What's worse

Reply

Mar 24th, 2006, 06:57 AM
  #41
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 859
Mk -Your original question was too difficult for me to answer! But lest I came across as too sanctimonious, I'll be the first to say that it's really hard to live in this world and not be a hypocrite in one way or another. I struggle with this everyday.
cooncat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 06:57 AM
  #42
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553
PredatorBiologist,

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know how many acres are set aside for protection in the USA today? (I have no clue)

It does seem as if the government or oil companies are always trying to get into the national parks or protected areas for their oil drilling activities.

As far as vegetarianism goes, I survived two years as a vegetarian, before finally waking up one morning with an insatiable desire for a Turkey Sandwich. That was the end of that.
Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 06:58 AM
  #43
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,922
I've seen footage of both a black panther and a bear in canned hunts and after seeing the brutal deaths these animals faced I cannot fathom how canned hunting is any better than trophy hunting and vice versa.
And I've seen footage of wild animals being baited into an area for the trophy hunters. I abhor both styles.

Here is an part of an excerpt from an article on canned hunting from the HSUS

Spreading Like a Disease

"From Maine to Arkansas, canned hunting operations are sprouting up all over. The HSUS estimates that there are more than 1,000 canned hunt operations in at least 28 states. They are most common in Texas, but they are found throughout the continental United States and Hawaii. Safari Club International has done its part to promote canned hunting by creating a hunting achievement award, the "Introduced Trophy Game Animals of North America," which may support the operation of canned hunts.

Isn't Safari Club International special?

For the rest of the story:

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_...nts/index.html

And tune in to the video where a ram is shot by a bow and arrow six times before being put down by a shotgun blast.
I couldn't watch the rest.
divewop is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 06:59 AM
  #44
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,766
Ian Michler's diary in the Feb 2006 Africa Geographic has some heartening news for those opposed to canned hunting. It apperas that the government minister responsible in RSA, has decided that the industry needs at the very least a major clean up, particularly in the area of breeding predators to be shot as trophies. The question is posed though, what to do with 3000 human adjusted Lions, hundreds of Cheetah, Leopard, 250 Wild Dog! and a bunch of Tigers.
napamatt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 07:15 AM
  #45
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
Rocco, current U.S. Public Lands:

504 million acres of surface land, or about one-fifth of the land in the United States, including:

261.9 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management

96 million acres managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service

84.4 million acres managed by the National Park Service

8.7 million acres managed by the Bureau of Reclamation associated with reclamation projects.

55.7 million acres managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
PredatorBiologist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 07:16 AM
  #46
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 20,129
MK,
Thank you for allowing us to get a bit off track from your OP.

The reason I asked that question about how society in general is allowing such hunting practices, is that I think that to answer your question MK or even try for possible solutions one must first know what motivates modern man and society in general to commit such unhumanitarian crimes against wildlife and good ethics.

A few of you have succintly addressed various consequences of such behaviors which does answer my question to a degree.

It doesn't however, fully address why we as a society are consciously or inadvertently promoting or allowing this behavior.

Peace;
Sherry
cybor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 07:33 AM
  #47
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
Now to MK's original issue. Ecologically I agree that the direct affects of canned hunting is much less impactful on wild populations. There is an impact from stocking the original breeding population and you can be sure there is supplemental stocking along the way (official or not). However, I believe this would have much less impact than constant hunting pressure on wild populations. There is an economic impact as well that causes a more indirect effect. Typically hunts of wild animals generate large amounts of funds for land conservation, research, and other wildlife management. If we are generous and assume that the wildlife managers are good than loss of revenue will also have a negative impact on wild populations. Thus, to truly ensure that canned hunting is a better alternative ecologically there needs to be a suitable fee collected that goes to the conservation and management of wild areas and the fee needs to meet or exceed what would have been made on hunting of wild animals.

All that said there also needs to be a suitable fee that would provide for strict regulation of the 'canned' industry to ensure they are not illegally raiding wild stocks and that they are following a proper code of ethics in the treatment of the captive animals (I can hardly type that statement as I'm not sure how it can ever be ethical).

So in sum I would say it is a much preferred alternative from a wildlife conservation point of view as long as proper revenue is dedicated to wildlife conservation. I still don't understand why anyone would do a canned hunt. Even if there was some great thrill of winning the battle with a lion I would think taking the 'canned' approach would eliminate almost all of the satisfaction but what do I know I wouldn't hunt a dove.
PredatorBiologist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 12:45 PM
  #48
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,087
This is good stuff, thanks.
PB: You are on the money,excuse the pun...

I hope that there are permits and fees due in the case of the CHunt, but somehow don't think that at this point there is such a control. Regrettablly this would imply that the only funds making way back into conservation coffers would be the initial auction purchase to get the breeding stock. From my limited knowledge it appears that these CHunts take place on privately owned farms, so the state cannot access etc. Such a shame.

I recall once when I stayed near Royal malewane hearing the lions call all night long night after nigh after night, what puzzled me was that they never seemed to move. After some enquiry, bingo canned hunting farm just next door...anyhow not sure what my point was in the last para/\\
mkhonzo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 03:22 PM
  #49
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
mkhonzo,

For over a century there has been a split between how people view “conservation”. The “preservation” branch beginning with George Marsh’s book Man and Nature and extending through John Muir, sought to find a human/nature balance -- Nature should be preserved for its own sake and as part of the human experience. The “conserve to use later” branch beginning with Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the U.S. Forest Service created under Roosevelt -- Renewable resources, particularly forests, were being over-exploited and we need to manage them sustainably. This split can also be found in how people interpret the bible: either man has a “stewardship” responsibility for the earth or man has “dominion” over the earth, the animals were put here for our use.

In reality, there’s a spectrum of thought and these different hunting approaches also fall on their own spectrum. I think the other important dimension is how disconnected many/most people are from nature nowadays. Growing up near Yosemite National Park, I was squarely in the preservation branch and could imagine understanding hunting at all. Later in life when I switched careers and began to study these issues, I came to understand the important role hunters played in the history of conservation, conservation for their use, but most importantly habitat protection. I grudgingly began to accept hunting. People that hunt for food that I have come to know are more connected to the environment than most people in this day and age. They are very concerned about the environment and want to protect it.

The trophy hunters seem more disconnected to me, and the canned hunters are living in some imaginary (depraved) world. The history of the Big 5 is all tied to danger and the power to protect oneself and one’s flock. Today, this sort of hunting is mainly a fantasy; I don’t know if these people subconsciously experience a connection with our ancestral nature, but I’m more likely to guess it’s all about feeling pride and power.

Lastly, I was reading my Bradt’s Botswana guide last night for my trip this summer: “Hunting operations generate large revenues from few guests, who demand minimal infrastructure and so cause little impact on the land. Photographic operations need more visitors to generate the same revenue, and so generally cause greater negative effects on the country.” I don’t think this is completely accurate and probably is inaccurate, but it raises an important issue, the impact that tourist facilities and tourists have on natural habitats. Perhaps PredatorBiologist can tell use what impact 11 safari vehicles around a pride of lion can have. I’m just trying to raise the habitat protection aspect of conservation, and clearly the cruelty aspect of morally reprehensible canned hunts doesn’t come into play here.

Ultimately countries will preserve habitat and animals if it is in their best interest; it has to generate income for the local population. Eco-tourism creates these incentives to conserve, and I’m personally glad to see that hunting preserves are gradually converting to photographic only. The book author also urges tourist to convey to camp operators their interest in how the camp employs local people, benefits local people…letting the camps know the importance of this will encourage them to involve the local community and help ensure long-term support of the population.
spbear is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 24th, 2006, 04:10 PM
  #50
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
MK: what a sad story to find out that one of the thrills of the African night was coming from a lion in a cage.

South Africa should definitely pass a law that requires permits for the C-Hunt facilities and thus take a fee in the process. A huge missed opportunity if they are not.

spbear: good summary on preservation vs. conservation, seems now that preservation is not really discussed in that light very often.

The Brandt's Guide does raise an interesting topic. In Botswana the amount of land used to develop for photo safari's is still a small impact as they have adopted a high dollar low visitor philosophy in most areas. It may take up more space than hunting operations but it seems a great trade off to provide an economy that will keep the land in reserve status. To me the big damage is the habituation of the animals to vehicles and people. Most animals have necessarily evolved a fear of people and the photo tourism works hard to eliminate that fear. Once habituated the animals seem to mostly live their natural life including hunting and breeding as if the vehicle is just another animal so I don't think it is too negative of an effect as long as humans respect the wildlife and protect it. I worry terribly though that the lion we make to accept our presence then wanders across into a hunting concession later in life and is as ill prepared as those in the canned hunt. There is also no doubt that many times the vehicles force the animals to waste energy. On my last trip we came across 2 male lions that had been in a battle. They were in such a dead sleep that they were actually shocked when they lifted their heads and the vehicle was right there. There was a clear look of fear in the eyes and they bolted in the other direction. I had never seen that as they are usually very aware of where you are but I think they were exhausted. Once calming down of course the 2 vehicles manuevered to new photo angles and one of the lions limped away -- clearly unsettled and in need of a rest from taking a beating. We asked to move on but I'm sure this kind of viewing happens at poor times for the animals occassionally. We also had a guide who pulled in right next to a baby lechwe trying to hide in the grass while its mother was clearly agitated that she was separated and felt danger for her young. The guide started doing a distress whistle and wanted us to see the reation at which point I instructed the guide to move out immediately and leave them be. I think there is a clear impact but it can be minimal if people demand responsibility.

The other very interesting impact is the creation of all the roads. They really increase the ease of travel for many species and it is clear that they favor using them. I would be very interested in doing a study on this impact. By making travel easier is that better or worse for each species? It probably allows for bigger home ranges which is good for the dominant individuals but bad for those trying to carve out a piece before or after their prime. Conversely it could mean it takes less energy to travel and easier to find prey and thus smaller home ranges are needed. There is almost certainly a measureable impact from this part of photo tourism but it isn't necessarily bad for most of the species. It could be great for lions and terrible for cheetah.
PredatorBiologist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 03:40 AM
  #51
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,087
SPBEAR, I enjoyed your appraisel of preservation vs conservation, that in itself is another debate, I am a Muir man too and a believer in preserving wilderness for perpetuity, however am also a conservationist supporting sustainable utilisation. If could encamp myself for purely emotional motives I would only be a preservationist man, however am sufficiently awar thhat we as human being share the land are dependant on it, making the preservationist stance reasonably moot.

PB, those incidents that you speak of are th minutia of the safari business and no less styressful to wildlife than a passing predatot in the cas eof the lechwe or a swopping martial eagle. I also suspect that those plains grazers have a terrible memory making an incident like that quite inconsiquential.

On the matter of vehicle impact, there is a lot to be said, just fly over the mara in the dry season to witness the scarring on the cotton soils and you'll get my point. This can lead to erosion and consequential loss of habitat, which as the snowball effect takes place will affect, negatively, the number of animals species diversity & quantities) found there in the future: laymans summary.

However, if a vehicle is transported off road with care it can have way less damagae than a herd of buffalo, actually have you ever followed a herd of elephants and witnessed their destruction on the environment? Well it's not destructive because they are part of the gtrand plan and eco-system, but my point is that in comparison a wayward 4x4 looks like a ballerina.

The roads, correctly placed these are assest to game viewing, badly placed they become destructive scars on the landscape, and this is not because of there appearance, but because these depressions channel rain runoff either turning themselves into rivers and starving the lower lands from irrigation. Or they cut through a seepline and reduce the seep to the ground water etc.
In arguing roads I think it apprpriate that you take into consiedration that game moves along century old trails that have been developed by a variety of species, have a like at the hippo highways leadinag away from river, or the rhino marches to and from water holes and you'll apprecaite that a simple vehicle track is not that different.

Good fodder here, thank you.
mkhonzo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 03:58 AM
  #52
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 20,129
All good points mentioned above.

I'm particularly interested in where trophy hunting is going as stated. It seems that a few you seem to feel that photo safaris may be taking over. Are there some hard numbers showing this?

Also, it does sound from what I've read about Botswania, that they are a little more on top of some of the conservation and land per person ratios. It seems that this has been done without much outside help - true?

Tanzania is addressing these conservation and wildlife protection policies but their new government needs to address their severe water,health and food shortage issues as a priority. Let's not even get into the corruption issues that are also being worked on.

I'm told that safari co. are springing up everywhere in Tanzania and that a lot of the new comers, some of which are hacks, are tearing up the land and also not keeping at a comfortable distance from the wildlife.

As much as people complain about the roads in Tanzania, I feel that refining the roads in the abundant wildlife areas would be a horrible mistake. For those who don't want to be in a natural mostly untouched area - go somewhere else.

I'm very afraid that this will harm the wildlife and these animals will then need to be placed elsewhere - possible in hunting camps or some type of zoo of sorts. This I feel will keep the cycle of finding new ways of animal disposal active.
cybor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:39 AM
  #53
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,309
Thanks (?) Roccco for the snuff movie.

Re. Teddy Roosevelt: when I stayed at a hotel south of Nairobi I was told that the area was called shooting ground # 3 (if I remember correctly) in Roosevelt’s time, and when the hotel was being built, more bullets than soil were found in the ground.

Predator Biologist, there’s no doubt that natural grazing cattle are a lot more compatible with wildlife than soy fields are, but doesn’t the meat industry use all kinds of cultivated things to speed up the growth of animals? And, I don’t think that even if we chopped down the Amazon forest there’d be enough grazing land to feed the world’s population on a diet based on meat. Now I’ve got another good reason to avoid soybeans though. My “vegetarian” diet is based on “ecologically” produced milk.

I’ve read an interesting article about how the Bushmen are treated in Botswana and about a nasty British politician that I’d never heard of. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006...lly-in-ermine/

Nyamera is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 07:52 AM
  #54
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553
Nyamera,

Just in case there is anybody following that believes that trophy hunting, be it canned or otherwise, still has a rightful place in today's society, I would challenge them to watch the link to the movie clip that I provided to see if they still felt the same way after watching.
Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 08:05 AM
  #55
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,766
Pred

Where did you have the guiding experiences you related?
napamatt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 08:07 AM
  #56
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,309
Rocco,
I don’t understand how serious work to protect wildlife could be done in a country that allows such utterly depraved practices.
Nyamera is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 08:21 AM
  #57
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553
Nyamera,

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 09:51 AM
  #58
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,309
Rocco,

€€€€€€€€€€€€€
£££££££££££££
RRRRRRRRRR

Nyamera is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 10:22 PM
  #59
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
Nyamera: you are certainly correct that agriculture to feed the animals for meat consumption is a huge impact too.

Thanks for the link on the bushmen issue. It is really sad -- they have been treated terribly, I was told of the beatings and such as they are forcibly removed. I think the Botswana government tends to do such a great job but this issue is certainly a bad one for them. It is complicated though and there are big issues if the bushmen are granted free run of the Reserve. With only about 200 people still living the life and a short average life span I think this way of life will soon be over. That is really something to reflect on that a way of life can persist for 200,000 years but we no longer have room for it and that has occured in a very short period.

Matt: the lion viewing was at Lebala. I would say on that one the guide didn't do anything unusual and it was not obvious that the lions had been in a battle as they were just out sleeping although I did point out a visible wound to the guide. However, the reaction upon waking up was unusual - the guide admitted he had never seen such a response. Only then could you see the noticeable limp and realize they really needed some more room.

The incident with the red lechwe was at Kwara and was definitely poor judgement by the guide and completely unnecessary leaving all 4 of us feeling badly about it. Luckily I had him move on before it became too tormenting to the mother.
PredatorBiologist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Mar 25th, 2006, 11:43 PM
  #60
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 39
Interesting discussion guys. to really simplify the issue, hunting is aland use as is photo tourism,wheat farming and cattle ranching. That which pays the most stays! in the Selous Reserve there are over fourty hunting blocks and four photographic blocks. It stays that way because the individual hunter pays around $30,000 to the Tz Govt over three weeks in direct revenue and the equivalent photo client pays $2,100 in park fees over the same period. Do the Maths! On the outskirts of the Mara the agriculturalist planting maize earns in the region of $300 an acre gross and perhaps half nett after costs of tractor hire, seeds, & labour. In Koiyaki/Lemek conservancy the landowners are taking home around $5 an acre after the game viewing fee has been paid out. Will it stay under wildlife at this price? Are you prepared to pay a $100 park fee v the current $30?

No matter what your motivation, surely maintaining a natural habitat to ensure the survival of these wild animals is the way forward. I do not condone hunting but suggest it is a step along the way. High volume tourism is also very damaging to the environment... Bill Gates break out the bucks and lets buy it all and leave the land to the wildlife!!!
mzeetembo 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


FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:19 AM.