Exploiting Endangered Species

[Ugg]

Link (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~1698401,00.html)


The Bush administration is pushing a new policy that may drive 500 endangered species worldwide over extinction's brink. Scientists and conservation leaders from around the globe are pleading with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not to allow commercial trade in skins, hides, hoofs, pet swaps and irresponsible zoo collections, because such activities will inevitably invite poaching and over-harvesting. But the administration appears to be ignoring science and public opinion in favor of commercial interests.

Among the animals that will be put at risk if the Bush policy goes forward are elephants, orangutans and chimps. But they're only the headliners for a vast array of irreplaceable wild animals that could be ensnared in traps and gunsights to satisfy Bush's weird idea of wildlife economics.


The fact is, developing countries get more economic value from preserving wildlife than they could ever reap from destructive exploitation. Kenya, one of Africa's leaders in wildlife conservation, says it would get a one-time benefit of about $10,000 if it let a hunter kill an elephant. But keeping that elephant alive in its native habitat brings the country up to $200,000 a year for decades. In fact, Kenya estimates its live, wild elephants net the developing country an impressive $60 million annually in tourist revenue. So even nations the administration pretends to help would be hurt by the new policy.



The Bush plan would roll back two decades of effective and crucial conservation work. The federal Endangered Species Act clearly bans commercial trade in threatened and endangered species, including importation of such animals or plants from other countries. There's a small loophole for conservation or scientific purposes. The Bush team wants to expand that loophole by claiming that resuming the trade in endangered species as pets or products would qualify as a scientific purpose.But experts say that allowing any legal trade in endangered species or their products would spawn a large illegal market. It would invite poaching and lead to the destruction of numerous species.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is taking public comments on its alarming plan through Friday. Citizens can send letters to Dr. Peter Thomas, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 700, Arlington, VA 22203, or e-mail their reactions to managementauthority@fws.gov.


Talk about psuedo-science!!!!! Who in their right mind would even think of such a plan. This is totally geared to those hot shot "hunters" who want yet another trophy for their den. Yet another handout to gw's buddies. Who in the middle class would be able to afford the price tag?

[zimv20]

don't think in terms of how many species are lost, look at how many will still be around! you lefties are always harping on the negatives!!!

[Desertrat]

I'll just limit my comments a couple of species where I'm halfway conversant.

One example is the elephant. I forget which country, but one of them re-instituted a hunting system. The license fee is $30,000, plus all the other safari costs. The money from the fees is split between the villagers of the area wherein is the hunt, and the government.

There strict limits on the number of permits and the size of bulls allowed to be shot.

Since this program started, the local villagers have become quite militant in protecting against poaching, and the elephant numbers have increased.

IMO, the preservation of a species is far more important than any worry about the fate of a specific animal.

Leopards: Many hunters believe quite strongly that any classification of endangered or threatened is unwarranted. There are more leopards than most people believe. While it's all well and good to say that hunters only allege such a thing is because they want to kill Chui, remember that hunters can only hunt when there is a surplus number above that needed to perpetuate a species.

No game animal is threatened by hunting, in today's systems of controls. Nowhere. No species.

When a local population has a vested interest in the health of a species--e.g. the money from license fees--there is a dramatic increase in protection. Since the money means they can buy more "store-bought" food, there is also less local poaching for food.

All that said, my opinion is that anytime there is some very-broad-spectrum change in laws, there will be screwups.

More opinion: If the international trade in ivory, horns and hides could be controlled in a similar manner to that of the American alligator, I'd be more hopeful.

The present system has, so far, penalized quite a few non-poacher types of would-be traders. It has not stopped the illegal markets which operate in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and southeast Asia. (A rhino horn is worth some $50,000 to $150,000 to a Yemeni sheikh as a dagger handle.)

Hell's bells, we have enough problems in the U.S. Poachers in the southeastern U.S. kill black bears to sell the gall bladders to the Chinese. Indians in Montana kill elk when the antlers are in velvet, also for sale to the Chinese. Sexual prowess enhancement, dontcha know.

'Rat

[frescies]

Originally posted by Desertrat

1.) ....Since this program started, the local villagers have become quite militant in protecting against poaching, and the elephant numbers have increased.....


2.)......remember that hunters can only hunt when there is a surplus number above that needed to perpetuate a species.

No game animal is threatened by hunting, in today's systems of controls. Nowhere. No species.....

When a local population has a vested interest in the health of a species--e.g. the money from license fees--there is a dramatic increase in protection. Since the money means they can buy more "store-bought" food, there is also less local poaching for food.


3.) ......... The present system has, so far, penalized quite a few non-poacher types of would-be traders. It has not stopped the illegal markets which operate in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and southeast Asia. (A rhino horn is worth some $50,000 to $150,000 to a Yemeni sheikh as a dagger handle.)

'Rat


1.) Don't buy that one at all.

2.) By your definition of a "morally huntable animal", humans seem to fit your description more than anything else. After all, we humans have extended our population beyond that which is necessary to perpetuate the species. Oh wait, lets see...... we set the rule, thus we are immune to it right?

3.)Don't go down that slippery slope...

Here's a decent analogy:

The Bicycle Helmets are rediculous! They have not in any way stopped the injuries as a result of bicycle accidents. We need to do away with helmets altogether as people still suffer a massive amount of injuries each year as a result of bicycle riding. Since such injuries have not stopped intirely, it just goes to show that Bicycle Helmets are worthless.

[Desertrat]

frescies, #1 is absolute fact. Aside from numerous articles in magazines with commentary from game wardens in Africa, I've seen two separate mentions in different TV programs by National Geographic. One hour-long show about elephants, with some 15 minutes on the effects of the permit system; the other included some other commentary about elephant populations and hunting.

Your #2 is a wonderfully sophomoric smart remark, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. What's it called? "Straw man?"

All manner of silly games can be played when comments are taken out of context, as in your #3. Note I had not offered any sort of blanket approval of the proposed policy; I offered a concept for controls; and I merely pointed out some flaws of the present system.

'Rat

[frescies]

Originally posted by Desertrat
frescies, #1 is absolute fact. Aside from numerous articles in magazines with commentary from game wardens in Africa, I've seen two separate mentions in different TV programs by National Geographic. One hour-long show about elephants, with some 15 minutes on the effects of the permit system; the other included some other commentary about elephant populations and hunting.

Your #2 is a wonderfully sophomoric smart remark, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. What's it called? "Straw man?"

All manner of silly games can be played when comments are taken out of context, as in your #3. Note I had not offered any sort of blanket approval of the proposed policy; I offered a concept for controls; and I merely pointed out some flaws of the present system.

'Rat

Perhaps I got a little out of hand and defensive. Particularly with item 3 of my self assembled break down


1.) Please produce some empirical evidence on this one. Your mention of sophomoric smart remarks is quite hipporicitcal; unless you consider "I've seen two separate mentions in two TV programs" is a fine example of bonified premise to support your conclusion.

2.) How does that have nothing to do with the subject at hand? It has everything to do with it.
*Humans are animals
*They fit your very definition of Morally Huntable, that you
used in your argument.
*Reductio is not Straw Man

3.)Yes.... I had misinterpretted your setting for this one. In a defensive jump, I had presumed that you were trying to state that since the current program doesn't fix the problem completely, it should be abolished completely. Guess I presumed wrong there

[Desertrat]

Folks at National Geographic aren't given to hyperbole about issues. While I sometimes raise an eyebrow about some of the ways they describe the actions of some animals, I have found their documentaries to be factually described. When several disparate sources over a period of years relate the same general view, I tend to accept the view.

There was a problem with poaching that dramatically declined with the advent of splitting the money with the villagers living near the elephant herds. NatGeo showed footage of local-villager game wardens, as well as reporting an increase in the number of elephants in the herds.

Various hunters have written articles for such as Safari International, Sports Afield, Field & Stream and Outdoor Life, with commentary on the improvements in hunting due to the increases in the herds after the institution of the high-fee/split with villagers system. Given the length of time for tusk growth, of course, there will be increasing improvements in the future. While I've focussed on elephants, here, it holds for other species as well.

Think for a moment: Who's gonna protect that which has no value? If you have a vested interest in the security of any item, will you not be protective of it? So it is with any wildlife. The quickest to report a poacher is a professional hunting guide--and that's pretty much the case on a worldwide basis. A poacher is stealing part of that which provides a guides' living.

I went back and re-read my post. I couldn't find "morally huntable" anywhere in it. You were the one who brought humans into a discussion of wildlife. I'd agree that there seems to be a large surplus of homo sap, but that's got zilch to do with this thread.

Were I to use such a term as morally huntable, I'd say it applied to animals wherein there was a surplus number beyond that needed for the continuation of the species. To continue the issue of morals, I'd add "fair chase" and "clean, ethical kill". Fair chase means the animal has enough free range to have a chance to hide or escape. Clean, ethical kill means having enough skill and using enough rifle to have the animal die as quickly as possible, with the least suffering. (I'm partial to neck shots, myself; they're near-instantaneous.)

Regardless, my concern is preventing the waste of animals which are killed solely for ivory, horn, hide or gland. "Sport" or "trophy" hunting is very strictly controlled. The meat is not wasted; local area folks usually have it given to them, and many parts of Africa lack protein. The money from such hunting pays for game-warden protection, in countries where the income to the government is generally low. (Heck, it pays for almost all game wardens' and wildlife biologists' salaries here in the U.S. Even if you don't hunt, buy a license!)

'Rat

[K4NN4B15]

Heres the idea behind that whole "Quick Ned, Thin out their numbers!" philosphy. For example, Deer in the US used to be hunted by cyotes, mountain lions, wolves, beers, ect ect ect. but when was the last time you saw a mountain lion? Never. thats why that excuse makes sense.

Elephants however do not and never have had any predators except humans with guns. So its completely irrlivent Mr. Straw.

[Desertrat]

K4NN4B15, the problem with your elephant comment is that elephants require a huge amount of "pasture" per animal. In their movements to new feeding areas after harvesting one "food plot" of some thousands of acres, they easily come into conflict with farmers' crops. As usual, migration knows no national boundaries--or even park boundaries within a country.

Once any animal's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of the land, you have a problem. The issue is how you deal with it while maintaining a healthy species or collection of viable herds. "Viable" means enough animals for genetic diversity, but not so many that the land is over-harvested by them.

A comparable example in the U.S., vis-a-vis CITES, is with the alligator. The numbers were drastically reduced by the illegal trade in hides. They were declared protected (disremember the category) and no hides were allowed to be sold at all. Now, after a truly dramatic recovery, a limited number of branded hides can be sold to the leather market. The numbers are being kept reasonably stable with this system; they're on the increase in many areas.

'Rat

[frescies]

Originally posted by Desertrat
K4NN4B15, the problem with your elephant comment is that elephants require a huge amount of "pasture" per animal. In their movements to new feeding areas after harvesting one "food plot" of some thousands of acres, they easily come into conflict with farmers' crops. As usual, migration knows no national boundaries--or even park boundaries within a country.

Once any animal's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of the land, you have a problem. The issue is how you deal with it while maintaining a healthy species or collection of viable herds. "Viable" means enough animals for genetic diversity, but not so many that the land is over-harvested by them.
'Rat

K4NN4B15 is right, and your argument is pushing you further and further into the straw man realm.

Elephants require a huge amouht of "pasture" per animal indeed... if by "huge" you are making a comparison to humans. How can you define "huge pastures" (being sugh an arbitrary term and all) around your needs as a completely different species.

And how do you claim that an animal's natural course of migration is conflict with human settlements, when it was pre-existing to such settlements! What kind of premises are you trying to produce to support your opinion that Elephants; whom have existed in ecological equilibrium for millions of years... Untill humans showed up and caused their numbers to DWINDLE, THUS necessitating LESS "pasture" space for the whole species; have all of the sudden "exceeded their carrying capacity"?!


"That seems like a cool place and I'd like to live there. Hey, you're already living where I'd like to live... My, there are many of you there! I think I'll move in here with you. You sure won't mind if I just squeeze you over a bit and claim this space as mine... Seems like a nice place.... Hey what are you doing! This is my space!... Stupid animal, don't you know about respecting the perimeter of one's property!? I got a bunch of my friends who are gonna move in here too and they dont like this kind of rudeness!! Hmmmm.... Fellow humans, it looks like these animals are so stupid that they are becoming a danger to our way of life! I think we need to control their population!


Stupid animals..."

Also your definition of viable works... only when it's applied to a human controlled, closed, domestic system. Otherwise Nature Decides what's viable and what's not. here's why....

Say you have animal A. Animal A primarily feeds on Plant B. Plant B competes for Land space with Plant C, but without predators it's more successful. Animal D feeds on Plant C. Animal D affects Plant or animal E. E affects F, F affects G.... and so on...

As populations of animal A rise and fall (due to various environmental and seasonal conditions), Plant B populations rise and fall which affects everything down the line. However, everything works both ways and balances backwards. So if A drops, plant B populations will pick up to bring A back where it was so plant C doesn't get over powered by B and thus D has something to eat and so on. Now lets say you try to control the population of A.... say we want to reduce it a little bit and then keep it "steady". Well Plant B will take off, and since A population is not allowed to fluxuate and pick up to balance things out, Plant C populations dwindle, as do animal D, E, F, G, and so on.

Controlled reduction of a population isn't the worst part. Its the control on its population, period. It is natural for things to have large population swings. Thus the only way to successfully control A without a detrimental impact on the environment, would be either:

To control B, C, D, E, F, G, and everything else related to the ecologic or disease cycles of A.

Or not to disturb or control A at all.

I hope we'd be in agreement with the belief that humans shouldn't play "god". Funny how ecology itself is one giant "slippery slope". We can't possibly, effectively, manage all things that depend on one species. And what gives humans the right to decide which species we stick our nasty finger at and which ones we don't?


Enough with this bogus population control excuse for hunting.

My official stance on hunting: Pathetically shallow men who get their rocks off from killing things, in an attemt to deal with a personal complex (sometimes a cultural one too).

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
[quote]The fact is, developing countries get more economic value from preserving wildlife than they could ever reap from destructive exploitation. Kenya, one of Africa's leaders in wildlife conservation, says it would get a one-time benefit of about $10,000 if it let a hunter kill an elephant. But keeping that elephant alive in its native habitat brings the country up to $200,000 a year for decades. In fact, Kenya estimates its live, wild elephants net the developing country an impressive $60 million annually in tourist revenue. So even nations the administration pretends to help would be hurt by the new policy.


$200k a year for decades... if you are an eco-tourist, or a photojournalist, how much are you willing to pay the government of Kenya for the privilege of taking a picture of a bull elephant?

What is probably better is if Kenya managed its elephant and game herds for sustainable hunting safaris. Then, you can have both ecotourist dollars taking pictures of the full grown elephants as well as the baby ones, and also have the African safari hunters paying a non-refundable fee to shoot elephants.

Also, what happens is that animal rights groups makes a big stink about safari hunts and they start paying the government the same fees, or larger as the safari hunters do. Then, they convince the government to ban hunting. After the safari outfits close up shop, fire the native guides and workers and relocate to another country, the artificial fees the animal rights groups disappear, leaving the government wondering what ever happened to its revenue source.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by K4NN4B15
[B]Heres the idea behind that whole "Quick Ned, Thin out their numbers!" philosphy. For example, Deer in the US used to be hunted by cyotes, mountain lions, wolves, beers, ect ect ect. but when was the last time you saw a mountain lion? Never. thats why that excuse makes sense.


Mountain lions are out there. And in numbers you would not believe. Remember what you said, then read this (http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks_ca.html).

There has also been first-person accounts of hunters in the field in pursuit of game, coming upon mountain lions or seeing mountain lion tracks.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by frescies
K4NN4B15 is right, and your argument is pushing you further and further into the straw man realm.

Elephants require a huge amouht of "pasture" per animal indeed... if by "huge" you are making a comparison to humans. How can you define "huge pastures" (being sugh an arbitrary term and all) around your needs as a completely different species.


Daily food intake for an elephant is 400lbs. (http://www.mathnotes.com/aw_elephantanswers.html) DAILY.

[frescies]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Mountain lions are out there. And in numbers you would not believe. Remember what you said, then read this (http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks_ca.html).

There has also been first-person accounts of hunters in the field in pursuit of game, coming upon mountain lions or seeing mountain lion tracks.



Whats the big deal about Mountain Lion attacks anyway?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by frescies
Enough with this bogus population control excuse for hunting.

My official stance on hunting: Pathetically shallow men who get their rocks off from killing things, in an attemt to deal with a personal complex (sometimes a cultural one too).

Personal? Cultural? More like historical. Either that, or the caveman drawings of man hunting all sorts of wild animals for food, clothing and tools are a hoax perpetuated by disaffected anthropologists seeing their lot in society diminish.

But, maybe, you are right. Maybe we should revert to our original boundaries. So, when are you going to sell off your car, house, shoes, and go live in a cave, warmed by a fire started with flint, and hunt with sticks?

(Mandatory end_sarcasm tag)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by frescies
Whats the big deal about Mountain Lion attacks anyway?

Well... there was a recent mountain lion hunting ban in California. This was a proposition posed to the voters, and of course, the ads were of cute little mountain kitty cats and their mothers. Voters voted to ban mountain lion hunting.

After this, hunters in California have noticed that the chances of harvesting deer are diminished. You can go to California's Department of Fish and Game website, and actually read some hunter comments to the DFG wardens.

DFG wardens have said the same thing too.

Sport hunting has never led to the extinction or endangement of the species being hunted. The often-quoted extinction of the passenger pigeon was caused by market hunters.

I suggest that the people here that are so adamant against hunting, to maybe take a hunter's education course. It is an inexpensive $10, IIRC, and the fees goes towards habitat preservation. I used to be disaffected to hunting, saying, why do people have to go and hunt. I've since gone on to be proficient with firearms, and also wanting to see if I could be self-sufficient. This lead to the desire to go hunting. After taking a hunters ed course, and also reading other sources of information, hunting, shooting and fishing are 3 recreational activities that help the habitat, environment and conservation of animals. Did you know that hunters and fishermen actually volunteered to be taxed in order to protect the habitats? I think that over the years, I have contributed close to $25,000 to this task. How many of you have done so?

[frescies]

Um.... Fro... That would fall under the category of "Cultural".

you took my statement WAYYY out of context. Desertrat was way closer to the argument than you by a lot (I was having a good argument with Desertrat acutally)! You do not have an accurate comparison of modern day hunters to cavemen. Modern day "hunters" live in a critical thinking society... or one that has the capacity to produce critical thought, or you who might argue that maternal inceslt is a historical practice, thus a justified practice. Excuse the ad hominem :) but you can't justify something by history. Look up "appeal to tradition". It's an argumentative fallacy

As a critical thinking society, we can think about our impact on the environment... hopefully including you in that "we".

And then your statement gets really rediculous....."Maybe we should revert to our original boundaries. So, when are you going to sell off your car, house, shoes, and go live in a cave, warmed by a fire started with flint, and hunt with sticks? "

Wow... Since when were the subjects of this thread (those who pay thousands of dollars to shoot an elephant or two, or those contries who'd like to control their populations or destroy them entirely) hunting for food, Material necessary for survival, or any other form of subsistence? They aren't... Your point is out of context. If they are hunting to rekindle some ancient tradition that belonged to some ancient group of people (who'd HATE the gluttons if they ever met), then they're a real joke.


Edit: (oh right... end sarcasm)

[frescies]

Originally posted by Frohickey
How many of you have done so?

I have... And I didn't do it to justify killing anything! :D

[frescies]

Originally posted by Frohickey

I suggest that the people here that are so adamant against hunting, to maybe take a hunter's education course. It is an inexpensive $10, IIRC, and the fees goes towards habitat preservation. I used to be disaffected to hunting, saying, why do people have to go and hunt. I've since gone on to be proficient with firearms, and also wanting to see if I could be self-sufficient. This lead to the desire to go hunting.


I suggest that the people who make lifestyle decisions based on things they learned in $10 courses, to maybe take Frescies' $10 Course taker's Education Course. It is an inexpensive $10 course, and the fees to a real education. It will show you how not to be impressionable to $10 courses and whatnot. Since the introduction of Frescies $10Ct's Ed. course, and its skyrocketing popularity, there has been a dramatic reduction to people falling victum to, and being easily brainwashed by such things as

Pyramid Schemes
Work at Home Scams
Cults

Let me know if you're interested, anyone. I'll give you the link



(end super super super obnoxious offensive sarcasm)

[frescies]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Daily food intake for an elephant is 400lbs. (http://www.mathnotes.com/aw_elephantanswers.html) DAILY.


What does this have to do with anything again?

[Desertrat]

Hokay, frescies. I just wish you had some background in agriculture.

Lemme start with cows. In, say, Florida, it's common to be able to run one "animal unit" (cow plus calf) per acre. But, mineral supplements are needed. In central Texas, where the rainfall is less, it's about eight acres per AU. West Texas grasslands, it's about 20. In the desert parts of west Texas, the half-a-joke is that you can run as many cows per SECTION as you get inches of rain. A section is 640 acres (one sqare mile) and they get some six inches of rain--which explains why ranching takes a lot of land. Ol' Mama Cow needs some 20 pounds or so of grass per day; more if she's lactating.

So: the lushness of elephant habitat varies widely, from high-rainfall areas to semi-arid lands similar to central Texas. It's reasonable to assume that it would take up to 100 to 200 (if not more) acres to support one elephant for a year, given your 400 lbs/day number for food requirement. How big is an elephant herd?

Trouble is, nobody told the elephants they're supposed to stay in some specific pasture. They move with the seasons and their mood. Ergo, it takes a lot more than just that piddling little few-hundred-acre tract to keep an elephant in a good mood. Survival may be possible on a relatively small tract; elephants range over vast areas.

Next problem: The village populations all over Africa have been increasing. They cultivate more farmlands. Numerous reports for over thirty to forty years that I have read of myownlittleself speak of the problems for all species of migratory plains animals in Africa as to conflict with native farmers. Once again, we have that Civilized Devil known as "loss of habitat". Doesn't matter who was there first; the natives are there now.

As for hunting? I've been doing it for right at 62 years, now. Started with a BB gun in late 1941. Hunting does several things for most guys I know--and that's a lot of hunters, given the length of time I've been at it.

There's the feeling of being connected with one's ancestors through multitudes of generations. There's the sense of being part of nature, getting the hell away from a damned city. There's the fun in the challenge of outwitting Bambi. There's the satisfaction of earning my own meat, from the stalk to the shot to the field dressing to the butchering and then the cooking.

Only gardeners and hunters are "do it yourselfers" as regards food. When you or I buy food from a grocery, or eat at a restaurant, we have merely hired somebody else to do our scut work for us.

I enjoy being a natural food freak. No stilbestrol in my meat, thank you! And quail and wild turkey beat the domestic stuff all hollow. :) Yummy-tasty!

I feel sorry for those who do not know the joys of a hunt camp, the camaraderie when swapping yarns around a campfire...Folks who've never "worked the dirt" in farming, or ranched, or hunted their own meat are, to me, incomplete as people.

"Vegetarian": Indian word for "lousy hunter".

:D, 'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Also, what happens is that animal rights groups makes a big stink about safari hunts and they start paying the government the same fees, or larger as the safari hunters do. Then, they convince the government to ban hunting. After the safari outfits close up shop, fire the native guides and workers and relocate to another country, the artificial fees the animal rights groups disappear, leaving the government wondering what ever happened to its revenue source.

Coming from a free-marketeer, I'd think you'd agree that such a tactic is brilliant!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by frescies
What does this have to do with anything again?
Because frescies wroteElephants require a huge amouht of "pasture" per animal indeed... if by "huge" you are making a comparison to humans. How can you define "huge pastures" (being sugh an arbitrary term and all) around your needs as a completely different species.
Better to add the factual measure of this quantity of huge amount of pasture.

Because frescies wrote I have... And I didn't do it to justify killing anything! :D

About "the over $25k contribution to habitat preservation", never mentioned that I have not killed anything. I have spent money in the hopes of harvesting an animal, but alas, my stalking skills are not up to my ancestors.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by frescies
And then your statement gets really rediculous....."Maybe we should revert to our original boundaries. So, when are you going to sell off your car, house, shoes, and go live in a cave, warmed by a fire started with flint, and hunt with sticks? "


Sorry, but that was the logical conclusion of your argument...frescies wrote: And how do you claim that an animal's natural course of migration is conflict with human settlements, when it was pre-existing to such settlements!

You claim that the elephants were there first, and that it is man's encroachment on their habitat that is leading to the loss of what was once elephant habitat. The logical conclusion of that argument is that humans should revert back to their original size and habitat, hence the 'go live in a cave, warmed by a fire...

In this type of medium of communication, I can only read what is written and try to understand that in the context it is written.

So, are you saying that man should revert so that elephants can roam free and expand? (Man loses, elephant wins)
Are you saying that man should not kill any elephants at all, but should be allowed to expand? (Man loses, elephant wins)
Are you saying that man should manage elephants so that both can exist? (Man wins, elephant wins)
Are you saying that man should exterminate elephants? (Man wins, elephant loses)

Its clear that you are averse to hunting, it could be from an emotional aversion, or it could be from a lack of understanding. There is nothing I can do about the emotional aversion. Logic is a poor tool to use to break down emotional arguments. Its the other that I am trying to remedy, to give you more facts as to why safari hunting of large game could actually be beneficial to all (except for the ones with an emotional aversion, those can't be helped).

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Coming from a free-marketeer, I'd think you'd agree that such a tactic is brilliant!

Sure, brilliant for the animal rights activists that want the behavior stopped. They feel good all around, in the comfort of their air-conditioned condos in mid-town Manhattan.

Not so brilliant for the African nation that now finds itself without an important industry that raises the quality of life of its inhabitants. Perhaps, some of the safari money was used to import food to supplement the meat harvested by the safari hunter. Or to build important infrastructure in the old villages or cities. Maybe even build a university for the growing population.

Time to go and do some farming on the land because there is no money to import food with. Oh, there is that darn elephant again. He tore down my 3-foot high fence again. I'm gonna kill it the next time it shows up to eat my crops.

Or, we can't farm, we need to keep the elephants alive. In the meantime, you have hundreds of thousands of citizens starving on the streets. There is no work to be had. Time to get some artists and celebrities to organize a concert to feed us. These self-same artists and celebrities that lent their name and fame to the groups that fooled us into outlawing safari hunting.

[Desertrat]

Both hunting safaris and eco-safaris put money into local economies. They are not mutually exclusive as to one or the other but not both.

Again, what's important is the health of a species, not the fate of any one individual animal. Everything dies, sooner or later.

I dunno. I've thought about it a lot. I think I'd rather have my neck broken by a .30-'06 than to wear my teeth down and begin the wasting process from starvation, and get so decrepit as to have my guts torn out by a pack of hyenas.

Death in the wild has never been pretty...

'Rat

[frescies]

I missed a lot! Man... step away for a few hours... you guys are fast!

OK.... Desertrat... You missed my point entirely... I guess you just didn't get it. I don't need to know any more about agriculture because my argument was not about the consumption needs of elephants compared to... say... humans. Frohickster caught my drift by summing things up as human encroachment on their habitat.

Now... it appears that you guys are responding to my question as to what the 400lb food requirement has to do with anything. Well... the question still remains unanswered. We are talking about 400 ENTIRELY RENEWABLE lbs of food. Thats it.. thats all elephants consume. And they crap every bit of it out as a nutritious substance to various little critters (from the immediate use by scarabs, to the eventual break down to fertile soil). Lets compare to humans shall we? Humans EAT far less food a day. But apparently I'm the only one who doesn't fail to see the fact that humans consume far more than food! Humans consume POUNDS upon POUNDS of wood, coal, oil, and other resources that we fail to renew. The total weight of these resources, far outweighs the elephant's consumption.... period.

Now Frohick... That is not the logical conclusion from my statement, as I said the type of hunting mentioned in this argument is not about subsistence, but rather "sport".... go back and read it again. My argument is not that "humans should go back to their original size and habitat" (though the human race might last longer if it did). You can't go backwards... As Desertrat said, the problem isn't who was there first, because the villagers are there now. He is somewhat right, in that we can't expect things to go backwards. HOWEVER, things don't have to go forward in the direction they've been going. It's happened many times in history, Frohick.... believe it or not, society has chosen from many choices other than "do this or go live in a cave".

"In this type of medium of communication, I can only read what is written and try to understand that in the context it is written." How about trying to figure out the context before trying to understand things in it. You took this one way out of context. I see that the context you came up with is a possible one, I suppose, but not the one I mentioned.

You go on to mention total black and white extentions of your mistaken context, with a little chart of things that make a win or loss for elephants and humans, respectively. Since when has this argument been Man against Elephant!!!!???? Thats another thing that makes me uncomfortable about hunting. You're a fine example of making an equivalency to Man vs. Nature. It's this attitude that represents an arrogant inappreciation for nature and your role in it. It's this attitude that people use to justify exploiting the environment for its resources to reckless excess.

Lets face it, Man "loses" when he conqueres nature.... the very nature that supported him from the beginning is then unable to support him any longer.

I think you should critically re-evaluate your black and white thinking and maybe you'll see how it doesnt work.

Lets take a look at your suggestions....

"Are you saying that man should revert so that elephants can roam free and expand? (Man loses, elephant wins)"... No I'm not... and how does man LOSE? and Elephants WIN? This is not a competition.


"Are you saying that man should not kill any elephants at all, but should be allowed to expand? (Man loses, elephant wins)" Again, not a win or lose situation, though closer to my suggestion.


"Are you saying that man should manage elephants so that both can exist? (Man wins, elephant wins)" No... Everyone looses here... You have more reading to do, I already covered this. Go read my little tale about ABCDEFG (yes, I really spelled it out for you in that one, no pun intended). Man can't "manage" a species, because then man must take responsibility to manage all species that are ecologically tied to that species. Since man doesn't like responsibility (just as man can't be responisible with his resources) and has never steped up to this in the past, this doesn't work. Everything dies.


"Are you saying that man should exterminate elephants? (Man wins, elephant loses)" no. And how would man win IF according to you the economies rely on their existence (which you support ever so much)


So when you shove away all of these ultra-bogus excuses for hunting, and fallacious attacks against it, you get the real argument for hunting...

Desertrat: As for hunting? I've been doing it for right at 62 years, now. Started with a BB gun in late 1941. Hunting does several things for most guys I know--and that's a lot of hunters, given the length of time I've been at it.

There's the feeling of being connected with one's ancestors through multitudes of generations. There's the sense of being part of nature, getting the hell away from a damned city. There's the fun in the challenge of outwitting Bambi. There's the satisfaction of earning my own meat, from the stalk to the shot to the field dressing to the butchering and then the cooking.

Only gardeners and hunters are "do it yourselfers" as regards food. When you or I buy food from a grocery, or eat at a restaurant, we have merely hired somebody else to do our scut work for us.

I enjoy being a natural food freak. No stilbestrol in my meat, thank you! And quail and wild turkey beat the domestic stuff all hollow. Yummy-tasty!

I feel sorry for those who do not know the joys of a hunt camp, the camaraderie when swapping yarns around a campfire...Folks who've never "worked the dirt" in farming, or ranched, or hunted their own meat are, to me, incomplete as people.


Boy, I wish you hadn't wasted your time and come clean in the first place! Here is a valid argument as to why you think hunting should be allowed. You bring up it's entertainment value to you, and one can't argue against what makes someone happy and what doesn't (though I disagree with it's primative nature). Valid argument at last.

[frescies]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Sure, brilliant for the animal rights activists that want the behavior stopped. They feel good all around, in the comfort of their air-conditioned condos in mid-town Manhattan.....

Or, we can't farm, we need to keep the elephants alive. In the meantime, you have hundreds of thousands of citizens starving on the streets. There is no work to be had. Time to get some artists and celebrities to organize a concert to feed us. These self-same artists and celebrities that lent their name and fame to the groups that fooled us into outlawing safari hunting.

Wow... Bad ad hominem there in the first paragraph. I hope thats an opinion and not your agument.... On to the second Paragraph!!!

You can't possibly be naive enough to believe that the governments who collect money from the hunting industry, disperse the funds to a good cause.... Share the wealth with their citizens. Pick everyone up off the streets. These countries are about as corrupt as it gets. I suggest you pick up Robert Sapolsky's book entitled "Memoirs of a Primate". In his book about his scienitific studies with baboons in various African countries (mostly in Kenya), he mentions just how corrupt things are. The money from these "industries" goes straight into the pockets of the administrators. The common "villagers" see nothing. The park rangers (perhaps the most important resource to the industry) are paid so little they can't afford to eat... They must poach the animals themselves to get a meal.

On his final trip to study baboons in Africa, he came across a horrible epidemic of Bovine Tuberculosis amongst the Baboons. Evidently the people who ran the tourist lodges were cultivating B.T. infested cows, and feeding them to the Tourists. The meat that had been thrown in the garbage piles outside had thus attracted the Baboons... and so on.

Well, when he tried to tell the government about the situation and wanted to work with them to help stop the epidemic, and once again ensure safe meat in the tourist lodges; the government of course told him to keep his mouth shut or be forced to leave the country or worse.

Real Noble business that eco-tourism.... yep...

Ok, time to take a break and step out of "argument mode" and into "casual opinion mode".......

In the meantime, you have hundreds of thousands of citizens starving on the streets.

Meh..... Yeah.... I suppose. I feel indifferent though. Not our fault there is an alarming birthrate (certainly not mine... I'm not replicating). Therefore I don't think assistance is deserved. I donno... I would be indifferent if they starved...

My opinions are horrible perhaps... but at least my real arguments are cogent.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by frescies
Wow... Bad ad hominem there in the first paragraph. I hope thats an opinion and not your agument.... On to the second Paragraph!!!

What ad hominem? Look at Sierra Club.. look at Nature Conservancy... look at PETA. Look at the large contributors to these groups. In fact, I don't see the ad hominem at all.

[Desertrat]

Kenya outlawed hunting. One result is that it's one of the most-poached countries...

"Entertainment" is not exactly the word I'd use. "Satisfaction" is much closer, so long as it's realized that it comes from the mix of all the factors I mentioned, including food. I don't take the attitude that hunting Bambi is the entertainment equal of watching TV or going to a movie.

But elephants compete with villagers for land use, and "Humans consume POUNDS upon POUNDS of wood, coal, oil, and other resources that we fail to renew. The total weight of these resources, far outweighs the elephant's consumption.... period." doesn't enter in to that equation. :)

Land use competition in Africa is little different from the situation with the residential/commercial development along the front range of the Rockies along Interstate 25. It reduces the amount of winter habitat for elk and to a somewhat lesser extent for mule deer.

I've always said it's a shame the modern Sierra Club is anti-hunting. (John Muir was a hunter.) Can you imagine the lobbying strength in Congress if they hooked up with the NRA on environmental issues?

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Land use competition in Africa is little different from the situation with the residential/commercial development along the front range of the Rockies along Interstate 25. It reduces the amount of winter habitat for elk and to a somewhat lesser extent for mule deer.


And this is ok with you? Developerment trumps wildlife in other words?

[frescies]

Originally posted by mactastic
And this is ok with you? Developerment trumps wildlife in other words?

Yes I do believe that's what he is saying. Along with Frohick who has his delusions of people who are eating the elephants they hunt, and are doing it for survival, as it's the only source of food.

Well, I stated in my earlier post about how the people arguing for hunting in this thread have had excuse after excuse for hunting (by claiming that it is THE successful method of population control, and economic stability) are those who hunt for recreational purposes. Now that we have established that the people arguing for hunting of endangered species (or any species for that matter) are those who have personal benefit from it, we see that they are Circumstantial False Authorities, as they have personal benifit from hunting. I was hoping they might have some decent thought to put into this argument rather than waste their time.

I'd like to hear some more of your thought on the subject, Mactastic.

[Desertrat]

mac, how come it's seen as being an advocate, when all I do is point out that some problems have long existed or are not limited to one particular area? Given my own love for the wilderness, I surely don't advocate paving over "huntin' country". But I could start a whole 'nother thread about wildlife and ecosystems and the development which results from a growing population.

frescies, just where did you dream up "Circumstantial False Authority"? By that sort of "reasoning", a farmer is not an authority on farming, or a doctor on doctoring, etc., ad infinitum. That's one of those phrases that sounds profound, but is absolutely meaningless.

'Rat

[frescies]

Originally posted by Desertrat
mac, how come it's seen as being an advocate, when all I do is point out that some problems have long existed or are not limited to one particular area? Given my own love for the wilderness, I surely don't advocate paving over "huntin' country". But I could start a whole 'nother thread about wildlife and ecosystems and the development which results from a growing population.

frescies, just where did you dream up "Circumstantial False Authority"? By that sort of "reasoning", a farmer is not an authority on farming, or a doctor on doctoring, etc., ad infinitum. That's one of those phrases that sounds profound, but is absolutely meaningless.

'Rat

Ok once again, you don't get it. Yes a farmer is an authority on farming... but I can call a "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" if that farmer is acting as an authority, telling us that it would be economically efficient if we made peanuts a more important crop in the States, while he owns massive shares in Peanut Harvester Manufacturers.... Kinda reveals an agenda, doesn't it?

Actually... I should give you the benefit of the doubt. A good rebuttle, yours is; but I'm not attacking your credibility as a farmer offering farming advice. I'm attacking your stance as a Hunter with an agenda: The agenda to allow one to hunt. As far as authorities are concerned in arguments, they can only be used for information on a process or element of their particular field, or information about the process and structure of their field as a whole. Empirically, they cannot argue judgments on their field as a whole. A doctor cannot argue, for instance, that Medical treatment is the way to about a certain problem; rather that doctor's comments can only be used in an argument as to WHICH FORM OF medical treatment is the way to go about treating a certain problem. Make sense?

Try "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" if you can't find "Circumstantial False Authority" (that may actually be a more common term for it)

[Desertrat]

"The agenda to allow one to hunt."

Allow? Allow? Who's gonna disallow?

Remember that all our laws concerning wildlife have come from hunters. Seasons, bag limits, all that stuff. WE brought it about to ensure a huntable surplus of the various good-tasting prey species, so that WE (and you) would be able to hunt. WE created the wildlife agencies; before our efforts there were none. WE provide the self-imposed tax money to pay for all this self-imposed regulation.

Yeah, sure, kings would kill you for hunting THEIR animals, but that has zilch to do with today's world.

I'm an omnivore and a predator and therefore I hunt.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by frescies
I'd like to hear some more of your thought on the subject, Mactastic.

I'm actually pro-hunting, I just don't tend to think hunters are necessarily the best people to be making all the decisions about when where and who gets to hunt what and how and how many they take etc.

I know if 'Rat and folks like him were the only ones who had guns and hunted, there wouldn't be these kinds of problems. But it goes so far beyond hunters, biologists and ecologists and hydrologists, as well as all end users all have a valuable input into what our land use regulations are. And none of this "no land use regs" either, courts have long held that police powers extend to zoning and land use issues.

I'd like to see hunting flourish but it will take hunters and the so-called "environmentalists" (call me a conservationist please:p ) sitting down together and coming to real solutions. There have actually been several success stories in my area with ranchers and conservationists sitting down to talk turkey as it were, and have come up with some cost-effective methods to mitigate impact on the ranchers lands, preserving it now and for the future from degradation. Not everyone was happy, but generally the groups got along, managing to convince each other that they really were looking out for the land, only the details of how were what seperated them.

Hunting is an important part of the cycle of life, it connects us with an activity common to many creatures and with human ancestors as well. We need to respect the damage we can inflict on a population because of the incredible advances we have made in weaponry over the centuries. If more people hunted, there would be more of a connection to what is on their plate and how it got there. It would make people question how the mass-production poultry and other industries work. If more people hunted, there would be less temptation to use your guns for other, less legal, purposes. Guns that have a use are not objects of mystery and fear to a child.

My only real objection (outside of trophy and sport hunting) is that hunting only works these days if relatively few people practice it. If everyone decided to go hunting, we would do some serious damage to many ecosystems. And as 'Rat alluded to, the land required for hunting is vast, and what is available is dwindling. But that flies in the face of the hunters hands-off approach to life when they also happen to be a developer. Cause then who is the government to tell them not to build those luxury homes creekside? Thats where the money is after all.

To paraphrase a certain famous cartoon personality, "Here's to freedom; the cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems."

Wow, that got long. I started thinking I would say a line or two but really ran with it from there. Apologies for the length, but there you have it.

[Desertrat]

mac, I'd rather read a lengthy, thought-out post than a bunch of sloganeering. :)

Background for a question: Hunters, nationwide, are declining in numbers. "Non-consumptive" users have been rising in numbers with the onset of environmental protection in the 1960s. Hunters operate in a solitary manner, while backpackers and birders come in groups.

"If everyone decided to go hunting, we would do some serious damage to many ecosystems."

A hunter only kills an animal which would die sometime, whether or not the hunter is successful. So which group is more likely to do serious damage to many ecosystems?

:), 'Rat

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Desertrat
A hunter only kills an animal which would die sometime, whether or not the hunter is successful. So which group is more likely to do serious damage to many ecosystems?

:), 'Rat

Is that your philosphy when the quarry is two-legged?

Gotta say, 'Rat, that is pretty lame. The issue isn't whether the animal is going to die or not, rather whether the population can be sustained. Deer and antelope and in some areas elk and moose can and need to be hunted due to the lack of of natural predators and the increase in habitat. Lions and tigers and elephants don't fall into the above category. Also, Frohickey's claim that all "trophy kills" are used by natives for food is a bunch of bs. Carnivore flesh is not high on the list of desirable food and never will be. Do you want your grandchildren to be able to see lions and tigers in the wild? That is the question.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
mac, I'd rather read a lengthy, thought-out post than a bunch of sloganeering. :)

Background for a question: Hunters, nationwide, are declining in numbers. "Non-consumptive" users have been rising in numbers with the onset of environmental protection in the 1960s. Hunters operate in a solitary manner, while backpackers and birders come in groups.

"If everyone decided to go hunting, we would do some serious damage to many ecosystems."

A hunter only kills an animal which would die sometime, whether or not the hunter is successful. So which group is more likely to do serious damage to many ecosystems?

:), 'Rat

Well for those of the "Leave No Trace" school of backpacking (as I am) I wouldn't even take that single animal on one of my trips (less i get lost and starving or something;) ) so I don't see how you can say that hikers do more damage to the environment than hunters. Do you pick up every single shell casing when you hunt? Pack out your toilet paper? Cuz I guarantee you the only thing left from where I was camping this weekend are some footprints on the ground.

And puleeeze! I know lots of solitary hikers and people who hunt in pairs or teams. So don't hand me that kind of bull.

And now to extend your logic, if I kill another human who was just going to die anyway at some point, why get upset about that? Or an unborn fetus? Or a threatened species that hasn't had a chance to breed yet? Or any kind of creature? Why not just off yourself now if there is no difference between dying today and dying "sometime" in the future? Oh right, because there is a difference.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by frescies
[B]Yes I do believe that's what he is saying. Along with Frohick who has his delusions of people who are eating the elephants they hunt, and are doing it for survival, as it's the only source of food.

Well, I stated in my earlier post about how the people arguing for hunting in this thread have had excuse after excuse for hunting (by claiming that it is THE successful method of population control, and economic stability) are those who hunt for recreational purposes. Now that we have established that the people arguing for hunting of endangered species (or any species for that matter) are those who have personal benefit from it, we see that they are Circumstantial False Authorities, as they have personal benifit from hunting.

Personal benefit? What personal benefit?
Now, that sounds like an ad hominem. Why don't you debate the issues instead of skirting around them?

Yes, DesertRat did say that land use by humans do impact the habitat of elk and mule deer. That is fact. You say that doing any type of development is bad. So, what is your solution? Human sterilization? One child per couple? Growth limits?

My 'solution' strives to keep both, humans and wildlife, with humans being the dominant one. What is your 'solution'?

Circumstantial False Authorities...hah!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
Lions and tigers and elephants don't fall into the above category. Also, Frohickey's claim that all "trophy kills" are used by natives for food is a bunch of bs. Carnivore flesh is not high on the list of desirable food and never will be.

[url=http://www.donmeredith.ca/outdoorsmen/GuidedHunts.html]
In 1996, I had the opportunity to participate in an African safari. The hunt took place in Tanzania and the whole experience was an education beyond compare. I almost resented the time we spent sleeping because there was so much to see, do and experience. The African jungles were way more than I had imagined. The sounds, smells, together with the sights and tastes of the camp meals and fellowship of all involved blended together to make a rich and rewarding time. The great variety of East African wildlife — consisting of birds, mammals, snakes, lizards and insects together with all the vegetative species — is really difficult to describe.

We were there to hunt and we did, but the need to shoot an animal receded way into the background. I became totally engrossed in all there was to see, hear, smell and enjoy.

Did I shoot some animals? Yes! How many? How big? What kind? Those things don't really matter. The experience of the safari is part of me now and it is far too special to mess up any part of it by attempting to quantify the success. This safari was also a cultural experience and I saw first hand how the natives in the jungle value wildlife. To them, wildlife is food! They eat just about every animal and they eat all of the animal. The natives on our crew began to urge me to shoot some animals and birds because they got to use the meat.

I want my apology with a side of beef. :p

[frescies]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Personal benefit? What personal benefit?


Alright... I'm getting tired of spelling things out for you Frohick....

The Giant factor of your own satisfaction and pleasure coming into play. Thats what you have to gain from the acceptance of your argument.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic Well for those of the "Leave No Trace" school of backpacking (as I am) I wouldn't even take that single animal on one of my trips (less i get lost and starving or something;) ) so I don't see how you can say that hikers do more damage to the environment than hunters. Do you pick up every single shell casing when you hunt? Pack out your toilet paper? Cuz I guarantee you the only thing left from where I was camping this weekend are some footprints on the ground.

You pack it all up? What are you, ex-SAS? Leave no trace is fine and all, but feces, when left on the surface, can take up to 2 weeks, or even longer to biodegrade. When it is buried, its degrades quicker, since more surface area is now in contact with bacteria in the soil.
Besides, its fertilizer.

Yes, when I hunt, and I end up shooting, I pick up (more like keep) the shell casing. Heck, it doesn't even fall to the ground if you work the bolt carefully.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You say that doing any type of development is bad. So, what is your solution? Human sterilization? One child per couple? Growth limits?

My 'solution' strives to keep both, humans and wildlife, with humans being the dominant one. What is your 'solution'?


Well, I don't think he nor anyone else needs to look too hard for a solution because we've created one of our own. The massive increase in infertile couples over the last decade is definitely a sign of environmental pollution and overcrowding. The children that are begotten through fertilization techniques tend to have lots of problems. Nature's way of telling us that those couples shouldn't have kids in the first place. The explosive increase in cancer, heart disease and diabetes along with West Nile, HIV, Sars and all the other diseases are definitely indicative of a too mobile, too lazy, too fat and too stressed out society.

It would be best of course, if we were to limit our reproductive rates and our damage to the planet. Too many people thought believe that that would violate their "rights". Too bad that so many "rights" inevitably lead to wrongs.

Your solution is very short sighted, looking only at the situation as it exists today and not as it may exist tomorrow. There are many more tourists out there who want to shoot wildlife with their cameras than with their guns and as the initial article proved, more money is to be made through a long term tourism approach than through a short term shoot em dead approach.

gw & co. have no interest in sustaining wildilfe for future generations or for sustaining income levels for those who live around dwindling species. It is all too apparent that this is a payback for the rich donors. With fees around 30,000 to kill an endangered species, plus travel expenses and safari expenses and then mount it on one's wall, it is meant for the rich not the average person.

Why can't you admit that this is a giveaway to the rich?

[Desertrat]

Ugg, I don't know what it's "giving" to the rich. Heck, if there's a change in the method of enforcement of the laws, there could be a reduction in the tax burden on the non-rich. :) Take less time going through customs, with legal ivory grips/inlays/sight-beads on firearms.

Besides, what difference does it make about "the rich"? Is somehow "getting even" with them more important than protection of a species?

And when you think of the cost of a photo-safari to Africa, well, it sure ain't for po' folks. The only difference with a hunting safari is the cost of a license, which can be relatively low for plains antelope.

And by the way: The meat of a mountain lion is some of the best-tasting stuff you could ever throw a liplock on. Absolutely scrumptious! Take a hindquarter off a 60- to 80-pound lion; slow cook it for a few hours, and you'll be going back for thirds. Seconds ain't enough!

:D, 'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
gw & co. have no interest in sustaining wildilfe for future generations or for sustaining income levels for those who live around dwindling species. It is all too apparent that this is a payback for the rich donors. With fees around 30,000 to kill an endangered species, plus travel expenses and safari expenses and then mount it on one's wall, it is meant for the rich not the average person.

Why can't you admit that this is a giveaway to the rich?

Who is gw & co.?

If you mean America, why should America have any interest in sustaining wildlife in Africa? Do we have a state in Africa? Last I heard, US territory is centered around the continent of North America, with a few islands here and there. No territorial claims in Africa.

Giveaway to the rich? You sure have a hangup on the rich? Envy and resentment, me thinks.

As for killing/harvesting wildlife, it sure doesn't make sense to kill an endangered species to the point of extinction. That is no fun at all. What is better is if the species is managed back to health, to healthy sustainable species that would endure for as long as possible. That does not preclude hunting the large specimen of the species that have already contributed their genes to the flock, and are past their reproductive cycle.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
why should America have any interest in sustaining wildlife in Africa? Do we have a state in Africa? Last I heard, US territory is centered around the continent of North America, with a few islands here and there. No territorial claims in Africa.

As for killing/harvesting wildlife, it sure doesn't make sense to kill an endangered species to the point of extinction. That is no fun at all. What is better is if the species is managed back to health, to healthy sustainable species that would endure for as long as possible. That does not preclude hunting the large specimen of the species that have already contributed their genes to the flock, and are past their reproductive cycle.

Ugg, I don't know what it's "giving" to the rich. Heck, if there's a change in the method of enforcement of the laws, there could be a reduction in the tax burden on the non-rich. Take less time going through customs, with legal ivory grips/inlays/sight-beads on firearms.



Ah, so there are benefits for the po' folks of the world. My mistake. But, if we were to look at what the cost of ivory or a tiger pelt etc, I'm sure that the reality is that the majority of Americans would not be able to afford it. Therefore, this is a benefit for a very elite few of Americans, why should gw be trying to push through a law that is clearly designed to benefit a very few Americans and in the long run take away from not only the citizens of the country of origin of the species but also the world? It is a special interest piece of work and shows that gw & co. are only interested paying back those who contributed to his campaign.

In this "jobless recovery" it seems very elitist and ill-advised to be pushing for something that only applies to the rich.

FH, why then do we spend billions of public dollars every year on historical, biological, environmental research, etc around the world? Of course, we don't have territorial claims but we do as a human species have common interests and borders should pose no problem in conservation.

Elephants are incredibly intelligent animals with very social habits and matriarchs that pass on the collective knowledge of herds. By culling these matriarchs, that collective knowledge is diminished and the health of the herd suffers. This is common amongst all "social" species and culling the old is counterintuitive. Your argument carries no weight. The species in Africa and Asia need to be afforded the same protections that we afford our own. What would you say to someone from Africa "culling" a bald eagle? In many areas of the PNW and Alaska, they have very healthy populations.

Oh, that's right, we have laws in place to protect them but the laws of some tinpot dictatorial country are somehow less important than the laws of the US?!?!?!

If you want to hunt, then stay in the US, there are plenty of bears, Mt Sheep and goat,s dear, elk, moose, etc. Does it really make someone more of a man to go to another continent and kill a wild animal that doesn't exist here?

By the way, harvesting is something only done to plants, not animals. Another sign that the pro-gun lobby is trying to appeal to soccer moms around the country. What a pathetic attempt to make killing an animal little more than pulling a head of corn off a stalk. If you're so proud of your hobby then use the words it comes with don't attempt to prettify it.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You pack it all up? What are you, ex-SAS? Leave no trace is fine and all, but feces, when left on the surface, can take up to 2 weeks, or even longer to biodegrade. When it is buried, its degrades quicker, since more surface area is now in contact with bacteria in the soil.
Besides, its fertilizer.

Yes, when I hunt, and I end up shooting, I pick up (more like keep) the shell casing. Heck, it doesn't even fall to the ground if you work the bolt carefully.

No I don't bring the feces out, just the toilet paper. I bury all solid waste at least 200' from any water and at least 12" deep. An excellent resource for anyone interested is a book aptly titled "How to $**t in the Woods".

And I'm very glad you pick up your shell casings. Now can you convince all the yahoos around here to do the same? Every time I hike certain trails around here (the ones 4x4's can get around on) I find empty Bud cans in abundance with shotgun shells littering the ground. I have literally packed out over 200 rounds of shotgun shells in one day. Disgusting.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
And I'm very glad you pick up your shell casings. Now can you convince all the yahoos around here to do the same? Every time I hike certain trails around here (the ones 4x4's can get around on) I find empty Bud cans in abundance with shotgun shells littering the ground. I have literally packed out over 200 rounds of shotgun shells in one day. Disgusting.

There are responsible people and irresponsible people in all groups. I maintain a 'leave it better than you got it' policy, and I say the same to people that I go with. But I cannot convince ALL the yahoos around there to do the same as me. That is just impossible. Well, maybe not impossible if I have the powers of a dictatorial tyrant, but I don't ever want to be one.

Tragedy of the Commons (http://dieoff.com/page95.htm)here. I guess I don't do as most do because I'm hoping that one day, some day, government will wise up and auction off these public lands to the highest bidder and privatize them and start collecting property taxes on them. Then, when I bid on one, it would be cleaner than some of the others. Oh well, one can hope.

[Desertrat]

Ugg, you worry too much about the rich folks. And, you apparently classify as rich anybody who can afford the cost of a new pickup truck. If people will save for years, or borrow the money, for an upscale vacation, and then you see them on safari, will you automatically assume they're rich? Sounds like it.

"...why should gw be trying to push through a law that is clearly designed to benefit a very few Americans..."

I'm back to the "So what?" aspect that preserving a species is superior in priority to worrying about stuff that's not your business. The size of anybody else's billfold is none of your business.

"...and in the long run take away from not only the citizens of the country of origin of the species but also the world?"

No. Absolutely not. This is not correct so long as any particular species has numbers beyond the reproductive needs insofar as varied DNA, and near to or at the carrying capacity of the land.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Ah yes and lets have only the rich have access to the land. Kinda like all those nice private beaches on the Conneticut coast. The ones that say PRIVATE! KEEP OUT!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Ugg, you worry too much about the rich folks....

...envy...
...resentment...

I envy rich people, but I don't resent them. I want to be rich someday, so I would not want redistribution of wealth by government.

Redistribution of wealth should be done via spending on new toys... like a 1100-node cluster of PowerMac G5s. Imagine the FPS of Quake 5 on that. :D

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ah yes and lets have only the rich have access to the land. Kinda like all those nice private beaches on the Conneticut coast. The ones that say PRIVATE! KEEP OUT!

Nothing wrong with that.
Though, if I have a nice privately owned beach, I might just rent it to you for a weekend. Then you can carouse with your girlfriend nekkid on the beach... or for a small fee, I could introduce you to a group of exotic dancers. :p

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Ugg, you worry too much about the rich folks. And, you apparently classify as rich anybody who can afford the cost of a new pickup truck. If people will save for years, or borrow the money, for an upscale vacation, and then you see them on safari, will you automatically assume they're rich? Sounds like it.



Nahh, I worry too much about special interest groups lobbying for special interests. Of course, you will find very few poor people lobbying so I guess that in a twisted sort of way, yes, I do worry about rich folks too much. I've no problem with wealthy people, nor do I envy them. The life I've created is exactly the one I set out for and allows me to pursue my pleasures with ease.

I'm not sure where you came up with the new pickup thing....

I wonder what the average yearly income of the average American big game hunter who hunts abroad is? Averages can be deceptive of course but I'm sure there are few truly poor or even middle class people in that category.

Just for interest how many registered hunters are there in this country and how many animals did they bag in 2002? I would be very interested to see some numbers. I haven't a clue but I'll bet the numbers are fairly small as a percentage of gun owners much less the public at large.

[Desertrat]

The USF&WS should have the #s from the states, since they distribute the Dingell/Johnson and Pittman/Robinson money pro rata by the number of hunting and fishing licenses sold. I think the aggregate is around 17 million hunters, nationwide, but I wouldn't swear to it.

There's been a slow but steady decline, with urbanization and the increased costs of finding a place to hunt.

A new pickup truck with any significant options gets to $30,000; a one-ton dually with 4WD will cost above $40K. An elephant license is $30K in one of the African countries.

Maybe the Safari Club International has some numbers concerning the incomes of those who hunt in other countries. However, one hunt in a lifetime isn't that big a deal for a lot of middle-income people. From what I read that's more common than than going every year or two. Even then, it's rather uncommon for hunters to regularly take lengthy, Big Four safaris.

I've never been interested in lion or elephant or suchlike. I'd love to go with two or three guys, regardless of what they hunt; I'd like to hunt some of the antelope species. Kudu comes to mind. From what I read, they're tasty, as well as having neat-looking horns. But, one set would be enough.

I just can't separate hunting from the good food it yields to me. :)

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
I wonder what the average yearly income of the average American big game hunter who hunts abroad is? Averages can be deceptive of course but I'm sure there are few truly poor or even middle class people in that category.

Just for interest how many registered hunters are there in this country and how many animals did they bag in 2002? I would be very interested to see some numbers. I haven't a clue but I'll bet the numbers are fairly small as a percentage of gun owners much less the public at large.

Why does it matter what the average income of a hunter is? Why does it matter if they are rich or poor, or middle class? As long as they are able to pay for the hunting license, and tags, and are safe and are ethical, why does it matter at all?

1970s (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/statistics/huntingitems1970s.html)
1980s (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/statistics/huntingitems1980s.html)
1990s pdf (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/h_items_1990.pdf)
2000s pdf (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/h_items_1990.pdf)

From 761,754 resident&junior hunters in 1970 down to 120,619 in 2003.

Yes, hunters and fishermen (fisherwomen) are a small percentage of the population. We should lobby Congress for minority status. Somehow, I doubt we, as a group will get any sympathy.

[Desertrat]

Why, mac! Don't forget Florida and California, while you're fretting about Connecticutt!

And for those Texas-knockers, our 400 miles of beaches are, by law, open to the public. They are historic roadways, for those who don't think "historical" should carry any weight. The state has even built access roads, acquiring right-of-way through private lands. From the water's edge to the mean higher high tide line, no landowner can say you nay.

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

I chose Ct because I was appalled at the level of control the wealthy have over the small amount of coastline available to them. Technically in Ca here it is all public, but there are places where enough rich people have gotten together and built fences and houses so close together that public beach access is a joke. Some things belong to everyone. The beach is one.