Pros and cons of animals in captivity

elefante said:
What does green hunting mean? Hunting wild animals has benefits. In places like the Midwestern US whitetailed deer are very overpopulated and there are no predators.
Click to expand...

Essentially it's hunting that is done with conservation in mind on a ranch or game reserve. Undoubtedly there are wild animals that still need population management, however there are people that want to shoot rhino, elephant, oryx and other big game - I'd rather they shot surplus captive specimens than a wild animal that may be genetically valuable to the wild population.

I may have coined the term green hunting myself, but I'm sure I've heard it somewhere before.
 
elefante said:
What does green hunting mean? Hunting wild animals has benefits. In places like the Midwestern US whitetailed deer are very overpopulated and there are no predators.
Click to expand...

Green hunting is a well known practice in Africa, I'm not sure if it is done elsewhere in the same manner though.

It means shooting the animal with a tranquilliser gun, taking the usual trophy photos and then letting the animal recover and leave.

There are two ways of doing it, one is to do it like a normal hunt, track down the animal, shoot it with the dart gun, and take the photos.

The second way is to involve the client with the normal darting of animals for collaring and/or vet attention. Since they have to dart the animal anyway, they cover some of the cost by charging a client to accompany them, shoot the dart and get his photo taken.

The advantage is the animal isn't killed, the disadvantage is the animal is always affected to some extent, and may become stressed, aggressive or excessively wary in the future.
This usually happens if they dart the animal too often, which can happen on smaller reserves.
The animal could also die under the anaesthetic, not uncommon.

Green hunting is a lot cheaper than regular hunts, but most hunters want to see blood and dead animals.

It always amazed me how a hunter can go out in the wild, see a magnificent Kudu or Sable walking through the bush alive and vibrant, and shoot it dead.
Then as they look at the dead heap of meet oozing blood and being dragged out of the bush they exclaim with wonder at it's beauty.
Their enjoyment at shooting a Zebra always astonished me, they would puff out with pride as if they had accomplished something fantastic. Shooting a zebra is about as much fun as shooting a horse.
When hunters caressed the dead heads of their quarry and exclaimed on the beauty and handsomeness of a lifeless mass of meat and skin I often wondered if they would think their wives too would look beautiful to them if she was lying dead in the dirt with blood and snot tricking out of her nose, and would they be so keen to pose for a photo with her head propped up on a stick while their rifle rests on her body.
 
@kiwipo,

I wanted to thank-you for your informative posts and your even temper on this unduly provocative thread. Well done!
 
kiwipo said:
Green hunting is a well known practice in Africa, I'm not sure if it is done elsewhere in the same manner though.

It means shooting the animal with a tranquilliser gun, taking the usual trophy photos and then letting the animal recover and leave.

There are two ways of doing it, one is to do it like a normal hunt, track down the animal, shoot it with the dart gun, and take the photos.

The second way is to involve the client with the normal darting of animals for collaring and/or vet attention. Since they have to dart the animal anyway, they cover some of the cost by charging a client to accompany them, shoot the dart and get his photo taken.

The advantage is the animal isn't killed, the disadvantage is the animal is always affected to some extent, and may become stressed, aggressive or excessively wary in the future.
This usually happens if they dart the animal too often, which can happen on smaller reserves.
The animal could also die under the anaesthetic, not uncommon.

Green hunting is a lot cheaper than regular hunts, but most hunters want to see blood and dead animals.

It always amazed me how a hunter can go out in the wild, see a magnificent Kudu or Sable walking through the bush alive and vibrant, and shoot it dead.
Then as they look at the dead heap of meet oozing blood and being dragged out of the bush they exclaim with wonder at it's beauty.
Their enjoyment at shooting a Zebra always astonished me, they would puff out with pride as if they had accomplished something fantastic. Shooting a zebra is about as much fun as shooting a horse.
When hunters caressed the dead heads of their quarry and exclaimed on the beauty and handsomeness of a lifeless mass of meat and skin I often wondered if they would think their wives too would look beautiful to them if she was lying dead in the dirt with blood and snot tricking out of her nose, and would they be so keen to pose for a photo with her head propped up on a stick while their rifle rests on her body.
Click to expand...

thankyou for a most informative post.
We do share some sentiments.
 
kiwipo said:
Green hunting is a well known practice in Africa, I'm not sure if it is done elsewhere in the same manner though.

It means shooting the animal with a tranquilliser gun, taking the usual trophy photos and then letting the animal recover and leave.

There are two ways of doing it, one is to do it like a normal hunt, track down the animal, shoot it with the dart gun, and take the photos.

The second way is to involve the client with the normal darting of animals for collaring and/or vet attention. Since they have to dart the animal anyway, they cover some of the cost by charging a client to accompany them, shoot the dart and get his photo taken.

The advantage is the animal isn't killed, the disadvantage is the animal is always affected to some extent, and may become stressed, aggressive or excessively wary in the future.
This usually happens if they dart the animal too often, which can happen on smaller reserves.
The animal could also die under the anaesthetic, not uncommon.

Green hunting is a lot cheaper than regular hunts, but most hunters want to see blood and dead animals.

It always amazed me how a hunter can go out in the wild, see a magnificent Kudu or Sable walking through the bush alive and vibrant, and shoot it dead.
Then as they look at the dead heap of meet oozing blood and being dragged out of the bush they exclaim with wonder at it's beauty.
Their enjoyment at shooting a Zebra always astonished me, they would puff out with pride as if they had accomplished something fantastic. Shooting a zebra is about as much fun as shooting a horse.
When hunters caressed the dead heads of their quarry and exclaimed on the beauty and handsomeness of a lifeless mass of meat and skin I often wondered if they would think their wives too would look beautiful to them if she was lying dead in the dirt with blood and snot tricking out of her nose, and would they be so keen to pose for a photo with her head propped up on a stick while their rifle rests on her body.
Click to expand...

I don't think most hunters enjoy seeing blood and guts. For most it's really more about the hunt and being outdoors. Lots of hunters also do it because they want the meat. I won't shoot anything I won't eat. I also would not want to go to Africa on a safari as I don't agree with what happens after the animal is shot. I hate those hunting magazines that make it sound like the Great White Hunter is such a humanitarian because people in Africa take the meat. While I don't want the people to starve, I think a person is much more of a humanitarian if they can teach the people how to sustain themselves. Okay, off soapbox now.

I find this thread very interesting, espcially since lots of you are from the UK, New Zealand, and Australia. It's interesting to hear about your laws and beliefs on the subject of hunting as a whole, but especially on canned hunting.
 
elefante said:
I don't think most hunters enjoy seeing blood and guts. For most it's really more about the hunt and being outdoors. Lots of hunters also do it because they want the meat. I won't shoot anything I won't eat. I also would not want to go to Africa on a safari as I don't agree with what happens after the animal is shot. I hate those hunting magazines that make it sound like the Great White Hunter is such a humanitarian because people in Africa take the meat. While I don't want the people to starve, I think a person is much more of a humanitarian if they can teach the people how to sustain themselves. Okay, off soapbox now.

I find this thread very interesting, espcially since lots of you are from the UK, New Zealand, and Australia. It's interesting to hear about your laws and beliefs on the subject of hunting as a whole, but especially on canned hunting.
Click to expand...

Well few hunters see a lot of blood and guts, not the type that pay big money to hunt in Africa though, but they do see some blood.
If there is a lot of it they sometimes throw up.

As for the hunt and being outdoors, well you can track animals down just to photograph them and you will be outside.
 
kiwipo said:
Well few hunters see a lot of blood and guts, not the type that pay big money to hunt in Africa though, but they do see some blood.
If there is a lot of it they sometimes throw up.

As for the hunt and being outdoors, well you can track animals down just to photograph them and you will be outside.
Click to expand...

Even though I am defending hunting, this has become my preferred method of getting into the outdoors.
 
elefante said:
I don't think most hunters enjoy seeing blood and guts. For most it's really more about the hunt and being outdoors. Lots of hunters also do it because they want the meat. I won't shoot anything I won't eat. I also would not want to go to Africa on a safari as I don't agree with what happens after the animal is shot. I hate those hunting magazines that make it sound like the Great White Hunter is such a humanitarian because people in Africa take the meat. While I don't want the people to starve, I think a person is much more of a humanitarian if they can teach the people how to sustain themselves. Okay, off soapbox now.

I find this thread very interesting, espcially since lots of you are from the UK, New Zealand, and Australia. It's interesting to hear about your laws and beliefs on the subject of hunting as a whole, but especially on canned hunting.
Click to expand...

One of the problems in Australian and NZ is that most of our hunting is based on pest animals and killing as many as you can. Countries such as the US have hunting based on native wildlife and population management and conservation programs to keep game numbers high. Due to this here most people do not understand wildlife management and many people do not use what they kill. This means animals such as Kangaroos are not valued and most land holders just want them gone.
 
Sorry about misunderstanding, I knew I'd heard the term green hunting before, but completely forgot it was darting animals for vet treatment - my mistake :)
 
Very interesting discussion that completely challenged my prior beliefs. I didn't know most of the facts and particularly some of the potential benefits of controlled hunting...

I don't think I could ever shoot an animal myself (though I do eat meat), but I can see how hunting may actually have some upsides as well. So far I only discussed it with Americans who shoot deer for fun rather than meat and who occasionally used inappropriate rifles (at times even arrows) as well as an English guy (a farmer) who hates foxes and strongly defended fox hunts. He said these animals are "evil" as they can get into a rush and kill dozens of chicken so they deserve this returned cruelty. Taken this background I had a rather negative view of hunting any other than modest hunting with appropriate weapons and level of skill for population control or supply of meat. While the criteria of appropriate weapons and skill still apply in my eyes I now reflect on other points as well. Thank you for some of those great explanations. I still can't entirely make up my mind, but it is some new aspects to take into consideration.
 
markmeier said:
Very interesting discussion that completely challenged my prior beliefs. I didn't know most of the facts and particularly some of the potential benefits of controlled hunting...

I don't think I could ever shoot an animal myself (though I do eat meat), but I can see how hunting may actually have some upsides as well. So far I only discussed it with Americans who shoot deer for fun rather than meat and who occasionally used inappropriate rifles (at times even arrows) as well as an English guy (a farmer) who hates foxes and strongly defended fox hunts. He said these animals are "evil" as they can get into a rush and kill dozens of chicken so they deserve this returned cruelty. Taken this background I had a rather negative view of hunting any other than modest hunting with appropriate weapons and level of skill for population control or supply of meat. While the criteria of appropriate weapons and skill still apply in my eyes I now reflect on other points as well. Thank you for some of those great explanations. I still can't entirely make up my mind, but it is some new aspects to take into consideration.
Click to expand...

Predator control is a proper part of any rural lifestyle. I've killed 9 coyotes in the past year.
 
The fox hunt in England does not aim at efficiency or predator control as far as I am aware of. It's a complete mess the way this guy described and justified it - he may have wanted to provoke me a bit as well but we were on entirely friendly terms otherwise as with the American guys I mentioned ;) Why don't they construct better fences for the chicken, they can't shoot all foxes anyways? But it's a bit off topic here as it wasn't the point originally discussed.
 
I kill coyote because its good target practice. I can't lose a Angus or Bison calf. They aren't regulated as a game species around here.

And I also hunt with a crossbow some (not coyote though)
 
I could put up photos of lambs killed by foxes. One fox I shot last year had just killed 5 lambs before he was shot. On the outside sometimes there is no sign the lamb was killed by a fox, but when you cut open the skin there is severe hemoraging around the neck under the skin.
I dont think hunting is cruel either. I used to know someone in the Melbourne hunt club who said she had seen many foxes caught by the hounds. She said the fox never knew what hit them as once one hound catches it the pack devours it in seconds.

Green hunting used to be much more common in South Africa. Someone could pay to shoot a Rino with a tranquillizer gun and have a fibreglass replica made to take home. The system was overused though and animals were tranquillized to often and sometimes led to their death as there is always risks of death with tranquillizing animals.
 
tschandler71 said:
Green hunting sounds like something a hippie would come up with. Its not hunting at all.
Click to expand...

its a cheap way of hunting, but as Monty said it was overused and abused, and caused stress to animals, as well as having quite a few die under the anaesthetic.

Large game animals are not cheap to buy, which is why the cost of shooting them dead is so high for hunters.

but some of the smaller reserves would get away with buying a few animals, then charge hunters to shoot them with tranquillisers.

Its quite a risky business darting an animal, some do die, others get injured, still others have lasting affects and get killed by predators.

Darting lions for example in the wild, even their pride mates will maul a darted lion if it isn't guarded until it recovers.

Elephants are heavy beasts and it takes a lot of drug to knock them down, but they can fall on stumps or sharp rocks, or in awkward places where it is impossible to move them.

If for example you wanted to dart the same elephant ten times in one year, I would fully expect it to die before you got to ten.

Green hunting isn't all that popular or common really, there was a bit of an upsurge when it was first introduced, but I think it has dwindled.
 
Sorry if I have a completely different view here, but the fox hunt in England definitely is a cruel and by and large pointless practice (i.e. pointless with regards to protecting farm animals. the participants definitely enjoy it - except for the foxes that is). It's like killing all venomous snakes after one bit a child and it won't even prevent future incidents unless you get them all. In my eyes hostility towards potentially dangerous animals should be cured by proper education rather than fuelled by pointless killing. Also most participants aren't farmers but rather well earning people who see it as a sport as they never lost a penny due to foxes killing lambs or some chicken (which is instinct rather than an "evil" nature, the fox cannot help it if people flock animals closely together and this just isn't planned for in its brain). Apart from that the fox is chased for a time before it is killed. And being killed in such a way doesn't resemble my idea of a virtually painless death no matter if it takes 3 or 10 seconds. It rather sounds like an argument to make one feel better about something one knows/ feels to be wrong in the first place. I also think it is no point that animals suffer in the wild as well so it is alright to inflict pain on them even if it is completely unnecessary/ an inefficient way of killing. Then you can also shoot people including children as they will die one day and it may indeed be a slow and painful process then. Some philosophers even claim it's better not to get children in the first place as they will inevitably suffer in their lives. So creating life is cruel and ending it asap is mercy. Why not drop a really big bomb then so all live is gone in less than a second and there won't be any pain ever after? Completely flawed arguments in my eyes.

And I surely won't comment on shooting animals for target practice or using a crossbow for shooting in the days of high precision arms as I consider this statement a deliberate provocation.

P.S.: I'm sorry if I offend people who enjoy hunting for whatever reason. I can't deny that I enjoy eating meat. Still there is different approaches to things. And while I do have to accept differing ones, at instances I still feel they are rather flawed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top