Hunting vs. Endangered Hunting

I'm not a hunter or particularly eco conscious, so I have no opinion other than "I'd hit that."

there are no cons to hunting. im not a hunter, but i say hunt away and the whole endangered list is such a stupid thing anyway. Endangered lists is causing the entire drought in california.

wut?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204619004574318621482123090

I don't really understand trophy hunting.

Good job - you murdered an animal to decorate your home. You're so cool.

Hunting for food, and population control, I have no issue with.

Even some animals such as the elephant need to be hunted in some areas. Take for example, Botswana. Elephants in that country are overpopulated, and not only destroy crops, but are deforesting the country. The elephants will come in huge herds, pushing over trees to eat the tender leaves near the top....then move on to push over more. They trample and destroy farmers' fields and villagers gardens. In these poverty stricken areas, a hunter comes in from the United States, or wherever, bringing a huge amount of money into the economy. They pay a license fee, they pay the outfitter, and the trackers, who are local. When they kill an elephant, that is usually selected specifically because of its destructive nature......they immediately pay another huge fee that goes into the local economy. (often in excess of $50,000) Then, the local people typically are allowed to skin the elephant and they use all of its flesh for food....food that they would not otherwise have. The hunter gets the trophy, the excitement of the chase, and the memories of the hunt, and the environment and the local economy is boosted because of it.

Very true.

I am an avid hunter but have not hunted anything really "novel" or "exotic" (I basically eat everything I kill with the exception of vermin). I would say that the hunt of such an animal would be for the purpose of excitement as well as to be able to put yourself in an environment or ecoscape that is completely different from the one you are familiar with. Most of the people that I know go on such hunts to get themselves a prize more than a viable prey.

It is a theoretical "next level" to the hobby.

PREACH!

Well I'm from the UK so my opinion will be dictated by my experiences in our way of life, our laws and our morals. Is the species threatening human life? Is it spreading diseases? Is it endangering other species (see american grey squirrel killing off Red Squirrels)? Is it threatening city essential structures? Is it for food that cannot be farmed safely? Is it done humanely?

If it doesn't meet the above then no "hunting" for me.
Again by my country's experiences, laws and morals. No judgement on other countries.

I've never hunted myself but know several people who do and have enjoyed the spoils of their success (mmm wild hare). Mostly I believe in hunting in the more traditional sense where one hunts for the food and resources they need. If you kill an animal it should be because you need to feed yourself and/or your family and maybe even to produce products that you can use or sell (hides, etc). These days most hunt within the confines of the law which provides population control.

Hunting purely for sport, especially when it involves endangered species, makes absolutely no sense to me.

I am an avid hunter. I eat everything I kill except coyote. I don't really have an issue with this, I guess for myself I wouldn't kill an animal unless I see the value in it (food or to help reduce population). What I don't like about these exotic hunts is most of them are on preserves where the animals are basically confined to very large areas but ultimately can't get out. That really isn't hunting to me. To each there own, it's not for me but I also understand the rush and thrill of it.

I am a hunter. I was raised on processing the kills made by my parents. I've been butchering deer since I was old enough to hold a knife without cutting myself. I didn't start pulling the trigger until I was around 23. The only pride I take in hunting is in a swift kill via a great shot and being able to provide food for my family and friends. I take no joy in killing an animal and we only kill for food.

I personally don't understand killing for a trophy. I do participate in a deer depopulation program for an area that is severely over populated with deer. The benefits of reducing the deer population are numerous. Namely though it helps reduce the number of cases of lymes disease, it keeps our forest ecosystems from being as damaged by "deer browse", and it keeps the remaining deer healthier because they don't have to complete as much for food. Programs like these also give kills to "Hunters for the Hungry" which provides venison to feed the homeless.

I personally won't ever shoot for a trophy.

I am not a hunter, but have no issue with it in general when it is done as part of a responsible population management system. I do, however, find it interesting that Ernest Hemingway was uncomfortable hunting Elephants specifically because of his perception of their intelligence, and I would trust him to be something of an expert on big game hunting. From the perspective of the sciences, he was ahead of his time on this.

Elephants are one of the few species most behaviorists acknowledge as having very advanced intelligence, likely signaling being self aware. In other words, there is evidence they mourn the loss of their family and are aware of what is happening to them at an individual level. There is advanced communication between individuals including subsonic signalling used to communicate through vibrations sent through the ground over vast distances that wasn't even discovered until very recently. To me, the killing of species at that level of intelligence creates an added level of ethical dilemma well beyond the general consideration of endangered species status.

Cows have been shown to morn. And pigs are known to be one of the smartest animals...

I guess they must be tastier to most people than general ethics.

I just fish and shoot vermin.

Most of the time I release the fish I catch. Occasionally I harvest within legal limits (on public waters) or harvest for the sake of management if it's my own pond.

I am not a hunter, but have no issue with it in general when it is done as part of a responsible population management system. I do, however, find it interesting that Ernest Hemingway was uncomfortable hunting Elephants specifically because of his perception of their intelligence, and I would trust him to be something of an expert on big game hunting. From the perspective of the sciences, he was ahead of his time on this.

Elephants are one of the few species most behaviorists acknowledge as having very advanced intelligence, likely signaling being self aware. In other words, there is evidence they mourn the loss of their family and are aware of what is happening to them at an individual level. There is advanced communication between individuals including subsonic signalling used to communicate through vibrations sent through the ground over vast distances that wasn't even discovered until very recently. To me, the killing of species at that level of intelligence creates an added level of ethical dilemma well beyond the general consideration of endangered species status.

Cows have been shown to morn. And pigs are known to be one of the smartest animals...

I guess they must be tastier to most people than general ethics.

Pigs are borderline on intelligence, they're definitely more intelligent than your dog, but don't come close on sentience scales. Cows, nope. And both of those species are in absolutely no danger of extinction due to the fact that they have been domesticated. Pigs probably could survive on their own without human intervention, cows would probably be in trouble. So no matter how you want to break it down, cows and pigs represent and entirely different set of circumstances than the hunting of wild elephants.

hunt for food , BTDT would do it again in a heartbeat . trophy hunting is just wrong, period. there is no way around it , you hunt to eat and feed your family, if youre not gonna eat the dang elephant then why hunt it . and if its not close to hoome, then no matter what, in my opinion its "sport hunting"
if it takes more than a tank of gas to get to my special hunting spot, the i am saving NO money at all by hunting...
But then I am a bow hunter and have in the past particiaped in in city limits special hunts to control deer overpopulation. all animals taken were donated to the food pantry.

Even some animals such as the elephant need to be hunted in some areas. Take for example, Botswana. Elephants in that country are overpopulated, and not only destroy crops, but are deforesting the country. The elephants will come in huge herds, pushing over trees to eat the tender leaves near the top....then move on to push over more. They trample and destroy farmers' fields and villagers gardens. In these poverty stricken areas, a hunter comes in from the United States, or wherever, bringing a huge amount of money into the economy. They pay a license fee, they pay the outfitter, and the trackers, who are local. When they kill an elephant, that is usually selected specifically because of its destructive nature......they immediately pay another huge fee that goes into the local economy. (often in excess of $50,000) Then, the local people typically are allowed to skin the elephant and they use all of its flesh for food....food that they would not otherwise have. The hunter gets the trophy, the excitement of the chase, and the memories of the hunt, and the environment and the local economy is boosted because of it.

While I think it would be better to at least try to relocate some of the really threatened species (ie - White Rhino), I agree with the above overall, and don't have enough information to know whether they tried such measures before calling in hunters in her cases to judge.

My stepdad actually does this with beaver in the area he lives in (the game commission and local residents contact him about trapping beavers that are being too destructive, and he goes and traps them and sells the fur), and Pennsylvania recently (as in, about a decade ago) opened licensing for bobcat hunting. It's actually quite regulated and restricted.

If you look through the responses in her Facebook page, there's actually several mentions of her and other hunters basically being wildlife control to keep the animals from destroying the local ecosystem. As a side effect, the local communities get the animals the hunters kill, which gives them much-needed foot and supplies that they my not have otherwise had.

I think that if Kendall really cares about the service she's providing (and not just the hunt for the sake of it), I think she should help educate people on these types of measures. Put more explanations about why she was licensed to kill the given animal and how it actually helps the local populations of both the animal's species and humans.

there are no cons to hunting. im not a hunter, but i say hunt away and the whole endangered list is such a stupid thing anyway. Endangered lists is causing the entire drought in california.

dafuq?