginally threatened population to survive. Allow it to be hunted and have value over and above it's ecological value. That may have side effects on the wider ecosystem mind you.

There's also the hunter's mindset of 'respecting' the kill as well as being selective in the animals that are killed. The young and sometimes breeding stock are passed over to ensure population survival (for selfish reasons).

by Scratch Sun 24 Nov 2013, 9:34 pm

MMaaxx wrote:http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2013-11-19-in-defence-of-a-lion-killer/#.Uo-xUpkgHCQ

This article sums things up well.

My family own a couple of hunting farms in the Northern Cape. They are all genuine nature lovers, qualified ecologists, qualified nature guides / game rangers.

and businessmen and women!

by Mr Fishpaste Mon 25 Nov 2013, 5:13 am

Scratch wrote:
MMaaxx wrote:http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2013-11-19-in-defence-of-a-lion-killer/#.Uo-xUpkgHCQ

This article sums things up well.

My family own a couple of hunting farms in the Northern Cape. They are all genuine nature lovers, qualified ecologists, qualified nature guides / game rangers.

and businessmen and women!

And if hunting wasn't such big business, all the private game reserves would close down and the parks would be turned into cattle farms. And what would happen to the wild animals then? Also, you know what kills a lot more wild animals than Bachmann: A cattle farmer whose cattle are being attacked by leopard, cheetah, jackal etc, or a crop farmer whose crop is being munched by antelope....

by **Biltong** Mon 25 Nov 2013, 5:56 am

You are wasting your tie Mr Fishpaste, it is easy to sit on the other side of the fence when you don't have the numbers and species of wild animals we have in Africa and judge.

Had those who judged us the same situation the same thing would have happened in their countries.

by Scratch Mon 25 Nov 2013, 6:21 am

Personally i have seen the other side of the fence and i have no issue with hunting for food. I abhor righteous folk who eat meat and whine about hunting.

I do have a concern with hiding behind culture when analyzing what is plainly big business, even a little scrutiny of the industry reveals it to be just that, a new and very profitable business.

And trophy hunters, whether the animal is 'bred' for it or not, need shooting.

by **Biltong** Mon 25 Nov 2013, 7:47 am

Scratch, I am not hiding behind culture, I am telling how it is, we have hunted for food as a civilisation for hundreds if not thousands of years.

As a nation there is a significant number of people who enjoy hunting as a sport, the fact is the principle of the meat being eaten hasn't changed.

The difference in modern day SA is that wild animals don't roam freely around anymore, there are conservations such as Kruger National park, and then there are game farms for hunting.

I myself have never shot an animal, but I love going on a hunting trip, go out with a guide and walking for hours in the bush and experience nature as it was intended.

These game farms are massive, and although there might be cases where the animal has no sporting chance being couped up, I can tell you hunting a wild animal is not straight forward.

I was once on a hunting trip where a Blue Wildebeest was grazed, we chased after the animal for 2 days before finding it.

It is not target shooting, I can tell you that.

by Nachos Jones Mon 25 Nov 2013, 7:57 am

A mate of mines father is a professional culler of animals in SA. He is not a fan of game hunting for trophy's and does not like to be classed as a game hunter at all. Its simply his job. He also said that there is massive amounts of calculations involved before deciding what has to be culled and how many so as to not impact the environment.

What people don't quite understand is that even though these animals are culled, they are not usually just left where they are killed. Most go to people for food or to the feeding of animals on game parks where there is not much wild animals running around for other predators to hunt naturally due to mans interference.

Its not my place to judge or make any comment because I am not in that country and don't really know exactly what goes on, I am just voicing what my mates dad told me once.

by Cyril Mon 25 Nov 2013, 8:24 am

I can understand hunting/culling etc within a controlled environment, but what's the deal in posing for a photo with a slain animal that you've just shot with a high-powered rifle from 200 yards away?

If a human had a fair fight with a polar bear and won I could just about agree he/she deserves a photo.

by **Biltong** Mon 25 Nov 2013, 9:17 am

The photo is a bit odd, but I think it is a case of each to his own.

Agree if you have some right of passage and take an African Lion down as proof of your manhood for your tribe there is a significantly more important aspect to it than posing for a photo because you shot an animal.

The point here is most likely in judgement of the arrogance, rather than the act of hunting.

by offload Mon 25 Nov 2013, 10:45 am

I don't like what I'm looking at but neither will I judge. Pride is an unpredictable emotion and often short sighted. I have photographs of myself from the past that today make less comfortable viewing. Most of us learn as we go through life.

by lostinwales Mon 25 Nov 2013, 11:42 am

Short term losses for long term gains.

I went to a talk by Ray Mears the other day where he addressed this very problem. When it comes down to it game parks/hunters need a healthy valid population in order to maintain their business. They also know a great deal about the animals they hunt. Surely its much more important to get these people on board and talking to the conservationists rather than making them out to be some kind of pariahs. You do that and you could end up with even more poaching than exists now - which must be much more of a danger long term.

Put it this way hunters are easy targets for condemnation, but we would do a lot more for long term conservation by persuading the chinese that eating bits of rare animals wont actually boost anything.

by Scratch Mon 25 Nov 2013, 4:07 pm

Biltong wrote:Scratch, I am not hiding behind culture, I am telling how it is, we have hunted for food as a civilisation for hundreds if not thousands of years.

As a nation there is a significant number of people who enjoy hunting as a sport, the fact is the principle of the meat being eaten hasn't changed.

The difference in modern day SA is that wild animals don't roam freely around anymore, there are conservations such as Kruger National park, and then there are game farms for hunting.

I myself have never shot an animal, but I love going on a hunting trip, go out with a guide and walking for hours in the bush and experience nature as it was intended.

These game farms are massive, and although there might be cases where the animal has no sporting chance being couped up, I can tell you hunting a wild animal is not straight forward.

I was once on a hunting trip where a Blue Wildebeest was grazed, we chased after the animal for 2 days before finding it.

It is not target shooting, I can tell you that.

And as i say i have no issue with hunting for food but that is not what is going on any more. Animals are now being bred to be trophy hunted in captive environment and that IMO is a very different proposition to hunting for food

i have hunted twice in SA, and shot an animal. I have also gone on safari in Sabi and the Kruger. One of the hunts was with a friend who was setting up a game farm and wanted to try the idea out on my friends and i during the Lions 09 tour so i do have some direct knowledge of the subject and the business behind it.

I also live in an area where bear, elk and cougar are roaming wild which i understand is not the case in SA anymore.

by **Galted** Mon 25 Nov 2013, 5:22 pm

Scratch wrote:

I also live in an area where bear, elk and cougar are roaming wild which i understand is not the case in SA anymore.

Don't think that was ever the case, mate. Wink

by offload Mon 25 Nov 2013, 5:28 pm

Galted wrote:
Scratch wrote:

I also live in an area where bear, elk and cougar are roaming wild which i understand is not the case in SA anymore.

Don't think that was ever the case, mate.

Maybe right for bear and elk - but there are definately cougars in SA. I still have the scars! Wink

by **Galted** Mon 25 Nov 2013, 5:36 pm

offload wrote:
Galted wrote:
Scratch wrote:

I also live in an area where bear, elk and cougar are roaming wild which i understand is not the case in SA anymore.

Don't think that was ever the case, mate.
Maybe right for bear and elk - but there are definately cougars in SA. I still have the scars!

mine were mental scars inflicted by hippo variants.

by doctor_grey Mon 25 Nov 2013, 10:11 pm

Folks,
I avoided the thread because it seemed a place where emotions would run. But having read this, I am mistaken and it is a credit to everyone that disagreements and opinions were shared in a respectful manner. It is threads like this which is why I like and enjoy the people on 606v2. Some day if we have the chance or good luck to meet, the first one is on me.

There are really so many points here that it is hard to comment. I don't hunt and I really, really don't like guns. But I have friends who do hunt and I suppose it is something not for me.

I also understand how hunting to certain limits does keep animal herd populations at manageable levels. Overpopulation leading to more unfortunate contact with people and eventual starving of the populations. Living here in northern New Jersey, it is extremely rare for a week to go by without seeing a deer corpse on the side of the road. Everyone here has either has hit a deer or knows someone who has. Deer hunts help reduce the number of deer in more populated areas. We also have brown/black bear. Don't see them so much, maybe a half-dozen to a dozen times per year, but overpopulation drives them to more populated areas and more danger of accidents. So I get the need for hunting, but as I said, just not for me. I can only imagine how living in areas where there is more contact with more different species could lead to more problems.

I do like the Darwinian aspect of hunting animals armed with only with nature's own gifts and not with man-made weapons. Probably the only type of hunting appropriate for people like Bachman and Palin. Idiots and somewhat dangerous ones at that.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 25 Nov 2013, 10:48 pm

belovedfrosties wrote:Being a conservation biologist i would just like to point out a few things.

Hunting to control populations is only necessary when there has already been human intervention. In a natural environment the population levels of all species finds it own dynamic balance as there are only sufficient resources (the carrying capacity) to maintain a certain number of each species. Biltongs example of killing antelopes to stop them eating all the vegetation is accurate up to a point. What will normally happen is that antelope may find extra plants to eat (due to increased rainfall or whatever factor). Their population would explode because they have an abundance of food, this means that they need to find more plants to eat which in theory would endanger the plant species. However at the same time as this, there is now an abundance of antelopes available for predator species, these species then explode as well and need to eat more antelope to survive, driving down the antelope population. This then removes the threat to the plants that they eat allowing them to recover. At the same time the now lack of antelope (due to the over-hunting by the lions) causes the lion population to crash allowing the antelope population to recover, followed by the lion population as their food source increases.

Where management is needed (eg the hunting of boars in eastern europe, or the culling of deer in scotland) is due to man removing the climax predator, in both of those examples its the wolf. If you have all key species in an environment (or nature park) they will manage themselves, its mans interference that screws it all up.

Re the photo, that's a plains zebra and couldn't be further from endangered. I'm not particularly fond of hunting, but you do have to be pragmatic in these situations. Nature parks don't make much money and they need huge amounts of upkeep and man power. If letting some rich person kill a common as muck animal for a big profit then its an acceptable evil in my book. Though I do find that Melissa Bachmann an abhorrent human being.

To be fair, springbok props are hardly an endangered species either. Should we hunt them?

by lostinwales Tue 26 Nov 2013, 11:03 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:...To be fair, springbok props are hardly an endangered species either. Should we hunt them?

Well they are frequently hunted, but captured rather than killed so that they can be introduced into areas where the traditional populations have diminished

by belovedfrosties Tue 26 Nov 2013, 11:02 pm

doctor_grey wrote:Folks,
I avoided the thread because it seemed a place where emotions would run. But having read this, I am mistaken and it is a credit to everyone that disagreements and opinions were shared in a respectful manner. It is threads like this which is why I like and enjoy the people on 606v2. Some day if we have the chance or good luck to meet, the first one is on me.

There are really so many points here that it is hard to comment. I don't hunt and I really, really don't like guns. But I have friends who do hunt and I suppose it is something not for me.

I also understand how hunting to certain limits does keep animal herd populations at manageable levels. Overpopulation leading to more unfortunate contact with people and eventual starving of the populations. Living here in northern New Jersey, it is extremely rare for a week to go by without seeing a deer corpse on the side of the road. Everyone here has either has hit a deer or knows someone who has. Deer hunts help reduce the number of deer in more populated areas. We also have brown/black bear. Don't see them so much, maybe a half-dozen to a dozen times per year, but overpopulation drives them to more populated areas and more danger of accidents. So I get the need for hunting, but as I said, just not for me. I can only imagine how living in areas where there is more contact with more different species could lead to more problems.

I do like the Darwinian aspect of hunting animals armed with only with nature's own gifts and not with man-made weapons. Probably the only type of hunting appropriate for people like Bachman and Palin. Idiots and somewhat dangerous ones at that.

Again, some valid points in this but the key point is that no animals will ever become overpopulated (and stay that way) in an ecosystem without human interference. The high numbers of deer that need to be culled are normally due to the human population killing native predators (like wolves) due to the claim that they kill livestock. FYI, they don't, there have been numerous studies that show that livestock losses are negligible and easily covered by the farmers insurance and that if the predators main prey species is in reasonable supply they will ignore other species. I highly doubt that the bear species is overpopulated (i could be wrong, but it is very rarely the case), whats more likely is local habitat destruction/degradation/hunting has removed their main food source so they have had to leave their normal habitat to find food and wandered into town where there is an abundance of leftovers. This is why you often see them scavenging around rubbish sites, food is just so much easier to find there than in the wild.

This reminds me of a story i once heard about a women in Montana (i think) who was concerned for the wild horse population. She explained how every year there wasn't enough food for the population so she and others would have to go and put food out there so they wouldn't starve to death. This had gone on for years until the population had become so large as to be unmanageable. Her solution to this was to find a predator that would kill horses. So she looked around the world for other members of the equine family and what ate them and stumbled across zebra and had her eureka moment. Yes, this woman wanted to introduce a LION population into Montana to control the horse population that would have controlled itself, had it not been for this fool of a woman feeding them every year.

Nature has done a remarkable job of managing itself for millions of years, it's man that screws it up and we should leave nature to nature as much as we can, wherever we can.

by Sponsored content