I wanted the opinion of others on this topic. I myself am a little mixed. I have always been against hunting any animals for sport and find the practice barbaric.However recently reading articles on hunting ranches in Texas that now are no longer allowed to hunt endangered species on there ranches, are going to stop breeding these species. These articles have also claimed that if it were not for these ranches that many endangered hoofstock would not be present in captivity or to a lesser degree. So my point is this: What is the right thing to do? As I've stated I hate hunting animals period! But is it in the greater good to allow these ranches to breed and allow hunting if it means there will be a backup population there?
Hunting ranches
- Thread starter thor
- Start date
Sounds like you've been brainwashed by the industry. They don't contribute to conservation and preservation of the species. They breed them to shoot them. There are no tests conducted on the best genetically matched individuals. They are not sent to zoos around the world to preserve them. It's the same crap from nut jobs who have lions and tigers as pets. They claim to be preserving the species. But owners breed them with whomever. So you have a mismatched population of tigers, lions, or hoof-stock that are genetically worthless.
Meaghan Edwards
Well-Known Member
I think they are disgusting. To shoot an animal from behind a fence is far from a sport!
As mentioned, people can claim breeding big cats for pets is beneficial for conservation. Both just further degrades the animals, IMO.
As mentioned, people can claim breeding big cats for pets is beneficial for conservation. Both just further degrades the animals, IMO.
Trust me when I tell you that I myself have never hunted nor have any interest in hunting any animals for food or sport. I find the whole thing very cruel. My only concern is that when I read these articles about these exotic hoofstock ranches that are going to stop carrying these species and zoos are getting rid of these species than who will have them? My hope is that they would become viewing ranches where people could just go take pictures but I guess there's just not enough money in that? I'm also not talking about these horrible canned hunting lodges but in retrospect I guess there all pretty horrible. I just wish there was a solution.
Simply not true. I don't know the situation in America but I know of many hunting ranches in Africa that spend considerable time and money finding the most appropriate breeding stock and work with other ranches. One in particular is the only place in southern Africa to hold a species of antelope that was once common. I can't remember the species. The owner of this property gets quite emotional when his animals are killed. Many of them have strict policies in place about how the animals are killed. These people have found a way to make conservation profitable and that is the key to success.
I would also like to say animals on hunting properties are generally killed more humanely than that steak anyone might be having for dinner tonight.
I hunt pigs I ensure my knife is always sharp. Before anyone has a go at me pigs are a big feral problem in Australia.
Exactly, many of the people who are against such places, also have no qualms about going through the McDonald's drive-thru for a Big Mac.
On any controversial subject, remember that the situation and legislation in one country may be very different in another. The manegement of a hunting ranch in South africa may be very different from that of one in texas or say Nuevo leon, Mexico. that said, in my country private hunting ranches do not promote conservation. However, the Seri indians in Baja California manage a hunting program for desert bighorn on their tribal grounds. They are a true model for conservation and the hunting revenues go to the tribal council which cares for the land. The desert bighorn population has actually grown under this program and this a unique example of how hunting, conservation and native people may all benefit. It should be mentioned that when bighorn hunting was managed by the Baja california state officials it was plagued by constant corruption. So it also depends on how hunting is managed.
Last edited:
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
Where these hunting ranches really help benefit conservation is in animals such as the Scimitar-Horned Oryx and the Addax. To give you an example, ISIS lists there as being only 103.133.2 Addax in North America, with the single largest population of 33.32 at Fossil Rim here in Texas. In a perfect world, all of these hunting ranches would be like Fossil Rim and not have hunting, but the reality is far different. There are literally thousands of Addax and Scimitar-Horned Oryx in Texas. This is the main population of these animals in the entire world. Zoos would rather not give up their valuable animal, so it is to these larger, and albeit less regulated, populations that we look to to rewild at least these two species. The Addra Gazelle has a similar status, but is seen in fewer numbers). Think of this as extreme ex-situ conservation. A case I am familiar with for an in-situ parallel is the Mountain Nyala. There is a strict quota on Ethiopian hunting of the Mountain Nyala. There are only 5 licensed guides in the country,and these guides are only allowed to take a few animals a year. Each animal taken nets the Ethiopian conservation organization about $100,000. That is a good chunk of change.
Let's move this scenario out of Africa now. We have a species that is extinct in the wild (the Scimitar0Horned Oryx), but flourishes in captivity. It is not the captivity that we see on a daily basis (zoos). Hunters are willing to pay big bucks in order to hunt these animals, so the ranchers are more then willing to stock these animals on their ranches. Only a few animals will be taken each year, as few people will pay the big bucks for these super exotics. Their population is able to grow as a somewhat checked rate. We worry a lot about genetic lines in the zoo world, but there is little of that here. If an animal is born inbred it probably won't survive or it will have some visible defect that makes it not desirable to the hunters (i.e. imperfect horns). Natural selection anyone. Conscientious ranchers will occasionally import new blood to their herds to alleviate any problems.
Because these ranch populations are so big and stable now, it is from these populations that animals like the Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, and Addra Gazelle can be reintroduced. Put a value on something, and it will become more valuable. Believe it or not, hunters, at least big game hunters, are some of the most valuable allies in conservation. They do not want to see their "sport" disappear. So places like Safari Club International have large, and sometimes well funded, conservation programs. They want to save what we have today so that future generations of hunters will have something to hunt.
I make this rationalization as someone who has never hunted, has no desire to hunt, and has only ever fired a BB gun and a water gun. I do tend to agree that hunting is unnecessary and repulsive, but the larger forces of economics lead me to the conclusion that regulated and controlled hunting is one of the most important conservation tools at our disposal.
Like it or not.
Let's move this scenario out of Africa now. We have a species that is extinct in the wild (the Scimitar0Horned Oryx), but flourishes in captivity. It is not the captivity that we see on a daily basis (zoos). Hunters are willing to pay big bucks in order to hunt these animals, so the ranchers are more then willing to stock these animals on their ranches. Only a few animals will be taken each year, as few people will pay the big bucks for these super exotics. Their population is able to grow as a somewhat checked rate. We worry a lot about genetic lines in the zoo world, but there is little of that here. If an animal is born inbred it probably won't survive or it will have some visible defect that makes it not desirable to the hunters (i.e. imperfect horns). Natural selection anyone. Conscientious ranchers will occasionally import new blood to their herds to alleviate any problems.
Because these ranch populations are so big and stable now, it is from these populations that animals like the Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, and Addra Gazelle can be reintroduced. Put a value on something, and it will become more valuable. Believe it or not, hunters, at least big game hunters, are some of the most valuable allies in conservation. They do not want to see their "sport" disappear. So places like Safari Club International have large, and sometimes well funded, conservation programs. They want to save what we have today so that future generations of hunters will have something to hunt.
I make this rationalization as someone who has never hunted, has no desire to hunt, and has only ever fired a BB gun and a water gun. I do tend to agree that hunting is unnecessary and repulsive, but the larger forces of economics lead me to the conclusion that regulated and controlled hunting is one of the most important conservation tools at our disposal.
Like it or not.
If they dont contribute to conservation, why did they create an organization to contribute to conservation?
Second Ark Foundation
Exotic Wildlife Association
Second Ark Foundation
Exotic Wildlife Association
And it sounds to me like you have been brainwashed by the zoo industry.
Zoos, on the whole do a lousy job at preserving species. The priority of having animals on display works directly against the concept of developing a large sustainable population.
If you really want to create a back-up population of a wild species, you don't spread that population over an entire country, in single pairs, in noisy urban zoos with different people all looking after them who all have a vast collection of other species to look after and try and breed.
Instead you consolidate that population into a single location, where pairings are flexible and in the case of incompatibility or unexpected death, the situation doesn't leave their healthy mate waiting two years for a substitute to be flown in.
In addition it fosters expertise, since the people caring for the animals are focused more exclusively on this species and not distracted by breeding all the other individual species under their wing. And lastly with so many specimens of a prioritised species, there is no need to place all of them on display. The vast majority of them can be housed in simpler and more peaceful accommodation. Which is more conducive to breeding.
This is what irritates me most about Zoos. Its their absolute biggest fundamental flaw. Virtually none of them specialise. Considering the scope of species they collectively house, we practically never see an individual zoo say "you know what? we're gonna prioritise bongo. We don't want a pair, we want 20 pairs. And we are going to become the experts in Bongo breeding. We are more than happy to share surplus stock with other zoos for display, but don't stress about breeding them - We got Bongo covered. We are the Bongo breeding program HQ. By the way, would anyone like to offer the same for Sable? We have some valuable sable here but we need the space for Bongo - please take our Sable, collect some more and take responsibility for them. In return can you just send us a couple of spare males down the track so we can display them again?"
Obviously all zoos want to house a variety of species, but its the fact that these breeding programs and not centralised between (ideally) two or three zoos that they become nobody's priority.
We actually don't need zoos to have a breeding program for all 200+ species they keep. Just one or two done properly would suffice. Imagine that. If every Zoo in the United States took responsibility for one otherwise insignificant species. just one.
Thats all they have to worry about.
Thats all they have to import.
Thats all they have to research.
Thats all they have to support a in-situ conservation project for.
just one species.
They still have a collection of other species. To the visitor the zoo is much like it has always been, diverse and interesting. To the Zoo managers/keepers its even easier. They keep one jaguar in enclosure suitable for one jaguar and when he dies, there will be no problems getting another because the breeding programs in either (hypothetical) San Antonio or Houston between them have 100 jaguars and always have a surplus animal or two they are happy to retire out to another zoo. Its the same with their de-sexed lions that come from San Diego and the elderly tapir pair that come from North Carolina. But this specific zoo just has to worry about Bongo thats their bit for the species that keeps the whole AZA stocked.
This is not me praising hunting ranches. This is just me Arguing the number one reason why I believe Zoos are not so great at preserving species as they make out they are.
Now i will address these ranches. You said -
Actually they do contribute to the preservation of the species. At least in captivity. Even some Texas ranch that is totally for profit and offers not a cent to conservation in the wild will still be of benefit, simply by the fact that they maintain a herd. I dare say, their herd will likely be much larger than those of 90% of zoos. And when their breeding male dies, they are much more likely to have a replacement instantly on hand to replace him.
You didn't think this through did you? If the ranch shot all their animals they would have none to continue to breed from. What ranches do is breed intensively and allow the surplus (often males, depending on the species) to be shot. Particularly in the case of ungulates, but its true of many species, males tend to be surplus. This is because so many species live in male-dominant polygamous societies. Kinda convenient since males are the trophies hunters usually desire. but this is not the point.
Zoos breeding programs on the other hand often become deadlocked with surplus animals and have to halt breeding. See in the wild all these surplus males and older animals would have been picked off by lions by now. But in zoos, with all the vet care, protection and food they desire they live twice as long as their wild counterparts.
In fact to get around this many Zoos actually shoot their surplus hoofstock to be able to free up space to resume breeding. I wonder if before they do this they let them loose in the wild? you know, just to be fair. To give them a good sporting chance?
Its also worth noting that the majority of species housed in virtually all Zoos are not personally supported by that zoo in an in-situ conservation program. Zoos may financially support conservation programs for a few of the species they keep, but for the rest they only off what the ranch does - preservation of the species in captivity.
So philosophies and reasons for being aside, in terms of what they are practically doing for the species, is there that much difference?
who's got more addax? Zoos or ranches?
The one Hunting ranch here in Australia is probably the saving grace for captive nilgai here. The Zoos certainly didn't manage to preserve them.
And whilst I personally don't like seeing a rare species get shot - I actually have more faith in the person with financial incentive to not let his animals die out than a zoo. As we all know and frequently complain about - Zoos let their animals die out all the time.
So that just leaves the ethical side of it. Is canned hunting wrong? Is culling wrong?
Personally, I eat meat so I am wise enough to not be so hypocritical as to condemn those who kill their own.
Last edited:
peacock;425967The one Hunting ranch here in Australia is probably the saving grace for captive nilgai here. The Zoos certainly didn't manage to preserve them. [/QUOTE said:
Game ranches are the only economic way to keep sufficiently large numbers of animals for a sustainable population. Zoos can not afford to keep large herds and then have to deal with excess males which are a serious problem. On a game farm excess males are an asset which pays for the upkeep and feeding of the herd.
I'm all for it and see a game ranch as my only possibility of owning my own zoo. There is no way I could afford it otherwise.
There is also the opinion that game ranch animals are shot in small pens. I am sure this happens occasionally, where a collector just wants a trophy animal to put on the wall. Most I have heard of release excess male to be hunted in very large timbered enclosures where it may take a couple of days to even find the animal they are after. Many game ranches I have heard of just run the breeding herd and sell the excess to people who own the large hunting blocks.
I'm all for it and see a game ranch as my only possibility of owning my own zoo. There is no way I could afford it otherwise.
There is also the opinion that game ranch animals are shot in small pens. I am sure this happens occasionally, where a collector just wants a trophy animal to put on the wall. Most I have heard of release excess male to be hunted in very large timbered enclosures where it may take a couple of days to even find the animal they are after. Many game ranches I have heard of just run the breeding herd and sell the excess to people who own the large hunting blocks.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
The idea is all nice and fine, but has a serious disadvantage: what if that single location is afflicted by unpredicted events with troublesome consequences for the breeding program? Such can be a major natural disaster (as currently seen in Japan), political/social turmoil, war, financial/ supply shortfalls, staff changes and, maybe most important, epidemic outbreaks. What if Foot-and-mouth disease is detected in your Bongo HQ, and the official veterinary department demands that all animals have to be euthanized? Or your animals fall ill one by one and die? At one go, your breeding program is history...The Trypanosomiasis outbreak at the Sumatran Rhinoceros Conservation Centre in 2004 is a good example for such an unfortunate event.
Ever heard of Dvůr Králové? At least when talking about African ungulates, this Czech zoo comes pretty close to your demands...
This is the conversation I was hoping for! The first two responses made me feel really guilty for just posting the question.Like I said I'm not a hunter, never could be but if game hunting in a controlled atmosphere promotes conservation than I think we might have to revisit policies. In a perfect world there would be no hunting as far as I'm concerned. But if the benefits for conservation and a species outweigh the detriments? Than what is worse?
Sometimes the best way to ensure the future of a species is to demonstrate it's monetary value. If people are willing to pay huge sums of money for a trophy animal, then a demand is created. There is money to be made from the continuance of the species, and lost in the case of it's terminal demise.
I have some issues with the sporting aspect of a canned hunt. Most of the men in my family are avid hunters (although I am not), and would look upon hunting something in a confined area as less than ethical.
I have no real issue from the standpoint of a zoo enthusiast with the ranches, and do not agree with the ban on the keeping of endangered species. On the surface their practices may seem questionable, but you have to look at them honestly and objectively. The life of an antelope on a game ranch has to be infinitely closer to nature than the life of a cow or pig on a factory farm. Animals in places like that may never even see the light of day, are shot full of artificial hormones, confined to tiny cells, and go through life in a situation that closely resembles and assembly line. Yet for a person to call for places like this to be shut down would be viewed as noble but laughable in scope.
In the end it all goes back to the utilitarian argument. The more value an animal has to people, the better chance it has to survive. It may not be fair, but it's true.
I have some issues with the sporting aspect of a canned hunt. Most of the men in my family are avid hunters (although I am not), and would look upon hunting something in a confined area as less than ethical.
I have no real issue from the standpoint of a zoo enthusiast with the ranches, and do not agree with the ban on the keeping of endangered species. On the surface their practices may seem questionable, but you have to look at them honestly and objectively. The life of an antelope on a game ranch has to be infinitely closer to nature than the life of a cow or pig on a factory farm. Animals in places like that may never even see the light of day, are shot full of artificial hormones, confined to tiny cells, and go through life in a situation that closely resembles and assembly line. Yet for a person to call for places like this to be shut down would be viewed as noble but laughable in scope.
In the end it all goes back to the utilitarian argument. The more value an animal has to people, the better chance it has to survive. It may not be fair, but it's true.
I remember many years ago the uproar in the zoo industry when they found out that some of the San Diego zoo's surplus animals were sold to dealers and ended up on hunting ranches. Till this day many hoofstock mammals that do not have studbooks published are rumored to end up on game ranches. At the time I was horrified to hear that, but now like many whom have posted on this thread I find myself wondering if it actually beneficial to have these ranches around to keep these species alive in captivity. If the answer is to let an animal go extinct or more vulnerable because of lack of stock than I have to say I may have changed my opinion. As long as there are laws in place and upheld regarding how the animals are hunted and how many taken(only surplus males) and not canned hunting or animals that are hand-raised and trusting of humans. Like I said I'm not a hunter but i do eat meat so I cannot criticise those that do hunt for food. For sport I will never undertand but if they do it as humanely as possible and help in turn with the conservation of the species. Than I guess it beats the alternative(begrudgingly).
AH HA! i expected this very argument - i even thought "they'll bring up the malaysian rhinos"...
This is all true Sun Wukong. All true. However that why i said ideally 2-3 zoos would take part, once the population expanded into much larger numbers. BUt still, when we are talking 10-50 animals, I personally think the benefits of consolidation far, far far outweigh the risks.
Ever heard of Dvůr Králové? At least when talking about African ungulates, this Czech zoo comes pretty close to your demands...
I have, mostly regarding the NW Rhinos. However I did not know that they took such a proactive approach in breeding african hoofstock (though i knew they had many). SDWAP is another park that springs to mind that really keep large impressive herd sizes. I would love to hear more on Dvůr Králové....
Post number 10 by Peacock is one of the most intelligent and well articulated posts I have ever read on ZooChat.
And as for the early statement that private cat breeders do not contribute to conservation, you should know that some members of the Feline Conservation Federation (a private cat breeders consortium) are the biggest contributors to Jim Sanderson's work conserving small wild cats in the field.
And as for the early statement that private cat breeders do not contribute to conservation, you should know that some members of the Feline Conservation Federation (a private cat breeders consortium) are the biggest contributors to Jim Sanderson's work conserving small wild cats in the field.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@peacock: I'd even go so far and recommend that right from the start 2-3 institutions should form the breeding "HQ", decreasing the previously mentioned risk. And have the collaborating zoos sign a contract that they keep on with their project, even when the staff changes...
As for Dvůr Králové: then take a look at the Czech section of the forum.
As for Dvůr Králové: then take a look at the Czech section of the forum.
The idea is all nice and fine, but has a serious disadvantage: what if that single location is afflicted by unpredicted events with troublesome consequences for the breeding program? Such can be a major natural disaster (as currently seen in Japan), political/social turmoil, war, financial/ supply shortfalls, staff changes and, maybe most important, epidemic outbreaks. What if Foot-and-mouth disease is detected in your Bongo HQ, and the official veterinary department demands that all animals have to be euthanized? Or your animals fall ill one by one and die? At one go, your breeding program is history...The Trypanosomiasis outbreak at the Sumatran Rhinoceros Conservation Centre in 2004 is a good example for such an unfortunate event.
Ever heard of Dvůr Králové? At least when talking about African ungulates, this Czech zoo comes pretty close to your demands...
I good point indeed. You really don't want to be putting all you 'eggs into one basket'.
Most good zoos are also involved in international stud books and co-ordinate through systems such as ISIS's various conservation software; ARKS, Med-ARKS etc.
ISIS :: Home
Moreover, many species in zoos do have a prime stud book keeper who will advise on breeding co-orientation, surplus stock etc.
Unfortunately most people seem very much unaware of the amount of work that goes on in this field in animal collections.