Trophy Hunting? Good or Bad

Discussion in 'Off Topic Discussion' started by hiya4567, Nov 4, 2017.

?

Your opinion on trophy hunting

  1. Its great! :D

  2. Dont know enough about it :/

  3. Dont agree with it but it works :/

  4. Dont agree with it and it should be stopped immediately D:

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. hiya4567

    hiya4567 Forum Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    16
    After seeing a post on facebook attempting to explain how trophy hunting is actually good for conservation, i was overwhelmed at how many people think its a bad thing or an unnecessary evil.

    A few years ago i went to the Balule game reserve in South Africa as part of a volunteer conservation research team. It was probably the best experience of my life. The reserve owner, Edward, loves his animals and hes the most passionate person ive ever met regarding conservation of endangered species. In order to fund these expensive projects that take place on his reserve, wealthy tourists pay him lots of money to shoot some of his animals. This pays for the helicopters required to keep tabs on them all and the guards and equipment and anti poaching patrols that stop them being illegally killed. Aside from this, it pays for the groundbreaking research into animal conservation which i was at the forefront of. It is because of this that his elephant and rhino populations are the highest they've been in the past 30 years.

    A lot of people think trophy hunting is morally wrong, shooting animals for fun and a selfie but many fail to realise what goes on behind the scenes and im curious as to whether any of you have done this before or what your views on it are? Id be more than happy to explain in depth certain aspects if there is confusion and i suppose my intention with this thread is to attempt to show whoever i can that trophy hunting isnt the evil its made out to be. Im genuinely interested to hear peoples opinions and its perfectly fine to disagree.

    11707693_899512276772326_4241985087908811484_o.jpg 11660315_917849894942938_716223900_o.jpg
    20150616_115653-min.jpg
    20150616_171318_HDR-min.jpg
    20150615_080626-min (1).jpg
     
  2. Ganondorky

    Ganondorky Forum Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    18
    Where is the option for neither good or bad?
     
  3. hiya4567

    hiya4567 Forum Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    16
    Niether good or bad implies fact but the poll was only supposed to represent opinion however the 3rd option sounds like it best fits that statement
     
  4. JolyGoodDay

    JolyGoodDay Retired Admin

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2013
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    4
    I have gone hunting, and plan to go deer hunting with a bow/arrow. However, I have never had a good experience with someone who has bragged about trophy hunting specifically.

    Morals are one hell of a sassy mistress.
     
  5. Slash

    Slash Forum Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't had the chance to hunt as much as I'd like but I see nothing wrong with hunting for food....hunting for like rhinos or something.....well thats just not for me, as far as the effect it would have on conservation efforts I am unsure.
     
  6. Ganondorky

    Ganondorky Forum Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    18
    I'm not a big fan of crime based on thought. I recognize mens rea is an element of crime but it is always more complicated. In the US, "trophy" hunting is perfectly legal during sanctioned times. Usually as a means of combating over population or Chronic Wasting Disease and such. If conservation's in Africa and elsewhere can make long term benefits to their objectives by allowing selective hunts (Typically, they are for animals that are impeding the reservation. A lion that is sick or killing all the others, etc) then I have no problem. In that same sense I don't see the value in judging someone (other than jealousy perhaps) who would spend tens of thousands of dollars on a controlled hunt of a big animal.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. hiya4567

    hiya4567 Forum Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,542
    Likes Received:
    16
    Neither have I. Most of them are pretentious assholes (the few ive met anyway) who only care about the kill and the photo but i suppose that is what they paid for.

    The moral aspect gets complex. On one hand you are taking the life of an animal - not for food which the vast majority of people would be okay with, but for pure pleasure.
    On the other hand, every animal killed by a trophy hunter is an animal that legitimately had to be shot for the greater good of all the other animals on the reserve.

    The numbers of large game such as rhino, elephant, lion etc. that are killed by trophy hunters is comparatively tiny to the numbers of more common game such as impala, waterbok, kudu etc. that are killed.

    Large game are very expensive, it was 800.000 South African Rand ($50k ish off the top of my head) to kill a bull elephant on the reserve i was on, few people have that much money to drop on bragging rights so cheaper game like impala (basically a deer) make up the vast majority of kills at 500R - those things are fuckin everywhere. A good thing too because the cheaper, more common game require the largest amount of culling to keep population numbers under control. It is still required for large game but to a much lesser extent since they dont breed as quickly.

    Culling is always the primary conservation method. Animals are carefully selected to ensure the best outcome for the herd - take elephants for example. All but a few breeding age males need to be killed off because they pose the biggest risk to the herd. A few older bulls are also killed off to cut down on competition for females but a few are kept alive to keep the younger males in check. Females will begin to be shot when herds get too big - elephants do enormous damage to their habitat which in turn affects every other species they share it with (it is almost impossible to imagine how delicate these ecosystems are, yes a herd of 18 elephants moving from point A to point B really do have the power to make all space between those points permanently uninhabitable). Individual species aside, this kind of selective elimination ensures healthy genepools and gives herds the best chance of growing in numbers.

    Reinvestment of profits go directly to independent research groups who will establish methods and formulate solutions to the unique problems facing every reserve. Helicopters are commonly used to keep track of herd movements over massive areas. Large teams of observers abord land cruisers carry out game surveys and habitat transects to decide how to best implement artificial changes to ecosystems and decide what actually needs changed in the first place. They also pay the salaries of the rangers who patrol the park monitoring movements of herds and keeping boundaries and fences secure.

    I feel it would also be beneficial to explain why we even need to intervene and modify these ecosystems in the first place as almost everyone ive spoken to who were against it have brought up the "nature can balance itself out as it has done for millions of years" arguement which is simply not true for reserves. Reserves are not nature in the context the term is used above. Reserves are large areas of land with fenced boundaries - nothing enters, nothing leaves and there is a finite amount of life the habitat within those boundaries can support. Yes, without the boundaries the habitat would be able to support greater volumes of wildlife but conservation of endangered species would be much more difficult - plus it would be a shame if youre conserving away and someone decides to build on top of all your lovely habitat, reserves secure the land under private ownership. Due to these boundaries, populations need to be managed by humans and habitat needs to be monitored for damage. Once it becomes too damaged it will not support any more life and it will not regenerate either. It is vital that habitat damage (habitat becomes more damaged as unbalances in ecosystems arise or ecosystems become too large) within the reserve is kept at a level where it can regenerate on its own. This means that "unfortunately 8 of those hippos have to go because they keep treading on all the bushes in this grid square" is pretty much the whole agenda when it comes to culling to reduce habitat damage. To most, that quote might seem a bit barbaric without context but these ecosystems genuinely are that delicate - to the point where if those hippos arent removed they may cause severe lasting damage to the area in question. Trophy hunting handles this "removal" whilst generating revenue for the reserve to carry out its purpose - conservation.

    Ill also point out that you will be unable to get a permit to hunt endangered animals in south Africa however this is not the case in all countries. Imo trophy hunting of endangered animals defeats the whole purpose (from a moral standpoint) and should not be allowed unless absolutely necessary eg. to prevent disease being transmitted.

    Especially when those dollars are contributing to actual conservation - more than can be said for the people who do judge and have never donated a single cent in their life
     
    #7 hiya4567, Nov 6, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2017