Hunting vs. Endangered Hunting

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.

By this logic we should start hunting humans...aren't we the most destructive animals of all? We destroy much more of the enviroment than any other animal on the planet and push all the other species around as we please. Just playing devils advocate...

That actually might be a good sport. Have you ever read "The Most Dangerous Game"?

Ahem, my husband's former boss owns a company that produces gun holsters. He is a world renowned shooter. He has done endangered species hunting. He has also gone out with the game wardens in South Africa and hunted the poachers, and I do mean that literally.

Right now, in America, about 2% of the population is in the agriculture industry.
They can keep eating.
The other 98% of us (myself included) are kinda screwed.

Yep.

I lived in Houston when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast. After Rita, it was 2 weeks before the grocery stores were fully stocked again, and people were breaking into homes to steal FOOD. This is no joke. People will do crazy things when they feel like their ability to maintain their current quality of life is threatened. That's nothing compared to what would happen if people's actual survival were threatened.

It's easy to sit on the throne of moral absolutism and act like you're better than hunters when you can drive to Whole Foods and buy a rotisserie chicken. It's not so funny when there's no chicken left and you don't know where your next meal is coming from.

And that's why I'll be hauling *kitten* to the mountains if/when I survive some catastrophic event. Get away from the crazies who no longer know how to survive without society.... :laugh:

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.

By this logic we should start hunting humans...aren't we the most destructive animals of all? We destroy much more of the enviroment than any other animal on the planet and push all the other species around as we please. Just playing devils advocate...

That actually might be a good sport. Have you ever read "The Most Dangerous Game"?

Ahem, my husband's former boss owns a company that produces gun holsters. He is a world renowned shooter. He has done endangered species hunting. He has also gone out with the game wardens in South Africa and hunted the poachers, and I do mean that literally.

Well, that's one way to handle the problem.

I do have a problem with hunting endangered animals. Or damaging sensitive habitats through encroachment, overexploitation, etc. Those could prove to be useful in many ways, irrespective of your ethical stance.

I have no problem with hunting in general. Or fishing. Or farming. I eat meat, I eat vegetables. I consider human an omnivore. I do think there is a case for rational use of resources, so I don't support much factory farming (I eat little meat, mostly free-range except for some chickens). Just on account of environmental damage. I also try to eat fish from sustainable sources.

Hunting is not a sport, though. Neither is farming. Neither is darts or snooker (even if ESPN shows it). There is no real "contest" or competition in hunting (or bullfighting) and we all know who the loser will be, barring catastrophic accident. Yes, it might be exciting and exhilarating. So is crossing the highway.

I am a hunter myself, but I eat everything (yes, EVERYTHING!! - since I don't eat coyote or bobcat, I don't hunt them) I kill when I hunt. Also, I sometimes kill animals for protection (usually insects) or accidentally while driving. I do not hunt rare, endangered, threatened, etc. animals (I'm not saying she is, but it doesn't explain what sub-species of elephant she is hunting so we don't really know).

With that said, I don't support what this girl is doing. She is going out dressed up and with make-up (did you not see her pics?) with a camera crew, and killing animals for the fun of it. Some will argue that she is feeding people. Some will say that she is contributing to research. The fact that she brought a camera crews proves her real motivation: she wants attention and popularity. I do not believe for a second that, if she were to have to go out in the real wilderness (not a game preserve with all the animals fenced into the area), without a gun or bow, she could survive very long. She is not a true outdoorswoman who wants to be a part of nature; she is a wealthy Texan with a bloodlust too big even for Texas.

I am a hunter myself, but I eat everything (yes, EVERYTHING!! - since I don't eat coyote or bobcat, I don't hunt them) I kill when I hunt. Also, I sometimes kill animals for protection (usually insects) or accidentally while driving. I do not hunt rare, endangered, threatened, etc. animals (I'm not saying she is, but it doesn't explain what sub-species of elephant she is hunting so we don't really know).

With that said, I don't support what this girl is doing. She is going out dressed up and with make-up (did you not see her pics?) with a camera crew, and killing animals for the fun of it. Some will argue that she is feeding people. Some will say that she is contributing to research. The fact that she brought a camera crews proves her real motivation: she wants attention and popularity. I do not believe for a second that, if she were to have to go out in the real wilderness (not a game preserve with all the animals fenced into the area), without a gun or bow, she could survive very long. She is not a true outdoorswoman who wants to be a part of nature; she is a wealthy Texan with a bloodlust too big even for Texas.

she is a professional hunter....that is what they do....bring TV cameras for the show, articles etc

South Africa particularly has lots of 'reserves'''.IE afew hectares of land where they house lions, elephants etc etc....Lions are bred there, and volunteers pay large amounts of money to go and help 'conservation'...they hand feed the lion cubs who are taken away from their mothers at afew days old..so that the mothers will breed some more..Just like the dog breeding centres...
When the lions are too big for petting, they are sold off to 'canned hunting' reserves..
This again is a reserve of afew hectares..and is fenced so the animals can't escape...
It is in these places that many of these big brave HUNTERS go to get there 'trophies''''
Is it sport??? Is it hell !!!!
The animals are used to human contact so are not afraid of humans at all..In addition some are drugged to make it an easier shot....
Anyone who has been to the Serengetti in Tanzania will have seen prides of lions lying under trees not in the least bit afraid of humans because there have been millions through there every year...When I was there a couple of cheetahs moved amongst the 12 jeeps that had lined up to see them..lions pass in front afew feet from you..It is absolutely bloody fantastic to see them...but how anyone shoot them is beyond my comprehension.
The Kendall girl is trying to make a name for herself on American TV....and had a camera crew following her when she shot those animals..
Sport? Hunting? Don't make me laugh....
Like shooting ducks in a barrell.....
Cruel and unusual punishment for these animals...Sentent beings that have families, hearts and emotions just like humans....
and don't let them kid you that the villagers benefit from anything...the major bulk of money goes to the safari organiser which generally isn't even African...
Sick people do sick things..and these are the worst!

can you link me to all the studies on this? I'm really interested in this topic, usually in relation to humans, human ancestors and species that are closely related to humans but I'm also interested in the topic generally. I've not seen any specific studies in sentience on apes, just a whole lot on language and other aspects of cognition. I've seen scientific discussions on the question of awareness of life and death - mostly related to archaeological evidence for deliberate burial and ritual disposal of the dead in early human species.... and chimpanzees and bonobos grieve for dead loved ones (some real tearjerker clips on you tube of mother chimpanzees and bonobos parting with dead infants ) and recognise each other as individuals (I think most higher primates recognise each other as individuals).... but nothing specific on sentience that I can recall (maybe it was covered at uni and I forgot about it..)

anyway I'm genuinely curious about this (I know stuff gets misconstrued on the internet and usually people ask for research papers to make someone prove a point when debating, but I'm really just very curious and not trying to argue at all)

LOL, I'm a few years out of my graduate studies as well and this isn't my specific field, not to mention I don't have direct access to the journals the way I did when I was still at UCLA but here's what I've been able to dig up over my lunch break:

This one seems especially apropos to the discussion of the use of domesticated animals but I can't claim to be familiar with the journal it is published in:
http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(09)00039-2/abstract?cc=y=?cc=y=

The abstract on this one cracks me up, wish I still got this journal. We can't even agree on what constitutes "behavior" so trying to establish a working definition for sentience is problematic to say the least. I tend to stick with the mirror test but....

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347209001730
Behavioural biologists do not agree on what constitutes behaviour
Animal Behaviour, Volume 78, Issue 1, July 2009, Pages 103-110

And crap, this one came out since I left school, Nooooooo!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347209003571
Pigs learn what a mirror image represents and use it to obtain information
Animal Behaviour, Volume 78, Issue 5, November 2009, Pages 1037-1041

I can't get full text on these from here, but if you know how clue me in because I want to read them myself, but Animal Behavior is one of the leading journals for this field so they should be good.

thanks that's really interesting

I don't know how to get the full text either... I'm forever looking at abstracts.... it depends on the journal, some make the full text available after a certain amount of time has passed. but for the newer studies, I don't think you can without a subscription or being in a computer suite of a university that has a subscription for student access to the journals

Gah! I was hoping you would know how. My recall (keeping in mind that I'm now pulling strait from my butt with no sources to back this up...) is that the most standard test for establishing sentience is the animal's ability to recognize itself and it's surroundings in a mirror. Based on what I can remember, this ability has been established in most of the great apes, dolphins (probably most toothed whales although I don't know how you'd test sperm whales), elephants, I believe some species of octopus, and it looks like possibly now pigs (but but but bacon :sad: :sad:).

I found this on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

theory of mind is an interesting one that I remember studying at university, i.e. understanding that other individuals don't know the same things you know - the evidence for this comes from animals exploiting this knowledge to deceive others. Baboons have a theory of mind, and are deceitful... e.g. hiding food from other baboons, mating in secret - this is done in ways that show that they understand that another animal doesn't see the same view of the world as they do, e.g. subordinate males hiding behind things to mate with females (the alpha doesn't let them do this, so they do it where the alpha can't see them)... stuff like that. There's less on that in non-humans on wikipedia, but there is a little: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind