Exploiting Endangered Species

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ugg, Oct 16, 2003.

  1. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #1
    Link



    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?
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    [spin]
    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!!!
    [/spin]
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    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
     
  4. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #4

    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.
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    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
     
  6. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #6
    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
     
  7. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    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
     
  8. K4NN4B15 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #9
    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
     
  10. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #10
    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).
     
  11. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #11
    Re: Exploiting Endangered Species

     
  12. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #12


    Mountain lions are out there. And in numbers you would not believe. Remember what you said, then read this.

    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.
     
  13. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #13
    Daily food intake for an elephant is 400lbs. DAILY.
     
  14. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #14


    Whats the big deal about Mountain Lion attacks anyway?
     
  15. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #15
    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)
     
  16. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #16
    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?
     
  17. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #17
    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)
     
  18. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #18
    I have... And I didn't do it to justify killing anything! :D
     
  19. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #19

    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)
     
  20. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #20
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    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
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    Re: Re: Exploiting Endangered Species

    Coming from a free-marketeer, I'd think you'd agree that such a tactic is brilliant!
     
  23. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #23
    Re: ummm

    Because frescies wrote
    Better to add the factual measure of this quantity of huge amount of pasture.

    Because frescies wrote
    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.
     
  24. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #24
    Sorry, but that was the logical conclusion of your argument...
    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).
     
  25. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #25
    Re: Re: Re: Exploiting Endangered Species

    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.
     

Share This Page