What's worse


Mar 22nd, 2006, 03:51 PM
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 64
I've never been a fan of hunting ( Canned or otherwise). I don't think I can change my views on that. But thats how I have been brought up I guess.

While we are on this subject, I think this article ( see below for link) at -- lionresearch.org can shed more light on the subject. Wanted to share this with all of you. The website has a huge database of research articles.

Sustainable Trophy Hunting of African Lions (2004) (Whitman, Starfield, Quadling, Packer)
-- http://www.lionresearch.org/current_docs/20.pdf

serengeti is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 22nd, 2006, 04:10 PM
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,087
Too much reading for this hour to wade through those referral sights. None the less I posed the question and no-one seems able to justify either real lion shooting vs canned hunting.

my argument was that canned had less impact on the environment, speaking specifically of Lion. Perhaps we can trace the revenue stream and if the animal eventually shot was purchased iniitially from a game reserve and the funds went back into the reserve, in a bizzare twist this could justify it more so that say a commercial hunt in a national park where the funds generated lined a beaurocrats pocket???

I throw it out there again...

BTW: My stance on the subject is I disagree with hunting of animals as well as humans, but the later seems irrelevant as this is justified in the promotion of biblical belief and or democracy etc....! Sorry I am anti the world today.
mkhonzo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 22nd, 2006, 04:43 PM
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553

Although I do not profess to be an expert on hunting issues, I do know that many purist hunters believe in what is called a "fair chase." At least in an unfenced area, the animals have a shot at survival, ensuring the survival of the fittest.

Canned hunts, however, engage is some despicable practices, including drugging the animals, and the animals have absolutely zero percent of survival. At least in hunts in unfenced areas, money is generated even when there are unsuccessful hunts.

For example, a hunter could sign up for a 15 day lion hunt. However, in those 15 days, the hunter may come across lions that are either too young or lions that the hunter deems are not trophy quality (too small, too old, not fully maned)...remember, whatever the hunter shoots, he/she pays for, and the hunter would sometimes rather go home empty-handed than to pay, perhaps, $10,000 for a less than stellar lion.

The practice of canned hunting invites many abuses, such as the actual stealing of trophy quality animals from national parks for the purposes of breeding to produce offspring for canned hunts, or the actual canned hunts of animals stolen from national parks and other wildlife conservation areas. At least if canned hunts were outlawed, animals may have free reign.

It is a pathetic statement when there are less lions roaming free in South Africa than there are caged lions! This article from National Geographic puts the "free ranging" lion population in South Africa at only 2700 while the Africa Geographic article that I mentioned claims there are 3000 lions in captivity in South Africa. To make matters worse, of those 2700 free ranging lions, I would be very surprised if 2/3 of them were not female lions and of the 1/3 male lions, if the majority of them were not cubs.

Also, it is out of context to mention hunters such as Teddy Roosevelt and Ernest Hemingway with today's trophy hunters. While I have no respect for Roosevelt or Hemingway for their own trophy hunting, their hunting came at a time when the wildlife in Africa was much more plentiful, and you can be sure that they did not participate in canned hunts.
Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 22nd, 2006, 04:47 PM
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553
Rorgot to include the National Geographic article I quoted...here it is:

Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 22nd, 2006, 04:48 PM
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 453
Hopefully Wayne can live with the picture in his mind of those minks being electrocuted by their testicles so as not to damage the precious fur. Sorry - I am anti-the world today, too.
cooncat2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 22nd, 2006, 05:05 PM
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,087
Ahhh Rocco,
We are set to dual...actually only joking....

But: Rooseveld and the others charged theior testosterone by shooting game for the sport. End of story. I have read documents, looked at pictures at the awful heap of trophys in fron to the mans feet. His hunting prowess did not impress me. I bet he never carried a single element of any of those creatures out on his shoulders. Hemmingway, well yes his books did do some "romantisising" of Africa and I suppose have served to grow tourism to East Africa over the years and by his own accounts he wasn't as good a hunter as Rooseveld or he just didn'nt boast of his slayings.....

That all said. When you shoot a dominant lion you change the dynamic of the pride. You allow a less aggressive, maybe a less powerful, maybe a genetically floored lion to take the thrown, I guess you meddle with natures grand plan and for a while you diminish thye gene pool and ultimately the longevity of that pride. Commit the crime to enough prides and what do you have? Well I don't know the answer, but think it would not quite be the fittest surviving, but the meek taking over.

My point is is: If an animal is bred in captivity and shot in captivity by some knuckle head who wants to dress up his fireplace mantle, then that has no impact on the stautus quo and as such is justifiable.

If that knuckle head was to shoot a wild lion then one has to sit back and think about the implications and how these will effect all that is around.

much like, when a dictator is removed from power...what happens then....... Well as I said earlier I am on a hate the world downer today and so perhaps I shouldn't be posting around here for the time being.
mkhonzo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 22nd, 2006, 05:34 PM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,766

You take a very pragmatic approach to this issue, which probably makes sense. Given all the technological advantages being employed by free range hunters, they may as well be canned hunters. Furthermore at least pride dynamics are not devestated by the shooting of territorial males. So in that sense I can support canned hunting of Lions over free range. But in that case there needs to be more regulation and oversight, becuase the people raising the animlas are in it for a quick buck, and unfortunately the trophy hunting contingent appear to have lost all the fair chase ethic that is still prevelant in North American deer and pig hunting circles, and consequently will do nothing to help raise standards, just so long as they have a stuffed Lion head above their fireplace.
napamatt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:49 PM
Posts: n/a
Living here in India......have to say the days of the British rule......was initially responsible for huge losses thru trophy hunting of the tigers and leopards and this continued thru extended periods......all for sport???

Jeez, the one good thing they did give us was CRICKET!!!
Reply With Quote
Mar 23rd, 2006, 07:37 AM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,766

Care to take me through the highlights of the last test?
napamatt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 23rd, 2006, 08:24 AM
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,448
By the way, the image of the minks being electrocuted is horrible. I wonder how I wonder how Eskimos and other indigenous people killed animals to get their skins.

I am sure that all these deaths have their level of pain. I wonder how much pain a wildebeest feels when being disembowled and by wild dogs.

I know that the natural instinctual ways that aninmals hunt cannot be accurately compared to CHOICES that we humans make on things that aren't necessary, nevertheless it is a fair discussion.
waynehazle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 23rd, 2006, 12:55 PM
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,309
Hunting is very human Ė an exciting way to obtain high-energy food needed to sustain our large brains. Lots of very normal people who donít need it for survival are still hunters. But, empathy for other species is also human. If I were a meat eater Iíd feel worse eating meat from animals that had been tortured all their life in the meat industry than Iíd feel eating game meat and it appears as if the canned lion industry is as morally depraved as the worst meat industry.

Apparently wealthy people are very overrepresented among those who take up hunting without having it as a family tradition and I donít think itís only because itís sometimes an expensive hobby Ė the lack of empathy and desire to rule over life and death are definitely factors to consider. If trophy hunting isnít satisfying enough, just buy a presidency.

Minks arenít rodents. Theyíre carnivores and mustelids like otters, badgers and weasels. As theyíre very active animals, keeping them in cages is worse than electrocuting them.

Nyamera is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 23rd, 2006, 04:40 PM
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553

If you really want to be disgusted, take a look at this video, that amounts to nothing more than a snuff film. that shows what are considered "brave" hunters, who provoke the animals into charging before they slaughter them with their shotguns or rifles:


Even more disturbing than this video, however, is the fact that it likely serves as a very successful marketing tool in getting prospective hunters to sign up with this professional hunter (guide) to engage in these hunts.

It is really just so upsetting to know that hunting is such big business. What rotten part of a person's soul could get pleasure out of engaging in such activities?
Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 23rd, 2006, 04:42 PM
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553
More links:

Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 23rd, 2006, 07:32 PM
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
A few points:

1st Nyamera beat me to it that minks are in no way rodents. They are muselids, making them much closer relatives to a honey badger or a black-footed ferret, probably the most endangered mammal on the planet than a rat. BTW, poisoning rats can easily lead to poisoning other predators or scavengers. If they must be eliminated snap trapping would be a better way to ensure limiting the harm to only rats.

I have to speak out for Teddy Roosevelt as well. While he was certainly an avid hunter he was one of the first conservationists and arguably contributed more to conservation than any single other human by creating the bulk of the U.S. National Parks and public lands. He also lived in time where much of science revolved around making collections and he was part of that culture contributing specimens to museums.

To me there is no doubt humans have evolved as meat eating predators. If I was meant to be a vegetarian I'd have eyes on the side of my head. This was really confirmed for me about 2 weeks ago as I walked in the Kalahari with a couple of bushmen and learned that these people who are the direct decendants of the first modern humans subsist almost entirely on meat.

I personally have no interest in hunting and don't believe I could do it unless my life was dependent on it but I do have a freezer full of elk and deer right now from a friend who is a hunter. I cannot understand hunting any animal that will not be used for food. Eating is a need we need to fill to live, but killing simply to obtain a trophy or a sense of satisfaction is a need that I certainly don't have or come close to being able to process.

PredatorBiologist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 03:40 AM
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,087
While the US owes many of it's parks to TR (or was it actually John Muir who influenced the then President of the US) the same legacy exists in Africa, frankly I don't know how much of the Kruger would exist today if it weren't through the efforts of the hunters to save that peice of real estate.

But I do find it a strange phenomenon that these legendary hunters are revered as the quintessential conservationists. Seems just a tad ironic, shoot the game to protect it or was it protect the game to shoot it?

mkhonzo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 04:12 AM
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,922
If I remember correctly, Teddy Roosevelt's case went something like this. He was an avid trophy hunter and the turning point for him was when he was on a hunting trip and happened upon a couple of bear cubs whose mother had been killed.
Upon seeing them, Teddy realized he couldn't kill the cubs for sport and thus became a conservationist.
Hence the name Teddy Bear for the plush animals.

I've heard of this scenario a number of times, when the hunter comes to the realization that the animals are worth more alive than dead and they become conservationists.

However a hunter gets to the point of not hunting is one more step in the right direction. I only wish it would happen more frequently. And sooner rather than later.
divewop is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 05:26 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 20,129
My response is more of a question.

What kind of society/s are breeding the mind set to think that anything from stocked trout ponds, to the magnified barbaric behaviors of hunting for sport of any kind rather than hunting for food/survival are ok?

These behaviors seem to be accelerating as so called modern men are rapidly trying to manipulate our lands and wildlife into a quick fix most with devastating results.
My 2 cents;
cybor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 05:38 AM
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 859
Sherry - that was what I was trying to articulate in my original post. What drives people to do that sort of thing?

What is it in our society that has spawned this kind of behavior? What causes kids to abuse animals? Obviously we all have our thoughts and opinions about these kind of issues and we've gone off topic a bit.. HOWEVER:
It's hard to argue that there is a monumental difference between
1. indigenous peoples in the north taking a seal (of which virtually every part is used - and needed)

2. people going out to shoot a lion or polar bear or elephant, just because they can. As an aside, there was an article in my local paper a few years ago about a woman from a smaller town who was so proud of herself because she had killed a polar bear. They had a photo of it in the paper and so forth, and I just could not figure it out. It's the same question, and I ask from a sociological standpoint - what is it in some people's wiring that they would take joy in doing this?

3. People who hunt, for instance in the US for food. I have more respect for these people because they are taking responsibility in the act of killing.

4. The conventional meat industry. Don't be fooled. Even if you don't care about the animal abuse in this industry, which is rampant, surely you care about the appalling, dangerous, working conditions on the kill floor, the lax sanitation practices, the huge expenditures of water and grain to produce a small amount of meat, the poisoning of our water supply...Please read John Robbins' Food Revolution or Fast Food Nation. If you're still not convinced, come on out to Nebraska. I'll be happy to show you around.

Having said all that, I am not out to
promote a vegetarian agenda. But I would urge carnivores to be more conscientious about where you get your meat. There are people out there who feed their animals properly, raise them with care and without anti-biotics and hormones and the like, and offer a much healthier product.

With that, I'll say... please don't take offense to this. But if we truly care about this planet, there are things we, as consumers, must do. and apologies to Mkhonzo for going off topic.

Have a great weekend everyone.
cooncat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 06:29 AM
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,087
Cooncat, with the subject matter it was going to spawn many related discussions
I read fast food nation, it was a shocker and since then I have not ventured near a Micky D's.

I did however and edeliberately, avoided discussing the merits of hunter gatherers vs commercial hunting for a trophy. In my opinion these are two polar topics with one entirely justified and the other completely dubious.

I was really wanting to listen to opinions on canned vs real hunting in an attempt to come to terms with both practices. I am not sure I condone either, but given that the hunting industry is worth tremendous $$'s and as a consequence is not going to dissappear anytime soon. Was in some way trying to rationalise the canned hunt. It seems to me to have less impact on the environment as it does not appear to adversely effect exisiting wild and protected eco-systems.

I am an avid fisherman, I have a complete fascination with fish in any shape way or form, so I am mindful that I am to a degree tarnished with the same brush, but I eat my fish and release those that don't fit the pan.

Anyhow, as usual this is an interesting read and I am appreciating the perspectives as they come in, even if they go off topic.
mkhonzo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 06:49 AM
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
cooncat: great post! I would add in another dirty little secret that vegetarians must consider as well. Growing enormous fields of soy beans, etc. take large amounts of habitat away from wildlife -- while grazing has a huge impact it does not necessarily eliminate virtually all wildlife like crop agriculture does and the big secret is the amount of wildlife killed to protect the crops. I have lost the statistic but I believe it was more than 60,000 deer a year in the U.S. were eliminated to protect soy beans. A huge irony for those who have made a life choice with the goal to not harm animals. The bottom line is humans are impactful and as cooncat suggests it is best to educate yourself and try to make wise choices but it is ignorant for anyone to think that we do not all take in some way to survive.

Back to Teddy Roosevelt. His conservation ethic came from living some very tough years as a rancher in North Dakota's badlands during a drought. He realized how people could overuse the land and that there were big reprucussions to doing so. He worked to protect Yellowstone and Yosemite and other areas before becoming president. Then as President he became appalled when the Carolina parakeet became extinct and other birds were in fast decline due to women's hat fashions. He wanted to know how to prevent the travesty and began creating National Parks and public lands. According to National Geographic, the area of the United States placed under public protection by Theodore Roosevelt, as National Parks, National Forests, game and bird preserves, and other federal reservations, comes to a total of approximately 230,000,000 acres. To put that into perspective Kruger N.P. is about 800,000 acres so imagine about 280 Kruger Parks.

PredatorBiologist is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:47 AM.