Trophy/Big Game Hunting. Killing animals for fun.

[some guy 10]

I love killing insects. I have one of those electric tennis racket things. It's so fun getting a big fat fly stuck to one of them and watching it spark and smoke

[L00b 441]

http://ocpausa.org/hunting.htm

This article casts grave doubt on your argument that paying trophy hunters are strictly regulated and do more good than harm.

Here are a couple of -I'd like to think- somewhat less biased and better-researched articles on the very subject:

 

article 1

 

article 2

 

Which readily acknowledge the problem of corruption (it's Africa, for God's sake...who is kidding who, here? ), yet equally measure the current benefits of this form of eco-tourism, and recommend continuation, albeit more strictly controlled. Nothing surprising there, then. Save as to the obvious few exceptions that will confirm the rule, my argument stands (seems fair, since you are broad-brushing yourself )

 

Oh, btw-

This article casts grave doubt on your argument that paying trophy hunters are strictly regulated and do more good than harm.

Where did I say that?

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that there is something wrong with people who want to kill wild animals for pleasure.

You need to define 'pleasure'. Do you mean this generally as a form of leisure, or more pointedly as a form of pathos? Edited November 6, 2011 by L00b

[donkey 10]

 

Which readily acknowledge the problem of corruption (it's Africa, for God's sake...who is kidding who, here? ),

 

 

You have changed your tune somewhat. You gave the impression earlier that you believe tourist trophy hunting is a fantastic aid to conservation from which everyone is a winner. Yet - at the drop of a hat - you readily admit it is plagued by corruption, with the obvious compromising effect this has has on it's intended purpose.

 

yet equally measure the current benefits of this form of eco-tourism, and recommend continuation, albeit more strictly controlled. Nothing surprising there, then. Save as to the obvious few exceptions that will confirm the rule, my argument stands (seems fair, since you are broad-brushing yourself )

 

 

I don't see where you have demonstrated a measure of anything. How is it you have proved your assertion that paying trophy hunters are, on the whole, beneficial to wildlife and ecology?

 

 

 

This article casts grave doubt on your argument that paying trophy hunters are strictly regulated

 

 

Oh, btw-

Where did I say that?

 

 

How would you even know what the effects were unless it was monitored and controlled?

I'm becoming increasingly mystified as to the logic of your argument. You didn't say it directly but it is self evident that if you asserting paying trophy hunters help maintain the eco balance in game reserves, it could only be as part of a strictly regulated scheme.

 

Otherwise what you are asserting is that even if they let these people shoot animals willy nilly, the effects on conservation will still turn out to be beneficial?

 

 

You need to define 'pleasure'. Do you mean this generally as a form of leisure, or more pointedly as a form of pathos?

 

No I don't (need to define pleasure). You are retreating into lawyerish style semantics here, which I always take as a sure sign that someone is arguing a cause which they don't really believe in.

Edited November 7, 2011 by donkey

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

I think it would be fair to say some posters on this subject are posting with little or no knowledge of the subject in hand. Letting emotion over rule common sense.

 

The clue is in the Avatar.

 

Regards

 

Angel

[0742Sheff 10]

If you really feel that strongly, have you not thought about going and shooting some of the anglers in Crookes Valley Park?

 

Why would he want to shoot a course fisherman?

[Murphy Jnr 10]

Why would he want to shoot a course fisherman?

 

Presumably it should follow that if you're against animal sports then all should be included.....

[L00b 441]

You don't half-do hyperbole, donkey, do you?

You have changed your tune somewhat.

I have not.

You gave the impression earlier that you believe tourist trophy hunting is a fantastic aid to conservation from which everyone is a winner. Yet - at the drop of a hat - you readily admit it is plagued by corruption, with the obvious compromising effect this has has on it's intended purpose.

I did not. You are continually interpreting or 'second-guessing' my posts and putting words in my mouth, to make my opinion sound more extreme than it is, using words like 'fantastic', 'strictly', 'at the drop of a hat', etc. I already queried you about it in my previous post, apparently to no effect

I don't see where you have demonstrated a measure of anything. How is it you have proved your assertion that paying trophy hunters are, on the whole, beneficial to wildlife and ecology?

It's not me who has demonstrated (or, for that matter, who has to demonstrate anything - it's you who is continually interpreting my posts and putting words in my mouth), the researchers in the articles have. Read the articles I linked.

How would you even know what the effects were unless it was monitored and controlled?

How would you? I have been told what effects were witnessed by people who have done it, whom I have known for nearly 40 years now and have no reason to doubt. The researchers in the above articles by and large confirm these effects, with a measure of caution. It makes for a -my- balanced opinion, not the extreme/entrenched opinion you are falsely lending me.

I'm becoming increasingly mystified as to the logic of your argument. You didn't say it directly but it is self evident that if you asserting paying trophy hunters help maintain the eco balance in game reserves, it could only be as part of a strictly regulated scheme.

That's your (argumentative) interpretation. I'm limiting myself to a reasoned, balanced opinion (since I haven't been myself, don't know all the ins and outs, only what I have been told by people who actually do it).

Otherwise what you are asserting is that even if they let these people shoot animals willy nilly, the effects on conservation will still turn out to be beneficial?

Thats is not the case at all, and this argument borders into strawman territory. Again, you are interpreting -quite misleadingly, as well- my post.

No I don't (need to define pleasure). You are retreating into lawyerish style semantics here, which I always take as a sure sign that someone is arguing a cause which they don't really believe in.

Not at all. It's a genuine question. Stop interpreting or 'second-guessing' my posts and we might get somewhere. Edited November 7, 2011 by L00b

[Conrod 10]

A late reminder that the red and roe stag seasons both finished on 20th October, so the best shooting is red hinds now until February.

 

The freezer's almost out of venison so must nip back up for a weekend.

[Conrod 10]

I disagree with that. I can happily judge a man that enjoys bloodsport. I don't see it as morally equivalent to eating meat.

 

We try, although somewhat unsuccesfully, to make an animal's life pleasant enough in farming to justify its death. To create suffering just for our own entertainment is wrong. Dog fighting, hunting, captive bears who are beaten into dancing for crowds; they are all acts of severe cruelty.

As most hunters would agree, but what makes you think that anybody is seeking to inflict suffering when they hunt?

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

but what makes you think that anybody is seeking to inflict suffering when they hunt?

It depends on context, mostly. Fox hunting is a prime example, in that it creates suffering. This is especially true if the fox goes under ground and terriers do "groundwork", as it is euphemistically called.

 

In the context of shooting an elephant for sport then I can't say the elephant suffered, but the morality of killing it is still wrong. In the context of the wild boar in France that L00b mentioned, then if there is a reason to cull then the morality is different.

[Conrod 10]

It depends on context, mostly. Fox hunting is a prime example, in that it creates suffering. This is especially true if the fox goes under ground and terriers do "groundwork", as it is euphemistically called.

 

In the context of shooting an elephant for sport then I can't say the elephant suffered, but the morality of killing it is still wrong. In the context of the wild boar in France that L00b mentioned, then if there is a reason to cull then the morality is different.

I was under the impression that all elephant shooting in Africa was limited to culling anyway - in some areas culls are still (sadly) required, and when that's the case it makes sense for the region to profit from fee-paying trophy hunters being involved.

[MrSmith 10]

It depends on context, mostly. Fox hunting is a prime example, in that it creates suffering. This is especially true if the fox goes under ground and terriers do "groundwork", as it is euphemistically called.

 

In the context of shooting an elephant for sport then I can't say the elephant suffered, but the morality of killing it is still wrong. In the context of the wild boar in France that L00b mentioned, then if there is a reason to cull then the morality is different.

 

The shooting of elephants is for those individual that are poor shots; they don't want the challenge of shooting a rat from a thousand meters, so they pick on something really big so as not to miss.