Trophy Hunting

And how much is the fee for a hunt for cows with Tusks? or tushes ( referring to asians)
 
I have never herd of a hunt for a tusked cow. The tuskless cow hunts are to reverse the damage done by poaching.
 
yeah I know the reverse effect you've bred a tuskless breed of elephant so what do you do? you breed a tusked breed of elephant once again.
 
Bit of a bull s**t article that one, pity she did not do any research. The writer even calls the Lord Derby Eland in the photo Kudu.

Another lie.
Australia's red kangaroo has become noticeably smaller as poachers target the largest animals for leather.
Click to expand...
Kangaroos are legally commercially hunted to keep their numbers in check as there are more kangaroos today than ever before, and due to this there would be less older, therefore larger ones in the population

If what this article is claiming was true how do US antler records for Elk and Deer get broken regally.

There may be some populations where hunting has altered characteristics but the major reasons for characteristics such as antlers are nutrition, then age while genetics are spread through the whole population including the females. The biggest and best are usually the oldest who have already spread there genes and are approaching the end of their natural lives. The majority of people also hunt for meat not trophies which makes her whole argument invalid.
 
Sun, in my opinion, any person who goes out to shoot an elephant, and then uses "I'm helping the local economy" as a excuse to brutally kill one of the most majestic, fascinating animals on the planet, then they deserve to be subjected to exactly what the elephant was, as we've done more harm to this planet than any elephant herd ever could.
That's what I feel and little sarky, patronising comments implying that I'm a child ("pocket money"... I'm 18!) will not change my opinion on it.

Edit: And I don't want to start an argument with this, I just found your initial post very belittling and pretty rude.
 
@ashley-h: So "brutally killing" a being that is not "the most majestic, fascinating animals on the planet" is OK? Favouring one species over another just out of personal motives doesn't help anyone in the long run...

I actually found your comment quite rude and childish. It's very easy to condemn people far abroad, sitting savely in front of a computer screen. However, one should not stubbornly close one's eyes when facing reality: with a constantly growing human population worldwide, where each individual tries to achieve what is best for him/herself and his/her beloved ones, the collision with the needs of native wildlife are often inevitable. In many cases, species and habitats might only be saved when producing profit and advantages for the majority of humans, also by sustainable and controlled utilisation of the given ressources-even if this includes the death of individual specimens. That might sound harsh and negative, but is often the only option. If you want to do something about that (and prove me wrong), you might think about investing in a serious nonprofit conservation program. Whatever money you spend on that, is your cup of tea; the animals (and hopefully not just elephants...) should be thankful anyhow...

@Monty: Right correction regarding the eland. Yet some of the aspects the author mentioned are true: especially in Europe with its long history of trophy hunting, sizes of various game fish and animals have dwindled remarkably-even so far that a few decades ago hunters (and sometimes still today) introduced specimens of bigger subspecies or even exotic species (often taking advantage of the Bergmann's Rule...) to boost their records.
In regard of the kangaroos: it depends on what species you're talking about. In the case of the Red Kangaroo (Macropus rufus), there might now be more animals (although one can't be sure how many of them existed before European colonialisation...)-yet shooting larger animals in the past (not consequently the oldest) in addition with a nowadays higher competition for apt food might result in a slowly decrease of size-even if hunting is controlled.

About the US records: I remember reading an article or two about American game farms breeding prime bucks by selectively crossing only larger-than-normal specimens of the largest subspecies with each other and then offering them for hunt to the paying customers; that might explain the continous record breaking.

BTW: we can observe a similiar phenomen of size decrease in zoo animals, as natural selection has been skipped, making it also able for the 'runts of the litters' able to survive and multiply.
 
Last edited:
So "brutally killing" a being that is not "the most majestic, fascinating animals on the planet" is OK?

No, it's not, it's like a meat eater saying they won't eat (for example) deer meat because they think it's cruel, and then go and eat a big mac.
Besides, If you read any of my posts you'll know I think any type of hunting is cruel and not right. And why are tigers being wiped out? Hunting and habitat destruction. I just don't see the point in a temporary solution which could inevitably wipe out an entire species.
 
Ashley-H, The fact is if trophy hunting didn't exist in some african countries many species would be extinct within those countries.
 
Jarkari said:
Ashley-H, The fact is if trophy hunting didn't exist in some african countries many species would be extinct within those countries.
Click to expand...

You do have a valid point there e.g elephants tear down lots of vegatation everyday and certain countries have too many elephants. Kinda the same situation with Kangaroos though unfortunately while trying to save other species the species being killed off is reformed physically being tuskless, smaller etc. Thinking of it this way spreads a little light on my mind but still I always come back to that the aniamls have families.
Just how an eco-system works sadly when I first knew about one I never thought that a human would have to play a part in an eco-system ,
 
ashley-h said:
No, it's not, it's like a meat eater saying they won't eat (for example) deer meat because they think it's cruel, and then go and eat a big mac.
Click to expand...

So you do not support favouring one species, but one the other hand only complain about elephants being slaughtered? Where's your compassion for, say, pangolins, turtles or abalones?:confused:


ashley-h said:
Besides, If you read any of my posts you'll know I think any type of hunting is cruel and not right. And why are tigers being wiped out? Hunting and habitat destruction. I just don't see the point in a temporary solution which could inevitably wipe out an entire species.
Click to expand...
So hunting for food is not "right"? Tell that to primal hunting & gathering cultures like Yanomani, Shompen or Hadza...

Neither elephants nor tigers are nowadays on a larger scale impacted by trophy hunting; in the case of the tiger, providing ressources for TCM is one reason-mentioned habitat destruction, which is also the main problem in regard to elephants, another.

Declaring them to 'holy cows' from the safety of a western armchair "conservation" point of view is a temporary and obviously not working solution; integrating the local human population in sustainable commercial conservation-even if that means the oh so wrong hunting for trophies-might in some cases be the only long-term solution...
 
We can at least look at that conservation is excellent these days compared to the savage behaviour of humans in the 1950's.
The main problem now is habitat destruction, though with right protection the animals can regain their numbers in the next decades or so. e.g. India's elephants were under 19,000 in 1990's now they stand at 21,000.

A healthy increase to my eye. But it seems that humans are also suffering from "habitat destruction" as well.
 
dragon(ele)nerd said:
We can at least look at that conservation is excellent these days compared to the savage behaviour of humans in the 1950's.
Click to expand...

A very idealistic point of view; if only it were true...Yet unfortunately, conservation programmes still suffer from the same problems they had 50 years before; in some areas, they even got some more...

The western opinion torwards wildlife and its protection might have changed-but only on the surface; see for example the reaction of many Europeans when larger predators like bear, wolf or lynx return to their former habitats.

Whether all populations can really regain their previous numbers is questionable; in some, this might not be the case. See Baiji or Northern White Rhino...Nevertheless, hope dies last.
 
Last edited:
Sun Wukong said:
Whether all populations can really regain their previous numbers is questionable; in some, this might not be the case. See Baiji or Northern White Rhino...Nevertheless, hope dies last.
Click to expand...

though hope is sometimes what makes the greatest miracles.
 
Sun Wukong said:
The western opinion torwards wildlife and its protection might have changed-but only on the surface; see for example the reaction of many Europeans when larger predators like bear, wolf or lynx return to their former habitats.

QUOTE]

True!

Here in Sweden we have an ever on-going debate about our wolf population - about 200 individuals. When I was a kid some 40 years ago we had six or seven. During the last centuries though, animals from Russia have migrated via Finland. They prosper and the population grows. Of course, now and then sheep and reindeer are killed.

So voices are raised: "We must start to hunt them again!" Even our king - not a man known for a great intellect - has advocated this. I think the debate is shameful and thankfully the species is still protected by law. There are publicly paid compensation programmes for the farmer who gets his animal killed by a wolf.

Of course, I think that it is a wonderful thing that this species is back in force and is no longer on the brink of extinction.
Click to expand...
 
Was there any solution or thoughts raised on how to look after the reindeer?
 
Dan said:
Sun Wukong said:
The western opinion torwards wildlife and its protection might have changed-but only on the surface; see for example the reaction of many Europeans when larger predators like bear, wolf or lynx return to their former habitats.

QUOTE]

True!

Here in Sweden we have an ever on-going debate about our wolf population - about 200 individuals. When I was a kid some 40 years ago we had six or seven. During the last centuries though, animals from Russia have migrated via Finland. They prosper and the population grows. Of course, now and then sheep and reindeer are killed.

So voices are raised: "We must start to hunt them again!" Even our king - not a man known for a great intellect - has advocated this. I think the debate is shameful and thankfully the species is still protected by law. There are publicly paid compensation programmes for the farmer who gets his animal killed by a wolf.

Of course, I think that it is a wonderful thing that this species is back in force and is no longer on the brink of extinction.
Click to expand...

I heard of a similar situation with wolves in the USA (in more than one area), being reintroduced to areas where they had been extirpated. The locals farmers were not happy at all, and the government was paying compensation too.

:)

Hix
Click to expand...
 
@Hix: The problem with wolves vs. farmers is still not unsolved in the US, and spawns the saddest nonsense: a lot of the Mexican Wolves, reintroduced by expensive state-supported conservation programmes, end up shot dead by farmers...

In Europe, the bear/wolf/lynx "problem" is not limited to Sweden; one example:
Bear JJ1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top