Hunting and fishing thread

[ink]

An even sadder story is that of the Cheetah. Some years ago some Bambi loving genius, who probably hated dead animal pictures, decided it would be a brilliant move to ban the imports of cheetah hides in the USA to protect the animal. Heres the thing tho. The cheetah will kill an animal EVERY day, eat a small portion of fresh meat off the shoulder of its prey, and leave the rest for every other predator. So a few cheetahs on your land will tear up your hoofed species, the kind hunters spend big $$ to hunt, most of all during breeding season when the young have no chance against the cats.

To the Yank or Brit city slicker this is a good thing but to the guy owning or managing the land its a disaster cause the cheetahs are taking food out of their families mouths and bringing nothing back in return cause now hunters CANT/WONT hunt them cause they cant take the trophy back with them. So since the game on land, other then NTL parks, is all owned by the land owner they now shoot the cheetahs like vermin. They cant make money on it and indeed can only lose money, also its a threat to domestic stock. They set traps and kill them on sight. Meawhile the poachers still kill them for their hides and sell them illegally. The Bambi legislation is actually making the animal extinct.

Now IF visiting hunters would be allowed to import the hides those cheetahs would be worth $2,000 to $5,000 apiece to the land owners. They would now hold value and their survival would be protected and encouraged, bringing even more $$ into the one industry that provides habitat and healthy animal population, along with protection.

Haha, The Bambi crowd mostly goes ga-ga over the thought of the noble "indiginous" going out to hunt their game. Well these hunts are even more brutal then the slaughterhouse killings they crap out every morning. I cant show video of that either due to its brutality, "or did you think 2,000+ lb animals go down right off from little bows and arrows per Dances With Wolves"? They both make taking food cleanly with a HP rifle look like a mercy.

I love the Cheetah, hell there are not many animals I don't love

actually 3 animals I cant stand...
the maine state bird....The Black fly
mosquito
cockroaches 


 

on a serious note....I have always had a huge issue with trophy hunters (I remember as a little kid wanting to kill people that had tiger skins and stuff like that).....but reading what you are saying is giving me a different perspective on it.....

I can see the truth in what you are saying, it makes perfect sense actually....

you know I understand when a herd/pack gets to big and needs to be culled, I don't like the death of any animal (except for food) but sometimes for the health of the whole species it needs to be done...I see more clearly now.

Thanx for taking the time to explain it.

 

[nrshida]

An even sadder story is that of the Cheetah. Some years ago some Bambi loving genius, who probably hated dead animal pictures, decided it would be a brilliant move to ban the imports of cheetah hides in the USA to protect the animal. Heres the thing tho. The cheetah will kill an animal EVERY day, eat a small portion of fresh meat off the shoulder of its prey, and leave the rest for every other predator. So a few cheetahs on your land will tear up your hoofed species, the kind hunters spend big $$ to hunt, most of all during breeding season when the young have no chance against the cats.

To the Yank or Brit city slicker this is a good thing but to the guy owning or managing the land its a disaster cause the cheetahs are taking food out of their families mouths and bringing nothing back in return cause now hunters CANT/WONT hunt them cause they cant take the trophy back with them. So since the game on land, other then NTL parks, is all owned by the land owner they now shoot the cheetahs like vermin. They cant make money on it and indeed can only lose money, also its a threat to domestic stock. They set traps and kill them on sight. Meawhile the poachers still kill them for their hides and sell them illegally. The Bambi legislation is actually making the animal extinct.

Now IF visiting hunters would be allowed to import the hides those cheetahs would be worth $2,000 to $5,000 apiece to the land owners. They would now hold value and their survival would be protected and encouraged, bringing even more $$ into the one industry that provides habitat and healthy animal population, along with protection.

Haha, The Bambi crowd mostly goes ga-ga over the thought of the noble "indiginous" going out to hunt their game. Well these hunts are even more brutal then the slaughterhouse killings they crap out every morning. I cant show video of that either due to its brutality, "or did you think 2,000+ lb animals go down right off from little bows and arrows per Dances With Wolves"? They both make taking food cleanly with a HP rifle look like a mercy.

I notice with your proposed solution you get to shoot the Cheetahs.

I have a better solution: there should be areas where human beings are excluded altogether.

[Melvin]

I have a better solution: there should be areas where human beings are excluded altogether.

Certainly you aren't proposing some form of population control.

Because, as you know, without population control humans will spread across the land like a disease, using the Earth's resources to their benefit.

Maybe we should fire the ovens and rid the Earth of evil hunters.

[nrshida]

I just find the arrogance of the human race rather amusing, not only the assumption that everything is there to serve the human race, or has to justify its existence or behaviour relative to the human race or has some 'dollar value' but the concept that the human race somehow stands over the animal kingdom or is outside or isolated from nature in some way. It does not and it is not.

And for the record I do not object necessarily to hunting for food. It is far more complex than that.

[Melvin]

It is far more complex than that.

Exactly.


EDIT: I gladly pay license fees knowing that a great portion goes toward conservation of game species and eradication of invasive species in my State.


When I was a Boy learning to shoot, my Dad told me something like this: "Make sure your shot is good, because although you are investing in the hunt, your game is giving everything it's got."


I think of that every time I pull the trigger.

[ink]

I just find the arrogance of the human race rather amusing, not only the assumption that everything is there to serve the human race, or has to justify its existence or behaviour relative to the human race or has some 'dollar value' but the concept that the human race somehow stands over the animal kingdom or is outside or isolated from nature in some way. It does not and it is not.

And for the record I do not object necessarily to hunting for food. It is far more complex than that.

we are put above animals....that's why we should take care of them and not just destroy them for the fun of it, it is our duty to take care of them.

I do agree with the arrogance of the human race, it is quite funny...don't worry we will be put in our place, in due time.

[nrshida]

we are put above animals....that's why we should take care of them and not just destroy them for the fun of it, it is our duty to take care of them.

At the present rate of social awareness / development that point is approximately 250 years away minimum, a catastrophic event notwithstanding (which is increasingly likely).

I do agree with the arrogance of the human race, it is quite funny...don't worry we will be put in our place, in due time.

Perhaps you'd like this Ink, merely for related entertainment about the nature of nature:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8

[Melvin]

we are put above animals....that's why we should take care of them and not just destroy them for the fun of it, it is our duty to take care of them.

This is a point that both sides of the argument can agree upon.

[Rich52]

I notice with your proposed solution you get to shoot the Cheetahs.

I have a better solution: there should be areas where human beings are excluded altogether.

I suggest you bring your ideas to Africa and see what they say about depopulating their own countries for the good of their wildlife. Maybe they can turn the excess humans in soylent green, tho Im betting they will tell you to rid your own excess populations and leave them to manage their own wildlife. Cheetahs are a renewable resource. Just like that hamburger you ate for lunch. I think legal sport hunting is preferable to species extinction in the wild.

The "kill the humans to make room for the animals" crowd always seem to find reason to exclude themselves from sacrafice. But even some of them have woken to the fact they have made a stupid mistake with the cheetah. The residents of Africa are not to fond of the Western Walt Disney crowd.

[ink]

At the present rate of social awareness / development that point is approximately 250 years away minimum, a catastrophic event notwithstanding (which is increasingly likely).


Perhaps you'd like this Ink, merely for related entertainment about the nature of nature:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8

Ive seen that before pretty crazy

I seriously don't think this earth has 250 years left, I should say the people of the earth, I think its less then a hundred...maybe 150

the closer we get to the end the quicker and worse its gonna get...

I know once they abolish green cash money I will completely separate myself from this world,  I do believe that is gonna happen in my life time.

This is a point that both sides of the argument can agree upon.

 

[Vulcan]

Ahem .... http://www.gpforums.co.nz/thread/418387/?s=

and one of my favourite shots, 250m .243 to the head of a fallow deer (ahh thats 280 yards I think):

[Melvin]

Another point we can agree upon.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nucSvl7VXVM

[nrshida]

I suggest you bring your ideas to Africa and see what they say about depopulating their own countries for the good of their wildlife. Maybe they can turn the excess humans in soylent green, tho Im betting they will tell you to rid your own excess populations and leave them to manage their own wildlife. Cheetahs are a renewable resource. Just like that hamburger you ate for lunch. I think legal sport hunting is preferable to species extinction in the wild.

The "kill the humans to make room for the animals" crowd always seem to find reason to exclude themselves from sacrafice. But even some of them have woken to the fact they have made a stupid mistake with the cheetah. The residents of Africa are not to fond of the Western Walt Disney crowd.

Well there you go again, with your black-white thinking and false logical reasoning. You're approaching this from the standpoint of a proud & righteously indignant hunter, which seems to be what your mission is all about. That's a useful and insightful perspective but rather limited and subjective.

In my opinion you do not need to 'manage' nature, or place a dollar value on it or make it a sustainable resource. Those terms only apply when you involve modern humans, with their abstract economy. You propose replacing a system with perfect inherent balance with one that has none, one that will favour one 'product' above another for irrational reasons & motivations, one that will invite marketing and investment. A business approach is a contrived human dogmatic system and it is not self-balancing.

What does need managing is the human race, and this does not imply making people into Solyent Green or depopulating areas but it does imply change, change over the long term and an international approach, not one based on financial trade between economically mismatched cultures.

As Ink says with power comes responsibility. True nature preserves will come eventually.

You've used your 'hamburger you ate for lunch' argument several times now. I know you are doing this to dismiss criticism about your activities by implying hypocrisy, however it does conveniently side step the issue that the human population is now at such a size that it would be impossible to feed it without food production employing an industrial approach. We already know the size of population which can be sustained with traditional hunter-gatherer methods and it just isn't this big. On the one hand you imply you know you have been privileged to go on some of your hunting expeditions and on the other you criticise those who are not, and eat processed food.

So I suggest you stop scoffing at this 'crowd' or that 'crowd' and placing yourself in some noble club, the members of which are the only ones who really understand  .

Ive seen that before pretty crazy

Yes. Fascinating. It's the influencing their behaviour part which boggles my mind. Human Cordyceps anyone?

I seriously don't think this earth has 250 years left, I should say the people of the earth, I think its less then a hundred...maybe 150

the closer we get to the end the quicker and worse its gonna get...

I know once they abolish green cash money I will completely separate myself from this world,  I do believe that is gonna happen in my life time.


 

I suggested 250 years before social and cultural awareness catches up with the effects of the Industrial Revolution.

I'd put the figure for what you are talking about around 60 years tops. This used to make me very miserable, however I know believe it is an inevitable stage in human development and ultimately a good thing for the human race. A wasteful, tragic, ugly, ignoble, savage and pathetic stage, but there it is.

 

[Vulcan]

Well there you go again, with your black-white thinking and false logical reasoning. You're approaching this from the standpoint of a proud & righteously indignant hunter, which seems to be what your mission is all about. That's a useful and insightful perspective but rather limited and subjective.

In my opinion you do not need to 'manage' nature, or place a dollar value on it or make it a sustainable resource. Those terms only apply when you involve modern humans, with their abstract economy. You propose replacing a system with perfect inherent balance with one that has none, one that will favour one 'product' above another for irrational reasons & motivations, one that will invite marketing and investment. A business approach is a contrived human dogmatic system and it is not self-balancing.

What does need managing is the human race, and this does not imply making people into Solyent Green or depopulating areas but it does imply change, change over the long term and an international approach, not one based on financial trade between economically mismatched cultures.

As Ink says with power comes responsibility. True nature preserves will come eventually.

You've used your 'hamburger you ate for lunch' argument several times now. I know you are doing this to dismiss criticism about your activities by implying hypocrisy, however it does conveniently side step the issue that the human population is now at such a size that it would be impossible to feed it without food production employing an industrial approach. We already know the size of population which can be sustained with traditional hunter-gatherer methods and it just isn't this big. On the one hand you imply you know you have been privileged to go on some of your hunting expeditions and on the other you criticise those who are not, and eat processed food.

So I suggest you stop scoffing at this 'crowd' or that 'crowd' and placing yourself in some noble club, the members of which are the only ones who really understand  .

What are you qualifications around the subject of game and animal management?

[nrshida]

What are you qualifications around the subject of game and animal management?

What are yours with anthropology?