Coyote are invasive varmints. Our coyote aren't little either. They are the remnant descendants of red wolf and timber wolf mixed with western coyote. Coyotes out west are smaller animals that hunt rodents (so not to compete with the gray wolf). Our coyote are bigger stronger not scared of humans and kill livestock. They are coywolf.
Pros and cons of animals in captivity
- Thread starter kiwipo
- Start date
Well you could have said so then rather than speaking of target practice. I still think it's not their fault if they are hybrids and also dangerous. Taking precautions against them may also be better than shooting them. You won't get them all anyways and so the latent danger remains (unless this hybrid form is driven to extinction).
Also in the other thread you said you make sure to kill animals with one shot. That's not inflicting unnecessary pain and may be termed "efficient killing" which obviously is the best way to do it if it has to be done. Bur how can it be done with a crossbow? My American colleague said it often is a bit of a mess if you use a crossbow.
Also you mentioned there that you either eat what you kill or give it to a food bank. So none of this reminds me of what I was told about the fox hunt in England which is sad stuff even if they were a pest. There must be better ways of dealing with it than bloodthirsty chases and be it controlled killing. They also wouldn't have as many foxes if they hadn't killed all other large predators before...
Also in the other thread you said you make sure to kill animals with one shot. That's not inflicting unnecessary pain and may be termed "efficient killing" which obviously is the best way to do it if it has to be done. Bur how can it be done with a crossbow? My American colleague said it often is a bit of a mess if you use a crossbow.
Also you mentioned there that you either eat what you kill or give it to a food bank. So none of this reminds me of what I was told about the fox hunt in England which is sad stuff even if they were a pest. There must be better ways of dealing with it than bloodthirsty chases and be it controlled killing. They also wouldn't have as many foxes if they hadn't killed all other large predators before...
Depends on the operator. Crossbows are another thing banned in the state I live in. At least bow hunting is not banned like in England, the home of Robin Hood.
@ Markmeier,
Fox hunting with hounds was banned in the UK at least 5 years ago, and I for one was happy about it. They are still killed by farmers (and I'm sure others) but at least not chased for miles and ripped apart by hounds.
I'm not getting into the debate about hunting apart from to say I'm firmly in Chip's camp (but not the bit about perfering animals to go extinct rather than be shot).
Fox hunting with hounds was banned in the UK at least 5 years ago, and I for one was happy about it. They are still killed by farmers (and I'm sure others) but at least not chased for miles and ripped apart by hounds.
I'm not getting into the debate about hunting apart from to say I'm firmly in Chip's camp (but not the bit about perfering animals to go extinct rather than be shot).
@chizlit: I'm very glad to hear that. I lived in England from 2005 to 2007 and didn't learn about a ban on the fox chase with hounds then. In fact I thought there was still an ongoing debate between the two houses of parliament and that the lords objected to a ban. But I checked it up and apparently it was "already" banned in 2005 (Germany: 1934) so I was mistaken or mixed it up with something else e.g. the fox hunt in general. I'm surprised this English guy also didn't seem to know about it. At least he didn't mention it when he talked about the pleasures of dogs chasing foxes to exhaustion and then...
As to the hunting thing I'm still not sure. I think all good points against hunting for fun have been made in the other thread. Taking some of the arguments on here, there seem to be some ups to hunting as well, though, from a pragmatic rather than idealistic perspective that is. Perhaps one day people receive as much gratification from simply donating money for conservation efforts as they get from killing some of the animals and be they "surplus" specimen that won't do for further breeding. I certainly doubt it, though. The article on the fox hunt also cites studies and surveys pointing out that most hunters do it because of personal enjoyment rather than any potential benefits such as population control etc. But this stuff rather belongs in the other thread.
When it comes to keeping animals in enclosures, however, the original concern of this thread I am more optimistic. The EAZA (obviously a biased institution with regards to this issue) rightfully points out that many captive populations have a richer genetic pool than the respective population in the wild (e.g. tiger) and some 30 species now only exist in captivity. So of course there is benefits to it. German zoos also try to stress their financial support for in situ projects - and be it marginal - as well as their efforts of reintroducing animals to the wild. They also do collect money for certain projects which couldn't be run any other way. As they also struggle to improve enclosures and enrichment, I do believe they do a rather good job. I'm certainly glad they exist and though I'm aware of some shortcomings I enjoy supporting them. The case may be still more clear with breeding centres etc.
As to the hunting thing I'm still not sure. I think all good points against hunting for fun have been made in the other thread. Taking some of the arguments on here, there seem to be some ups to hunting as well, though, from a pragmatic rather than idealistic perspective that is. Perhaps one day people receive as much gratification from simply donating money for conservation efforts as they get from killing some of the animals and be they "surplus" specimen that won't do for further breeding. I certainly doubt it, though. The article on the fox hunt also cites studies and surveys pointing out that most hunters do it because of personal enjoyment rather than any potential benefits such as population control etc. But this stuff rather belongs in the other thread.
When it comes to keeping animals in enclosures, however, the original concern of this thread I am more optimistic. The EAZA (obviously a biased institution with regards to this issue) rightfully points out that many captive populations have a richer genetic pool than the respective population in the wild (e.g. tiger) and some 30 species now only exist in captivity. So of course there is benefits to it. German zoos also try to stress their financial support for in situ projects - and be it marginal - as well as their efforts of reintroducing animals to the wild. They also do collect money for certain projects which couldn't be run any other way. As they also struggle to improve enclosures and enrichment, I do believe they do a rather good job. I'm certainly glad they exist and though I'm aware of some shortcomings I enjoy supporting them. The case may be still more clear with breeding centres etc.
My dad has a crossbow because he is a paraplegic (after a stroke). I have "hunted" with it but I haven't killed anything with it. I do bow hunt though. A good center bow shot kills just as quickly as a gun shot absent the hydrostatic shock.
I am a bit confused here.....
So fun hunting zebra in Botswana for example is ok, but frowned upon?[unless its not a pretty alpha male, then its ok]
How about the hunting for fun of elephants,white rhino etc.etc?
The location is that important?
Killing an animal that is created and bred to be hunted in Texas is more efficient than killing a wild one in Africa. The wild one is part of an established ecosystem. The captive one is a commodity.
Yes I grasp the economics of having an exotic animal factory,producing a commodity..........breed breed, bang bang=$$$$$$$
I was looking for some enlightenment about the African part.
I thought you where indicating it wasnt good idea to kill an African zebra [alpha male] but ok to kill one in Texas.
What about all the safari killing holidays? Do they stipulate no alpha male zebras etc?
What about the elephants white rhinos and hippos for example?
Do the exotic animal factory outfits in U.S. donate $$ to support conservation?
I was looking for some enlightenment about the African part.
I thought you where indicating it wasnt good idea to kill an African zebra [alpha male] but ok to kill one in Texas.
What about all the safari killing holidays? Do they stipulate no alpha male zebras etc?
What about the elephants white rhinos and hippos for example?
Do the exotic animal factory outfits in U.S. donate $$ to support conservation?
Last edited:
I wasn't making a normative statement but a positive one. It wasn't about which one was a better choice. It is simply personal preference based on the economics. But you also add in that wild hunting supports the local African economics which helps those people from turning to poaching etc. So many variables.
Some people may see the trip to Africa as a plus, myself if I am going to Africa it wouldn't be to hunt. The cons outweigh the pros just for simple hunting (getting my gun cleared, shots, expenses). If I go to Africa say the Masai Mara or Kruger the only shooting I will be doing is with a telephoto lens.
Im not personally big on hunting things I am not going to eat. I certainly don't hunt coyote for sport, I do it because they need culling. I can't lose any calves be they Angus or Bison. Though, I either eat all the venison I harvest or I donate it to a food bank.
But I can separate the way the world works and my personal views.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
So, @chip, just what has been your goal with this discussion?
What he was saying, is that on a hunting farm where animals are bred for the sole purpose of hunting and nothing else, it is far better from a conservation point of view to shoot the animals.
In the wild all animals have a dedicated ecosystem, in a previous post I described the Lion pride system and just what effect shooting the prime pride males will have on the population as a whole, which is why Botswana strictly controls hunting now, and prefers to make their dollars from tourism rather than hunting.
Safari killing holidays as you term them, hunting in the wild, take out permits for specific animals which are granted by the govt, so they are restricted to the type of animal on the permit, and the number of animals. They can't go out and shoot anything and everything as they used to a hundred years ago.
The money from hunting Safaris doesn't usually go direct to conservation, but it does pay for the running of Game depts, and the wages paid to support workers and hunters boosts the local economy in countries where there is usually no welfare or aid.
A bit difficult to work out just what answers you want from the way you phrase your questions, you seem to have a mixed up view of the subject alltogether.
Causing a ruckus?
Zooplantman.
You could say my goal was to try and understand the mindsets of people who pay to kill animals for personal satisfaction, knowing that the money they have paid,in many instances, doesnt help conservation.
What goes on in the head of someone who wants to kill a Giraffe,Elephant or Hippo and poses for a picture with it?
What is the woman thinking who`s picture I see, triumphant after killing a Zebra in U.S.A ?
I am interested to know what people think after they have killed an animal for any reason other than to eat it, or stop it killing stock, or stop it killing themselves?
Would they, for instance, shoot a Black Labrador for the same reason [whatever the reason is]?
*************************************
kiwipo has confirmed what I assumed was the situation regarding permits controlling the killing in Botswana ? or the neighbouring Countries as well?
I wonder if the system is policed?
Do these Countries contributed to animal conservation?
********************************
I maybe misunderstood the post by tschandler71 suggesting an Alpha male Zebra could be killed in Africa,I still dont understand if this is the case or not.
The U.S.A. base hunting factory outlets [for the want of a better name].
Dont appear to support conservation, please correct me if I am wrong,
tschandler71, the purpose of my post was not "to cause a ruckus".
Then why did you not join a hunters forum and question them? A forum called ZooChat, and described as being for zoo enthusiasts, is not likely to have the answers to your questions. Our focus is on animals in zoos - live animals - and the husbandry and breeding of them. And sometimes, releasing those animals into the wild.
tschandler71 was probably correct in his assessment.
Hix
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Chip,
OK
Now when I want to understand someone else, or their mindset, I ask questions, listen and reflect, then usually ask more questions.
So I would never have guessed that your intention here was to understand other people (nevermind Hix's excellent point: If it is hunters you want to understand, why ask zoo aficionados?)
Well on the 29th February, nanoboy posted the following........
Folks, let's keep the emotions in check, and not bite each other's heads off - no pun intended.
To the hunters out there, why do you do it? You aren't hunter gatherers, so you surely don't need the food. So what am I missing? What's the thrill in killing an animal for sport?
(I am not trying to be self-righteous - I am just trying to understand.)
Why did not you suggest an alternative forum then?
Actually this thread was instigated by kiwipo and chlidonias from the "Elephant Kills Keeper" thread.
Thanks for the suggestions of hunter forums, but will leave them to the hunters. My interest is in live animals not dead ones.
But it seems some of us are not just zoo aficioado's, as some also seem to kill animals too which is something I cant grasp let alone Chip.