Sure, I do understand. I grew up in rural NH, so I have lots of friends and family who are hunters and many of them are responsible and thoughtful about it, and I've spent a lot of time around and using guns. Wildlife photography is so similar to hunting that I can find a lot of common ground with hunters. You want to test your skills, learn an animal's behavior, exercise patience from a hide, all to get close to an animal that normally would not let you near them, and finally to see if you're good enough to execute when you get the brief window of opportunity. Whether I'm pointing a camera or a gun almost doesn't matter. I think that's why your experience with big game hunting speaks closely to why I feel the way I do about it. I can empathize with the actual "hunt" part of hunting, but the killing is mostly incidental to the process and not something I find much joy in. A lot of the organized big game hunts, especially on the savanna, are all of the killing with none of the hunt.
How harsh are the penalties for poaching over there? I'm hearing things like "life sentence" and "hanging" coming from here and there, it isn't that severe is it? I kind of doubt America would extradite one of their own if they demand his arrest if the penalties are that harsh. I guess it would also depend on the species too, since every environment has their pest animals. For the hunter and farmer that helped him find and bait the lion, they've been taken to court but they don't know exactly what to charge them with yet. .
BIAS ALERT: I don't like hunting in general, I've never been a hunter, nor do I have any desire to do so. So take the following post with that rather large boulder of salt. I just don't get the conservation argument from the standpoint that it's necessary to violently thin out a herd. I do get the argument (somewhat) that certain populations can become damaging if they are not managed (and let's also be clear about this, most of the time the reason for these unmanageable populations can be tied directly to the interference of man in the first place). So ok, let's say I buy the 'you need to kill' argument - is hunting really the most humane way to do it? If it is truly necessary to kill these animals - as opposed to saying putting them on a large preserve away from other animals - why not just tranquilize them and put them to sleep like you would any beloved pet? I'll tell you why, because the conservation aspect of hunting is incidental. People want to go out, use their weapons and shoot animals. I don't get it personally, but if that's what you want to do, so be it. But let's cut to the chase here, if conservation was truly the motivator here, there are a lot of ways to do so without having to violently kill the animals in question. So let's call it what it is. People want to hunt, and if there are some benefits, great, but I suspect many would still do so without the supposed benefits, because the primary, and sought after benefit for most hunters, is the actual hunting.
The conservation argument is tied entirely to the money. I don't think anyone is arguing that a rich guy with a gun from another country is the most efficient or humane way to remove unwanted animals. Of course nobody goes to shoot animals because they support conservation - they'd just make a donation in that case. However, a guy paying $50,000 in money that goes directly back into the local economy, and specifically conservation efforts, is a just a net gain in a situation where the animal must be removed anyway. Further, it's arguable that, if it's carefully regulated and controlled, the money brought into conservation may outweigh the removal of even small numbers of animals that aren't unwanted.
I tried starting a thread on this before realizing there was already a 9 page discussion in here. Whoops. Anyway, there was this article on Gizmodo of all places that succinctly describes the conservation aspect of it. There was a part in the article where some guy paid a bunch of money to kill a rhino that was past the breeding age and was actively killing other males who were. That the animal being hunted is usually turned over to a village for food, or to scientists for research suggests to me that the carcass isn't being wasted. Some guy pays a game warden a crapload of money, which then goes into ensuring that they keep poachers off their lands so more people can hunt. It's icky capitalism, but if it means that there's more of a population, then it's doing the job, right? This lion murderer has spent at least $100,000 on big game hunting. How many of you would spend that much on anything, other than a house or car? And none of the money that would go towards that house or car goes towards conservation. For the record, I've never gone hunting. I think firearms are dangerous, and hunting when there's a Whole Foods on practically every corner seems like a massive waste of time.
Which is the exact example I provided a page or two ago. But hey, PETA thinks the dentist should be executed. So reasonable debate has once again shown its head on both sides.
PETA are pieces of shit with zero credibility. I don't think anyone here is arguing against the killing a bad apple argument. That's logical and people get it. But this particular lion evidently has a large pride with a lot of cubs on the way that are directly linked to him. Being the dominant male, which we can assume he is because of his amount of breeding taking place, didn't warrant this particular killing. I don't hunt either but I also don't tell people how to live. You wanna hunt? Fine. In this case though, he contributed to the inevitable death of something like 2 dozen cubs. So while the conservation argument is all well and good, it doesn't apply in this case.
People aren't making the conservation argument in that he was helping to cull a problematic animal, but that the license/tag/whatever that he paid for was funding conservation efforts and he's been a big game hunter before paying large sums in similar circumstances. Thats all fine and dandy, but as mentioned often already, he went outside the bounds, killed the wrong animal for a variety of reasons, and broke the law whilst doing so. I think that perfect storm of factors is the reason for the outrage. If he just shot a lion inside a game preserve, he would be another poacher and this would be a blip. The extended attempted sheistiness of it all, coupled with attempted tracker destruction and mutilation of the body, is what made it an abnormal case, in addition to this being a very well known and highly monitored lion. Random thought in addition, so we've talked about the ramifications of a new male taking over the pride and killing his 2 dozen cubs. Do researchers monitoring the group just chalk that up to circle of life and allow nature to take its course, or do you step in and salvage the cubs? Transport them to a zoo or similar preserve, maintain that bloodline while the remaining females are re-impregnated by the new Mufasa.
I'll post the Joe Rogan interview with Corey Knowlton again because I think it's phenomenal and a must watch if you think that all big game hunting is bad. I found his comments surrounding conservation, evolutionary aspects of hunting, and how our society increasingly reacts vs. thinks to be really refreshing and changed my knee-jerk reaction to the headlines about some of these kills that get me all riled up. As others have said, though, the dentist seems to be a fucktard; motivated more by bloodlust and machismo than conservation and respect for the animals. The money is a necessary evil and seemingly has brought back populations of animals that otherwise would have gone extinct. It's in the same interview below. Obviously I need to do more research but it's thought provoking.
Well apparently the dentist owns a second home right right down the street from me. The news vans have been camped out in front of his house for two days now. It doesn't look like he's in town, but we'll sure know if he shows up.
Anti-hunters complain that there must be a better way than to have these hunters pay to go over, and yet those hunters are the ones who are actually helping and actively making a difference. You're just sitting there saying "there must be a better way," but you actually have no idea. If there "must be a better way," then awesome - go figure it out and implement it. Seriously, that would be great! Until then though, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that we should insult and belittle the group of people who are actually active in making a difference while we sit in our computer chairs in North America, as far removed as anyone is from having any functional knowledge of how shit works over in Africa. For example it's easy to say we should just put all the animals on a wildlife preserve, but is that realistic? How expensive would that be? Is there too much political red tape? Where will funding come from? How do they protect animals from poachers in these massive sanctuaries? I don't like hearing "well obviously there's a better way..." when the person talking has absolutely no facts to back up what they're saying. (Not trying to attack you personally VI, more just the stance in general.)
@JoeCanada Your rant kind of confuses me. Most of the hunters aren't helping in any functional way. They're contributing money. Why is their money somehow more helpful or difference-making than, oh I don't know, the million (literally) tourists per year that go through the Serengeti? Or the money that gets donated to conservation efforts without hunting? I agree that the hunting money is helpful, but let's not put these hunters on some kind of pedestal like they're single-handedly keeping conservation efforts afloat. Lots of people contribute to the cause, including at least one person who is typing in this very thread. Also, who is suggesting all animals get thrown onto a wildlife preserve? I see one person who just asked if the cubs from this specific incident could be raised instead of consigned to death by the new pride leader, but that doesn't have anything to do with what you said.
@Binary My bad, I'll try to be more succinct and less ranty. Conservation hunting brings in $X/year that goes towards helping animal populations. As I understand it, X is a big part of the total money that goes towards animal conservation (anyone can correct me if I'm wrong). X is a real, significant number, that's doing real good. So sure, maybe the hunter himself isn't helping by pulling the trigger, but the industry he is supporting, and is a part of, absolutely is. Let's say there's a t-shirt company that plants a tree for every shirt they sell. Cool, but you could say "these shirts are ugly and the shirt part is unnecessary. Why not just pay to get a tree planted directly? Or, why not just go plant a few trees yourself? Or hey, why not sell mugs instead, that would be way better." Those are good options, if you actually do them. If you start up your business that plants a tree for every mug sold, and it's way better than those tree t-shirt morons, then awesome! Or if you round up a whole bunch of people and convince them to directly pay to get trees planted, fantastic! I'm just saying until you have an actual realistic way to get that same number of trees planted, maybe you shouldn't criticize the t-shirt people, who are out planting trees this very second. I am not a hunting fanatic, I just believe in the benefits of the conservation hunting industry. I think a lot of people react emotionally to the idea of people killing these big cool animals, and then that forms their entire opinion. The fact is, this is a legitimate method that works, and I haven't seen any real alternatives that would bring in the same $X/year. Anyway, I think I'll leave it at that. I'm no expert, and I think I'm just repeating myself at this point. Sorry if I sounded cunty in my earlier posts, I really like the Sober Thread and don't mean to bring it down at all.
I hear you. It's hard to tell exactly how much money funnels into conservation from hunting. Studies showed as little as 3% of the money from hunting actually hits conservation efforts. Additionally, the last numbers I read were that eco tourism dwarfs trophy hunting by a couple orders of magnitude. You'd certainly expect tourism to bring in more dollars just given a larger population of people, but it seems to be a pretty tiny piece of the pie. To be honest, though, it's tough to find reliable numbers - with sources conflicting and most of them driven by some kind of agenda (pro- or anti- hunting). Still, the general consensus is that big game hunting is comparatively tiny next to other types of tourism and virtually none of the money makes it back to conservation. As I said earlier, I'm not arguing that it's some kind of abhorrent practice as long as it's done responsibly and with the proper care for the wild populations. I'm not sure it's a beacon of light to conservation, though.
Allow me to make a few statements on my own take on Mr. Palmer: He's a dipshit, the sort of hunter I call the John Peacock and Park Myers types; he just comes off as the type. I don't know if him or the guides are at fault or a little of both, it's probably going to be settled up in court. Cecil the lion ran for like 40 hours with an arrow in his side before finally being shot with a gun to die. That's probably due to shitty shot placement, more than anything. So, another strike up on the tally. The economic utility in big carnivores like lions or grizzly bears is only in how they can be utilized as game species to proliferate for their role in the ecosystem and their potential as trophy game; in poor places like Africa people don't have the societal mores we have in North America. They view lions (and by extension other big carnivores there), who can and do eat humans and livestock as prey, as much the same way certain public-lands grazers here view pumas or wolves. If there's no reimbursement, they can and will just start leaving poison out for them, digging spike-inlaid pitfall traps baited with goats, shooting every one they see or spearing them, etc. That does the lion population no good. Better to have a few individuals die to a hunter's arrow or bullet every year than see the whole population go the way of the dodo. The people in African villages have to eat. Their kids might not go to school. They might lose all of their herds to predation. So they have every incentive to go out and shoot lions or poison them. You change the calculus with some limited managed hunting, then they don't go and kill all the the lions. In this same documentary, he talks about how the lack of trophy hunting ruined lion conservation because the natives just set to snaring them and trapping them and killing them to sell their parts on the black market (I've heard of people selling lion parts, which without the skin, looks like tiger parts as they're in the same genus and all, to those Chinese snake oil salesmen). No one wants to live around large cats who have the capability and aptitude to kill a primate as big as a human as fast and as easily as a cat kills a rat... unless the money talks for the cat.
If you really want to understand big carnivorous animal conservation, you should read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Monster-God-Man-Eating-Predator-Jungles/dp/0393326098 A great quote from it; “Among the earliest forms of human self-awareness was the awareness of being meat.”
This was precisely my point. Here is the argument being proffered: because hunters pay lots of money to hunt these animals (and let's assume for a moment that the animal does need to be killed) and that money is ostensibly being used for conservation, therefore hunting = conservation! The hunting isn't inherent to the conservation effort. The money is. In short, it's a logical fallacy. Hunting = Money. Money = Conservation. Ergo, Hunting = Conservation. False. I provided an alternative: euthanization. You tranquilize the animal. You put the animal to sleep. As to the rep I received: how is euthanizing 600 animals inefficient? We do that in hours in the US. Or put them on a preserve. We do that with lots of animals. When I see weak arguments like that, I know something's up. And what's usually up is people are trying to justify an activity they love that may present moral problems. I am not judging anyone. I am only judging the arguments being proffered. So essentially your real argument here is 'someone's going to kill them anyway, so.....' Why not just go with the tried and true 'they're going to die anyway at some point...' Again, not really supportive of the argument that hunting is conservation. It isn't - in fact, definitionally speaking, it's the opposite. Which is why this whole argument drives me nuts because it boils down to a maxim you've heard in many different contexts: 'I'm killing you to save you!' Again, if you want to hunt, do so. Not my thing personally, but so be it. Just don't try to sell me on a bullshit argument and assume I'll buy it. Hunters (in general) want to hunt to kill things. Not because you have some overbearing love of conservation. If they did (as binary's post points out) they'd just give the money and be done with it. This is not to say that hunters can't be conservationists, but the tie between the two that has been offered so far is illusory.
I mean alternative to the net benefit conservation hunting brings to animal populations, not alternative way to kill them. If we banned this kind of hunting tomorrow, what would then fill that void and provide as much, or more, help to animals as the hunting industry does now? Or would we be willing to watch a lot of animal populations suffer in the name of saving them from trophy hunters? If there's a better, more humane solution that will do as much overall good as hunting does now, and it will actually work on the ground in the real world, then I'm all for it. All I'm saying is that until then, I can't support banning something that's benefiting a cause that really needs it.
Uh... well, not exactly. The hunting is inherent to the conservation effort if the money from hunting would otherwise not exist. What you're saying is kind of like suggesting people aren't inherent to the conservation effort since banks could just transfer money directly to Africa - it's technically true but not accurate. If hunters would not otherwise be spending money in the region (which I think is reasonable), and you assume that the money they spend is helping conservation (which, given numbers I posted earlier is a fairly murky assumption), then it's not false to say that big game hunting is directly responsible for improved conservation. How else does the money get there? Again, this isn't about efficiency. If an animal should be removed from a population, you can either pay a vet to tranquilize the animal, or you can get paid by a hunter to shoot the animal. That's the value proposition of hunting - it's not that hunting is the best way to remove animals, it's that it's the most profitable way to remove them, and it's arguably possible to realize those profits without negatively impacting wild populations. If you'd like to pick at the intervening issues, such as suggesting hunters would otherwise be ecotourists, or that the hunting money is not reaching conservation agencies, I think there's a lot to discuss there.
Thats not a logical fallacy, thats the reasoning. Logical fallacies are based upon the existence contributing factors that are not taken into account. Hunting is directly correlated to supporting conservation efforts. The hunting licenses are granted by the nations' environmental and wild life protection agencies specifically for that purpose.