Hunting in Africa

[Rifleman]

With all the hub bub over the harvesting of a lion in Zimbabwe, little or no factual information seems to be coming out of the 4th estate.

The "big 5"

why would you hunt a lion? Lions are part of what has been traditionally called "the big 5". The big 5 are, Lions, Elephant, Rhinos, Leopard, and the Cape Buffalo. These are considered to be the most difficult to hunt on foot and are also man killers. Hunting them on foot, in their habitat, is putting yourself at risk. This is not shotgunning quail... and remember, this guy was hunting with a bow. Giving the advantage even more so to the prey.

African Outfitters.

These are the people in country who provide the service to hunters. They will provide guides, porters, room and board, taxidermy, meat packing, shipping and all the other services needed to conduct the hunt that the hunter doesn't personally bring. This includes obtaining the proper permits and licences, both legal (official government permits) and illegal (bribes and payoffs needed to get the job done) People think it's insane to pay $50,ooo to kill a lion. However an all included 2 week to Burj Dubai for the same price is understandable. That $50,ooo is supposed to get it all done. All the permits, all the licenses, all the visas, all the firearm excise and transportation fees. You the hunter pay the Outfitter to know all the rules, and secure all the proper paperwork to conduct the hunting services they advertise.

Hunters add diversity to the gene pool. Nature sees that only the strongest and biggest reproduce. Natural predation will pull out the weak, young, and sick, but never the alpha male. The second or third strongest may have something to add to the gene pool but will never be able to because the Alpha mates and that's just the way it is. Hunters, especially trophy hunters are looking to harvest the Alpha. Doing so opens the door to the rest of the pride to mate and add their diversity to the gene pool.

If this was an illegal hunt, it was because the Outfitter, or guide, made mistakes or was ignorant of the rules. I've seen 30 stories, and only one of them addressed that the hunter did not violate any rules or regulation. If anything the guide stepped over the line by attempting to lure the game away from it's normal area that was protected from hunting, to an area where hunting is allowed. Even that is frequently legal, game is free to roam. the 30 point buck that wanders out of the Shawnee Nat'l Forest into my friends 40 acre pasture is legal to harvest... and it's even legal to track him back into the Shawnee if wounded.

[JohnnyBravo]

You can't be serious about nature sees to it that only the strongest, biggest reproduce an survive... Maybe that works where you are from, but I've seen some tiny, ignorant ass folks having equally small an stupid babies.

[csmith12]

I would also like to know the full true story. Most people have no clue about the less than spectacular side of conservation where hunts are scheduled to take out a rogue or diseased animal in the interest of protecting the herd/pride/flock/whatever... Fact is, a number protected animals are killed every year to ensure the species goes forward even if nature has selected them for extinction, the reason need not apply. And yea, it doesn't matter the reason. If only 10 animals are left and 1 diseased animal may kill off the rest, what do you do? Yep, kill it... leaving only 9, sad but true.

The devil is in the details, right or wrong can be determined then.

[DEFY]

I think the big issue is the idea of endangered species being hunted. When it comes to Africa there's a lot of hunting going on. And sometimes even endangered animals are still on the block for the harvesting. The public usually likes to think every life matters when an endangered animal is killed. Think of it like deforestation, in order to allow more to grow fruitfully sometimes you have to burn the whole acre.

[subxero]

As much as I like guns and hunting I do not think particular types of trophy hunting should be done. This type would be one of them.

No reason to go out and kill a perfectly healthy animal essentially just for the thrill of the kill. Not gonna harvest the meat, the animal wasn't old, sick or a dangerous to people. IMO this kind of hunting is selfish and in poor taste.

If you want to shoot things just for thrill why not find a place with a problem animal that is old, sick and or dangerous to the residents for one reason or another and they want it removed and the area can make some money off of these animals harvested. These kinds of situations pop up a fair amount.

To be honest I don't really care much about this whole thing, I am sure I don't know half the story but IMO

killing animals just for fun.... doesn't sound right does it? sounds sick and twisted because it is.

[FrugalNinja250]

My two comments:

First, it's not "harvesting". That's what you do to plants that you planted, like grain, tomatoes, corn, etc. It's just killing. Lions and other apex predators don't really have prey reflexes like running from the scent of humans. They haven't really had time to evolve an adaptation for that since guns were invented and thus made the predator/prey relationship so lopsided. Back when humans had to use closeup weapons like spears, stones, knives, and simple bows to hunt the predators had a real chance of either surviving, or actually killing the hunter. Not so anymore. Shooting a lion from the back of a Jeep isn't harvesting, it isn't hunting, it's just killing.

Second, lion populations are declining around the world and they're defacto endangered now. The only reason they haven't been listed as such is politics driving by hunting/poaching revenues. The same for most all the large species like elephants and rhinos and all of the apex predators. Each time a so-called "hunter" goes out and kills one of these for a trophy they're acting as a member of the human race to drive yet another species into extinction. I'm sure the "hunter" gets a big thrill from killing something with a modern firearm, after all, how hard can it be to pull the trigger on something that has zero chance of fighting back or surviving? That's real power, power over life, power over death.

How many species have we humans ended? Two species of rhinoceros just in the last decade. Most children alive today will get to see a world where many species of apex predators are functionally extinct, just like our grandparents got to see the extinction of the passenger pigeon and so many other species.

Killing is just killing. Killing a species is, well, beyond words.

Is that all that it means to be human, to extinct everything around us?

And remember, this Dr. Palmer didn't just kill a lion, he killed all the cubs that Cecil had in that pride, because that's the way nature works. Without Cecil to protect them, other males in that pride will kill his cubs, and likely the cubs of the other alpha male that co-led with Cecil. One arrow, one bullet, to kill maybe a dozen lions in total.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Hunters add diversity to the gene pool. Nature sees that only the strongest and biggest reproduce. Natural predation will pull out the weak, young, and sick, but never the alpha male. The second or third strongest may have something to add to the gene pool but will never be able to because the Alpha mates and that's just the way it is. Hunters, especially trophy hunters are looking to harvest the Alpha. Doing so opens the door to the rest of the pride to mate and add their diversity to the gene pool.

Hunters add diversity to the gene pool?

Dodo, Tasmanian Tiger, Passenger Pigeon, Sea Mink etc. There are a number of species that have been hunted to extinction which is literally the exact opposite of adding diversity to the gene pool.

There is a reason that the Alpha Male gets to pass along his genes b/c he's the strongest. Adding diversity by allowing the genes of one of the weaker individuals to pass along its genes outside of natural selection weakens the gene pool.

This part of your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

As a hunter (but admittedly not a bow hunter) I'm a little disgusted that he shot the animal and then it suffered for 40 hours because of presumably bad shot placement.

[JohnnyBravo]

Better watch out Obama is still taking guns away.

[LittleRedNinjette]

I don't think hunting in general is a bad thing. But this kind of killing is despicable and needs to stop.

Killing for sport alone is sick.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

Killing for sport alone is sick.

Nothing wrong with hunting for sport. Fishermen do it all the time and no one bats an eye. My cats kill mice and moles and don't eat them. Dogs chase and kill cats just for fun. They let hunters go out of season to kill deer just to control the population.

I think you meant, hunting a type of animal to near extinction is sick. No? Because sport killing happens every day in nature. And like it or not... humans are part of nature.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Nothing wrong with hunting for sport. Fishermen do it all the time and no one bats an eye. My cats kill mice and moles and don't eat them. Dogs chase and kill cats just for fun. They let hunters go out of season to kill deer just to control the population.

I think you meant, hunting a type of animal to near extinction is sick. No? Because sport killing happens every day in nature. And like it or not... humans are part of nature.

Everything you said is correct

I believe part of becoming civilized is to overcome our base instincts.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[LittleRedNinjette]

I meant what i said. Killing a type of animal to near extinction is worse.

I have gone fishing and love it. I release anything i don't plan to eat.

In nature animals hunt to survive.

Hunting to help the population is not sport and a good hunter would not waste good meat anyway.

A dog or cat doesn't know better. Humans do.

[subxero]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Nothing wrong with hunting for sport. Fishermen do it all the time and no one bats an eye. My cats kill mice and moles and don't eat them. Dogs chase and kill cats just for fun. They let hunters go out of season to kill deer just to control the population.

I think you meant, hunting a type of animal to near extinction is sick. No? Because sport killing happens every day in nature. And like it or not... humans are part of nature.

humans are a part of nature, but we hold each other to a higher standard.

truly wild animals rarely kill for sport, it's not worth the effort. Sport killing is mainly seen in domestic animals that have been influenced by humans and sometimes in wild populations that have also been affected one way or another by humans where we have disrupted the natural order of things.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

I meant what i said. Killing a type of animal to near extinction is worse.

I have gone fishing and love it. I release anything i don't plan to eat.

In nature animals hunt to survive.

Hunting to help the population is not sport and a good hunter would not waste good meat anyway.

A dog or cat doesn't know better. Humans do.

I feel ya, but I also think you're giving the average human waaaayyyyy to much credit about being evolved and knowing better.

Also, not all animals kill to survive, some kill for fun, some after a sexual experience , some simply for the thrill and skill of the hunt such as a mother lion training her cubs and then let them play with the kill, sure they need the skill to survive, but you get the point, the meat may go to waste.

[csmith12]

Joe, I didn't train my dog to chase cats and try to eat the face off my kittens. In fact, quite the opposite. That urge was put there from birth, not by me.

[LittleRedNinjette]

The instinct is there but because of domestication they don't know how to finish the kill or that they should eat it. the mother would normally teach that to the young. I'm with Joe here.

[csmith12]

Ya'lls have a lot to learn about nature. ijs Nature in the RAW is downright ugly, but most only see the pretty pictures and the edited discovery channel footage.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Rifleman]

understand that just because the hunter doesn't consume the beast, doesn't mean it isn't consumed. The tradition when hunting elephants is to remove the tusks for trophy, (and a tail hair for luck), but to leave the rest of the animal to the village. Nearly all elephants carry a parasite that forms little white larva in the meat. The hunter is not immune, but the village is. They get a years worth of meat, and they know if they protect the elephant from ivory poachers, they will get the carcass at the end of a legal hunt.

I'm just saying that from the outside, from the arena of the uninformed, it has been put forth as a guy paying huge coin to kill a protected animal in a no hunting zone for it's head and hide.

things are not always as they seem, and the 4th estate is doing nothing to inform.

[allanoue]

The government is charging the poachers with dragging a dead animals behind their jeep to lead the lion out of the reserve. Not the 4th estate. The Dentist is pretending to know nothing about this but given his record, you know that is a lie. Which is why they want him extradited.

The pride leader is not an animal that needs to be weeded out to strengthen the population. They are doing the opposite.

They are pathetic and so is anyone trying to defend that kind of behaviour.

[Racer x]

You start pulling the wing s off of flys then move up to killing the neighbors cat. Then graduate to bigger things. Killing a lion with a bow and arrow is sick and cruel . Big game hunters should be ashamed of them selfs z

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Hunters add diversity to the gene pool. Nature sees that only the strongest and biggest reproduce. Natural predation will pull out the weak, young, and sick, but never the alpha male. The second or third strongest may have something to add to the gene pool but will never be able to because the Alpha mates and that's just the way it is. Hunters, especially trophy hunters are looking to harvest the Alpha. Doing so opens the door to the rest of the pride to mate and add their diversity to the gene pool.

Originally Posted by Panda

Hunters add diversity to the gene pool?

The point is valid for most animals, it's less so for large predators & pack animals where the new alpha will kill as many cubs as it can find to bring the females back into season.

The gene pool suffers if one male sires most if not all offspring for a considerable time:

Recessive mutations can get established within the population (same as you'll find in island populations or insular groups, CF delF508 in the celtic population, Tay Sachs in Ashkenzi Jews ect)
These can be life limiting.

Inbreeding generally causes major problems, deformities, poor immune system, further reproductive issues, that's if it survives to term...

Don't believe me, look up the list of ailments found in pedigree dogs



Personally if it's not endangered & you plan to eat it (or feed it to something else) hunting is fine

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

The point is valid for most animals, it's less so for large predators & pack animals where the new alpha will kill as many cubs as it can find to bring the females back into season.

The gene pool suffers if one male sires most if not all offspring for a considerable time:

Recessive mutations can get established within the population (same as you'll find in island populations or insular groups, CF delF508 in the celtic population, Tay Sachs in Ashkenzi Jews ect)
These can be life limiting.

Inbreeding generally causes major problems, deformities, poor immune system, further reproductive issues, that's if it survives to term...

Don't believe me, look up the list of ailments found in pedigree dogs



Personally if it's not endangered & you plan to eat it (or feed it to something else) hunting is fine

Managing the gene pool by killing, decapitating, and mounting heads over fireplaces isn't nearly as effective as doing it with science, evidence, and facts. When the claim they're helping a species that's on the decline by killing them comes out of a hunter's mouth, it's just a rationalization to maintain denial that they're helping to end a species. For those who believe in God, I wonder if hunters wonder where God will send them for destroying one of His creations?

We are animals, but we are also human. We can be better than this, if only we wanted to try.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Managing the gene pool by killing, decapitating, and mounting heads over fireplaces isn't nearly as effective as doing it with science, evidence, and facts. When the claim they're helping a species that's on the decline by killing them comes out of a hunter's mouth, it's just a rationalization to maintain denial that they're helping to end a species. For those who believe in God, I wonder if hunters wonder where God will send them for destroying one of His creations?

We are animals, but we are also human. We can be better than this, if only we wanted to try.

For other animals (I did mention the pack dynamics with lions, wolves ect. being a special case) after a dominant male has produced a number of offspring orchastrating a scenario where younger rival becomes dominant reduces the risk of inbreeding. (you do that by removing the dominant male)

Less inbred = more robust gene pool.

That's the nature of population genetics.

If you get to a scenario where the population becomes inbred and it's numbers fall off a cliff in short order, that takes generations to recover from.

Have you ever tried to work out a Roma or Irish Gypsy's genetic pedigree (it's like trying to untangle the Xmas lights) or the deformities their kids can have, inbreeding is really bad for a group's fitness to survive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now I've not started on the money from big game hunting licences being used for conservation of their habitat, the survey of their numbers & the employment of rangers to prevent poaching; with an acceptance that some losses to hunting are a necessary evil.

That's a different argument altogether, hell they're turning farmland into game reserves trying to boost the numbers of prey animals to support a larger population of big game, so some more can be hunted (there were accusations that Grace Mugabe, the 1st lady of Zimbabwe was evicting farmers to turn the area into a game reserve earlier this year or late last year IIRC) That seems like a way of rationalising their 'sport'

But hey ho, that's a different argument altogether.

[ForceofWill]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Managing the gene pool by killing, decapitating, and mounting heads over fireplaces isn't nearly as effective as doing it with science, evidence, and facts. When the claim they're helping a species that's on the decline by killing them comes out of a hunter's mouth, it's just a rationalization to maintain denial that they're helping to end a species. For those who believe in God, I wonder if hunters wonder where God will send them for destroying one of His creations?

We are animals, but we are also human. We can be better than this, if only we wanted to try.

We get it. You don't like hunting.

[alex.s]

i think.... who gives a **** about some lion? he's not special. why is he so special that people are in such a hubbub about it? because he was popular and had an attractive mane.

i think.... all mammals lives matter. yours, mine, some lion neither of us know, the delicious cow i ate earlier today. who gives a **** about insects or crustrations or fish though. they are conscious and feel. but they aint mammals. they're competition. they certainly dont deserve to die, but as a mammal i probably wouldn't go out of my way to protect their life.

i think.... killing anything for sport is stupid. why dont you spend your time and money on something constructive instead of destructive.

i think.... killing an animal to eat it is how we have lived for millions of years, and i'm fine with eating other mammals. especially those cute fury ones. they're delicious. chickens are really delicious and not even a mammal so dig in. they're basically dinosaurs, which are already extinct. so.... eat up.

i think.... i would switch to cultured meat if it was available and affordable.

i think.... i'm hungry.

[subxero]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Ya'lls have a lot to learn about nature. ijs Nature in the RAW is downright ugly, but most only see the pretty pictures and the edited discovery channel footage.

Nature is unforgiving but unfortunately only 2 of the "10" really classify as "killing for fun" and at least one of those has an * by it and the other one i am fairly certain does as well but can't remember why.

I dont count house cats because they are domestic, + when they leave it on your door step it is obviously them earning their keep

So the 2? The dolphins and the elephants. Both of which i was aware of. The elephants was explained off and was determined to be caused by human interference. Humans were removing all of the adult bull elephants from the area leaving only adolescent males with no role models and no one to keep them in check. This resulted in these young bulls running a muck and causing problems in this area. The humans then tried to return some large mature bulls back to the area to help reconcile the issue. (not sure what the result was) <--- humans messing with natural order of things.

The dolphins, they are one of the few animals i can think of that have on numerous occasions been documented "killing for fun" but there could be more to it than humans understand, territory maybe? IDK?

All the other ones mentioned had purpose, food, reproduction, territory ect...

Again i have little to know problem with killing animals... as long as there is a purpose.... just to do it for fun, thrill, trophy does not qualify in my book.

I have lived both sides of the argument, i have tons of respect for all animals and am a big advocate for proper treatment of animals especially wild animals but at the same time i have killed more animals than i could ever count often with out a blink of an eye. Even when hunting i'm not sure i ever really enjoyed it, the kill. More like a means to an end, and a purpose was served.

[csmith12]

Oh man... sorry guys and gals. I don't want to give the wrong impression here. I am a HUGE advocate of the ethical treatment of ALL living beings. Hell, I don't even kill the spiders in my house unless I have too and search back to my posts about dodging frogs in the road when teaching my kids to drive.

All living beings on this planet has a purpose. Just sometimes... you can justify killing a healthy, strong and dominate one in the name of conservation. Just be open minded that not all aspects of conservation are pretty and glamorous. If the alpha is killing ALL the cubs, it will be put down and let the gene pool of the lesser aggressive males mate (ie. another post in this thread). I feel it's not the case in this situation and my gut tells me there are some shenanigans afoot about the lion kill.

Seems to me though, out in the wild... most other none predation killings are for sex. lol

[subxero]

^ i certainly did not get that impression, i doubt any other regulars do either.

What about owls though man? would you kill an owl? I mean if they are trying ti kill you right?

[csmith12]

lol! I believe owls hate me for reasons unknown. And for the record, even though I should have shot it out of it's nest. I have never killed any owls. For what little scare they give me, the service they provide me is greater.

[cbinker]

I see a large amount of ignorant comments in this thread. ask the residents of Zimbabwe what they think of lion harvesting. When a lion is killed for trophy in Zimbabwe it is the law that the meat goes to feed the local tribe. Lions are a thread to the residents the same as Sharks are threats to Surfers in California.

[Racer x]

The get rid of the residents.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by cbinker

I see a large amount of ignorant comments in this thread. ask the residents of Zimbabwe what they think of lion harvesting. When a lion is killed for trophy in Zimbabwe it is the law that the meat goes to feed the local tribe. Lions are a thread to the residents the same as Sharks are threats to Surfers in California.

If you killed every single lion in the world it would feed some people for a short while, then what? Dr. Palmer didn't eat any lion, he left the corpse to rot. Hunters that kill endangered species don't do it for the food, they do it for the right to tell their grandchildren that the reason they killed all the lions, elephants, rhinos, etc. in the world is because they could, and so they could mount the heads on the wall over the fireplace.

Eating endangered species are not the solution to world hunger. Population and resource management are. The 50+K that Palmer spent to kill that lion could have fed hundreds more people than the lion's meat ever could have. Or, it could have helped several villages install solar-powered water wells and allowed those villages to actually produce lots more food in the long term, year after year. But no, nothing but maggots and ants ate that meat.

And don't worry about sharks, Their populations are plummeting due to overfishing due to the demand for shark fin soup in Asia. 90% of the world population of many sharks have been eliminated, and your grand children may live to see them exist only in picture books as well.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by ForceofWill

We get it. You don't like hunting.

I never said I didn't like hunting. I've made the personal choice to not hunt, as is my right, but I'm in no way against hunting. I'm just against humans participating in the extinction of a species. Except mosquitos, chiggers, and fleas. And ticks. But I'm drawing the line there...

Please don't assume you know me well enough to make claims that aren't backed up by words from me.

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

If you killed every single lion in the world it would feed some people for a short while, then what? Dr. Palmer didn't eat any lion, he left the corpse to rot. Hunters that kill endangered species don't do it for the food, they do it for the right to tell their grandchildren that the reason they killed all the lions, elephants, rhinos, etc. in the world is because they could, and so they could mount the heads on the wall over the fireplace.

Eating endangered species are not the solution to world hunger. Population and resource management are. The 50+K that Palmer spent to kill that lion could have fed hundreds more people than the lion's meat ever could have. Or, it could have helped several villages install solar-powered water wells and allowed those villages to actually produce lots more food in the long term, year after year. But no, nothing but maggots and ants ate that meat.

And don't worry about sharks, Their populations are plummeting due to overfishing due to the demand for shark fin soup in Asia. 90% of the world population of many sharks have been eliminated, and your grand children may live to see them exist only in picture books as well.

were you there, did you talk to residents of the community and get their take?

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Whiskey

For other animals (I did mention the pack dynamics with lions, wolves ect. being a special case) after a dominant male has produced a number of offspring orchastrating a scenario where younger rival becomes dominant reduces the risk of inbreeding. (you do that by removing the dominant male)

Less inbred = more robust gene pool.

That's the nature of population genetics.

If you get to a scenario where the population becomes inbred and it's numbers fall off a cliff in short order, that takes generations to recover from.

These concepts sound good on paper, but they don't matter when the gene pool is declining due to population loss. Also, genetic selection for stronger population survival characteristics only works when the environmental factors stressing the population can be adapted to by genetic variation. These would include things like climate change, disease, food availability and types. Genetic selection doesn't work against bullets, arrows, and machetes. AFAIK, no lifeform on earth has evolved kevlar or steel plate integuments.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by cbinker

were you there, did you talk to residents of the community and get their take?

If you'd actually read anything about this event, you would have read that Palmer left the meat to rot.

If you'd read the article, you'd have read that the community and residents there were, and are, devastated by this because Cecil was a big tourist draw and the residents got a lot of money from that tourism. Far more than they ever would by Cecil's killing. Palmer's actions is going to hurt these folks a lot.

Think of it this way: Why give away the lion for a one-time charge when you can rent the lion out for a decade or more? Palmer killed at least half a dozen lions with the shooting of Cecil, and those residents and community that you imply benefited from that pointless killing will instead suffer for a long time to come.

[cbinker]

Are you this upset about the murder of 4 service man in Chattanooga? and the possible prosecution of the 5th Military member that returned fire? if not you are what is wrong with this country!

[cbinker]

but if you insist on reading an article here you go, non-liberal biased bullshit and an actual Zimbabwen:

http://www.someecards.com/news/so-th...re-all-morons/

[cbinker]

another one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/op...ions.html?_r=2

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by cbinker

Are you this upset about the murder of 4 service man in Chattanooga? and the possible prosecution of the 5th Military member that returned fire? if not you are what is wrong with this country!

What's that have to do with poaching lions in Africa?

Oh wait, the classic "Look over there!" debating tactic.

Here's my reply:

What about that cop that shot a man in the head and lied about it!?!?!? Are you not concerned about that? If not, you are what's wrong with this country! (BTW, commas are kinda important, like.)

Oh, and here's a link:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/us/ohi...ng-indictment/