Trophy Hunting

Information and Discussions on Hunting
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

IMO each area (country) must be taken on its own. Many of the pro-hunting arguments above can only be linked to Tanzania.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 5862
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Klipspringer »

Another opinion piece by Conservation Action Trust - Ross Harvey

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinion ... xtinction/?


For a Western hunter to pay to kill an African animal and expatriate its parts is a form of objectification, dehumanising and therefore morally reprehensible. It may entrench a Western narrative of supremacy underpinned by chauvinistic, colonialist and crudely utilitarian anthropocentric attitudes.

This opinion piece was provided by the Conservation Action Trust.

We are living in the sixth extinction. Birds are disappearing from North America, the Amazon is on fire and biodiversity is disappearing at a rapid rate. Droughts are becoming more frequent and extreme weather events are proliferating. Across our continent, formerly intact wild landscapes are being decimated. The ecological systems that support our planet are in free fall.

Attempts to quantify externalities (costs not internalised to reflect on producers’ balance sheets) and make polluters pay have failed. We’ve tried to put a monetary value on “ecosystem services” which cannot be valued. Try, for one minute, to avoid breathing, and you’ll discover how invaluable oxygen is. Yet, the disappearance of our carbon sinks and biodiversity is a direct result of our insatiable greed for more.

We consume and produce unsustainably and delude ourselves that technology will at some stage provide a silver bullet for eliminating the negative externalities that currently erode our “ecosystem services”. I’m all for technological solutions, but new technologies will not address our moral failure to steward the planet well.

In the last few years, as our climate crisis has unfolded in real-time, trophy hunting has come under the spotlight. Trophy hunting is characterised as (largely) Western individuals paying to hunt large mammals such as elephants or lions abroad (often in, but not limited to, an African country). With the illegal killing of the lion given the name Cecil in Zimbabwe in 2015, this trade in death has rightly come in for a public beating. If part of the reason for the climate crisis is indiscriminate consumption and wanton extraction, then why do we allow the killing of nature’s biggest and best animals? Why do we stand idly by while hunters blast irreplaceable ecosystem engineers and keystone species?

Because hunting’s proponents are politically powerful and well organised. There is also a cohort of scientists who share the view that, as morally reprehensible as the individual act may be, the consequence of banning hunting (or the import of trophies) may end up producing worse outcomes for biodiversity conservation. There were no fewer than six responses to the latest articulation of this view, each of which drew attention to the various problems with the contradiction of killing animals to save them.

The most important contribution shows that the view espoused by pro-hunting academics – that “policy should be based on science, not feelings of ‘repugnance’” – “establishes another false dichotomy”. The truth is that “emotion attends moral judgement, which informs policy… science can quantify risks, but cannot tell us whether they are acceptable or by whose values they should be judged. Governments are right to institute policies that manage the landscape of risk by weighing scientific evidence and accounting for the values of their citizens” (emphasis added). In this vein, the government of the United Kingdom has rightly opened a public consultation on its plans to ban trophy hunting imports into that country.

The importance of moral reasoning in determining conservation policy cannot be overstated. Ultimately, morality and science are intertwined. To suggest that moral concerns should be ignored if “science” supports hunting is irreconcilable.

Morally, the idea of hunting any species faced with plausible extinction is intuitively disturbing. As Myanna Dellinger puts it: “Whether canned, legal, well managed, or not, the hunting of animals belonging to a species threatened with extinction is, to a large segment of the population, so appalling and disturbing at a deep moral and philosophical level that, under contract law and the public trust doctrine, such hunting should not be permissible in modern society”. Under the precautionary principle of law, a useful guide for conservation policy decision-making, actions should be taken to avoid morally unacceptable harm. Morally unacceptable harm occurs where an activity has, or is likely to have, irreversible effects.

In a context characterised by extreme levels of elephant poaching, for instance, trophy hunting is an especially egregious activity, as it has additive ecological effects. In other words, poaching and hunting both target the biggest and best males, which has cascading ecological effects. It reduces genetic health, skews reproductive dynamics and impairs proper family and ecological functionality within animal kingdoms. Hunters typically argue that their presence in “marginal” conservation landscapes serves a counter-poaching function, but the experience of the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania gives the lie to this assertion. Between 2006 and 2014, the elephant population there plummeted from 65,000 to 14,867. Nineteen of the 20 concessions in the reserve were hunting blocks. Rampant corruption and alleged collusion between politically connected poaching gangs, syndicates and hunters drove the carnage.

Beyond the additive ecological effects of trophy hunting, which are morally unacceptable, there is a dissonance in the conservation literature. As recently evidenced in Science, many scholars express ethical unease with trophy hunting but defend it nonetheless as a legitimate conservation tool. However, no one should be willing to overlook the fact that the practice of paying a fee to kill an animal – to subsequently retain some part of its body as a trophy – is intrinsically troubling and morally inappropriate.

Trophy hunting is typically defended under a consequentialist moral framework. Guillaume Chapron and José Vicente satirically show the logical implications of employing consequentialist reasoning in conservation. Consequentialism determines an action to be right or wrong in view of the foreseeable consequences. If those consequences are deemed to be broadly good for society, an action is deemed morally acceptable. In Botswana, trophy hunting is deemed to be morally acceptable because its predicted consequences are that it will generate revenue and protein for local communities; provide an anti-poaching presence in marginal lands; create employment opportunities; and increase frustration tolerance for crop-raiding elephants. This is not atypical; a number of studies employ similar rationalisations.

However, the failure of consequentialism lies in its inability to omnisciently predict the collective outcome with any degree of computing accuracy. It can result in perverse justifications of actions that are inherently wrong and may have other unintended or unforeseen consequences. Trophy hunting, for instance, is likely to increase pressure on wildlife by selectively harvesting individuals with fitness-enhancing traits.

Even if there was ecological validity to the “kill to reduce overpopulation view” – which there is not – this reasoning ignores the fact that the collection of a secondary sexual characteristic (a tusk trophy or a mounted lion head) is a morally inappropriate way to interact with animals regardless of the expected conservation outcome. It exemplifies an exploitative, anthropocentric and crudely utilitarian perception of non-human animals. These non-human animals, like elephants, are not only physically, socially and emotionally disrupted through hunting, but also debased. They are objectified, then commoditised, killed and dismembered. Non-human animals, especially those with elements of “personhood”, are living beings with interests of their own. As Chelsea Batavia and her co-authors put it: “To transform them into trophies of human conquest is a violation of duty and common decency.”

Non-consumptive alternatives to trophy hunting face challenges but they do exist and global funding for their replication and scaling is now necessary. Trophy hunting should not be presumed as a necessary condition for conservation success. Despite arguments that local communities in Botswana unequivocally want hunting reintroduced, Yurco and others report that many residents interviewed noted that photographic camps were more beneficial because people were employed all year. Moreover, as Mkono points out, trophy hunting revenues make up a very small percentage of total tourism revenues in Africa. Through exploring the narratives that trophy hunting organisations (and individual hunters) use to sanitise objectification, she notes the persistence of a claim to kill animals out of a love for those same animals. Such a paradox cannot be morally resolved.

At the root of the moral argument is a question of objectification. Treating a non-human animal as nothing more than a trophy “is a key component of dehumanization, used to rationalise bigotry and aggression against other human beings”. For a Western hunter to pay to kill an African animal and expatriate its parts is a form of objectification, dehumanising and therefore morally reprehensible. It may entrench a Western narrative of supremacy underpinned by chauvinistic, colonialist and crudely utilitarian anthropocentric attitudes. Thoughtful utilitarian approaches recognise the ethical culs-de-sac associated with trophy hunting, given the harmful effects to individual members of affected species.

Finally, the characteristics of elephants that suggest attributes of non-human personhood provide strong reasons to never kill them. While elephants may not be endowed with fully human-styled consciousness, they may be endowed with language, and socially engineer their environments in a way that supports accumulated collective normative wisdom. This would permit inference, according to Professor Don Ross, that the kind of consciousness they are likely to have “potentially provides them with leverage for assisted personhood in the near future”. This would depend on human researchers being able to develop the hardware and software to communicate with elephants and build the external scaffolding (libraries) that could provide information to them that they would understand and be able to draw from.

As shown earlier, we are presently ruining the environments on which elephants – non-human, hyper-social intelligent communicators – rely on for their survival. Morally, humans distinguish between killing persons (murder) and killing non-persons. Given that “elephants might have the necessary cognitive and emotional capacities for personhood”, we have urgent reasons to stop the slaughter against them, especially premeditated trophy hunting. DM


User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Richprins »

Because hunting’s proponents are politically powerful and well organised. There is also a cohort of scientists who share the view that, as morally reprehensible as the individual act may be, the consequence of banning hunting (or the import of trophies) may end up producing worse outcomes for biodiversity conservation

Oh dear. Now scientists who try to take the middle ground are also a "cohort".


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

Trophy hunting: No place for forced removals in wildlife conservation

Opinionista • Ivo Vegter • 17 December 2019

Ross Harvey, writing for the Conservation Action Trust, demonstrates why SADC countries are right to believe animal rights groups care more about animals than about African people. He advocates forced population removals by militarised eco-warriors, but worries about the morality of hunting.

In November 2019, I wrote a column explaining why animal rights groups should be kicked out of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), if the treaty is to be saved.

The countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have been crystal clear on the matter: by their opposition to the principle of sustainable use in conservation (read: hunting), animal rights groups from the rich world are dismissing the views of range state countries that actually have charismatic animals to protect.

Two weeks ago, the Conservation Action Trust, a South African animal rights group, published an opinion piece by Ross Harvey in these pages. In it, he declares that trophy hunting, as advocated for by SADC range states, “may entrench a Western narrative of supremacy underpinned by chauvinistic, colonialist and crudely utilitarian anthropocentric attitudes”.

So African countries are colonising themselves, now?

The SADC declaration at the close of the most recent CITES conference included this paragraph:

“This anti-sustainable use and anti-trade ideology now dominates decisions made by many states who are party to CITES. States are increasingly influenced by the dominance both at meetings of the decision-making structures of CITES and in their run-up by protectionist NGOs whose ideological position has no basis in science or experience and is not shared in any way by the Member States of SADC and their people.”

But the Conservation Action Trust will have none of it. Harvey acknowledges the science that trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity, but he agrees with a response that policy should be based not only on science, but also on emotion. And his emotions, it seems, trump the views of millions of Africans.

He’d have us believe that unlike hunting, telling Africans what to think and how to manage their affairs do not “entrench a Western narrative of supremacy underpinned by chauvinistic, colonialist attitudes”.

Perhaps the uppity SADC representatives should have asked his permission before threatening to withdraw from CITES because they were sick of Westerners telling them what to do.

In his headline and opening paragraph, he invokes the sixth extinction, disappearing birds, and disappearing biodiversity, as if they are somehow caused or made worse by trophy hunting. They aren’t.

The narrative of a “sixth mass extinction” is not only wildly exaggerated, as was the recent paper about disappearing birds, but extinctions are largely caused by habitat loss, not trophy hunting.

“Morally, the idea of hunting any species faced with plausible extinction is intuitively disturbing,” he writes. But it isn’t, and intuition isn’t science.

In 1965, game in South Africa was practically extinct outside its national parks. While domesticated livestock numbers increased by a factor of 4.5 during the 20th century, the number of game halved.

Since the advent of the private game ranching industry in the 1970s and the law that established private game ownership in 1991, numerous species have been brought back from the brink of extinction, and game numbers — contrary to what happened in East and West Africa — began to rise again.

Today, National Parks and protected areas account for six million hectares, or about 5% of South Africa’s land area, supporting six million head of game.

Private game ranches cover more than 21 million hectares, supporting a similar number of game.

When I was a kid, in the 1970s and 1980s, we used to visit Kruger often as a family. I recall vividly how rare sightings of big antelope such as roan and sable were. Even today, South Africa’s National Parks support fewer than 500 sable antelope, fewer than 200 roan antelope and only about 1,000 bontebok. All are more rare than black rhino, which number 1,382 on state land.

The private game ranching industry has bred these species right out of trouble, however. Today, private ranches, reserves or farms host 4,500 sable, 2,300 roan and more than 7,000 bontebok.

In some cases, private game ranches account for 90% of the total population of wildlife species.

Image

Elsewhere, African species that are critically endangered or extinct in the wild, like the scimitar-horned oryx, the addax and the dama gazelle, roam the Texas plains in their hundreds, entirely supported by hunting revenue.

Harvey claims that trophy hunters consist “largely” of “Western individuals”. In South Africa, at least, that is far from true. Foreign hunters account for only 18% of the game ranching industry’s total revenue. Local hunters account for 54%. By contrast, eco-tourism, which is often proposed as an alternative by animal rights groups, accounts for only 5% of total revenue.

Image

The reason for this is simple. The vast majority of game ranches are not in scenic locations on the beaten tourist track. The few that are well-positioned to profit from eco-tourism likely already do so. Some operate as dual-purpose facilities, supporting eco-tourism, but making the majority of their revenue from hunting parties, and ensuring that the twain never meet. Many others couldn’t hope to attract the hundreds of photographic tourists it would take to make up for the fees paid by a single big game hunter.

Harvey mentions the experience of declining elephant numbers in the Selous Game Reserve, but both he and the source he cites conflate hunting with poaching, and never offer data to support which is the actual threat to game populations. They mention “rampant corruption”, without explaining why they then lay the blame at the door of trophy hunters.

Nor do they address the fact that hunting alone is not necessarily the complete answer. South Africa’s game numbers only took off once private property rights in game were established. Unlike in Tanzania, most hunting in South Africa is not subject to quotas set by the government. It is controlled by private ranch owners, who each know best how to manage their own game.

They also ignore contradictory evidence, such as the Bubye Valley Conservancy in Zimbabwe, which was converted from a barren cattle ranch to a thriving reserve supporting all of the Big Five, funded exclusively by trophy and meat hunting.



Many more private game ranches and reserves depend for a large part of their income on trophy hunting. With only a small share of revenue coming from ecotourism, the idea of prohibiting hunting would be so counterproductive as to be ridiculous.

Harvey says trophy hunting is typically defended under a “consequentialist moral framework”. That is, because the outcomes are expected to be good for society and wildlife, it is deemed morally acceptable. Then he says “the failure of consequentialism lies in its inability to omnisciently predict the collective outcome with any degree of computing accuracy”.

It seems weird to admit positive outcomes, yet complain that you can’t perfectly predict them. Besides, the consequences of prohibiting hunting are very well documented. Kenya lost more than 80% of its wildlife since banning hunting in 1977.

Paolo Strampelli is a postgraduate conservation biologist with an aversion to hunting, works in southern Tanzania, specialising in large carnivore conservation. He explains that banning hunting, as advocated by animal rights idealists, will have dire consequences for Africa’s wildlife.

“As a conservation biologist, while I of course care about the welfare of individuals, the main priority for me will always have to be the long-term survival of the population,” he writes in an article republished by Africa Geographic. “Both myself and other fellow conservation biologists that have spent time on the ground learning about the issue, and who share these views, care deeply about wildlife. Our main interest is try and ensure that policy decisions help provide these threatened populations with the best long-term chance of survival. We have seen what happens when wildlife has no value: millions of acres of wild land can be lost in the space of a few years; within months, farms and cattle take the place of wildlife which has been there since the dawn of man. More lions can be poisoned or killed in retaliation for livestock losses in one location in a month than are killed through trophy hunting across the whole country in one year.”

No wonder Harvey doesn’t like consequentialist morality. The consequences of his emotional and anti-scientific views, were they to be imposed on African wildlife range states, would indeed be terrible.

Unless… well, unless we hear about the alternatives to trophy hunting that Harvey says do exist, and for which he says “global funding for their replication and scaling is now necessary”.

He doesn’t tell us what those alternatives are, beyond linking to an article, presumably in the hope that we’d simply accept it’s true without checking. What he concealed is that the cited article actually advocates “green militarisation and human population displacement”.

You read that right. He wants to impose forced removals upon poor, rural African populations by militarised eco-warriors, because it works. And he’s worried that hunting is “morally reprehensible”? He’s worried that hunting is an expression of colonialism? This is simply astounding.

Harvey and the Conservation Action Trust demonstrate that SADC countries are right to believe that animal rights lobby groups care more about animals than they do about African people.

For them to lecture Africans about morality is despicable. Remind me again, why do they have a voice at CITES? Why should anyone listen to their ideology of neo-colonial oppression and misanthropic totalitarianism?


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

Those two are still quarrelling about the revenue 0*\ It all depends on how you look at it and where the revenue goes. If they do not use the same sources the results cannot be compared.

I have never agreed with Vegter on anything he has written (not only wildlife). He is probably right here and there. Nobody is never 100% right or wrong, but IMO he is an arrogant S o a B O**


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
JKuku
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:30 pm
Country: United States
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by JKuku »

I think a particularly interesting topic in the trophy hunting debate is the idea of colonialism. I'm on Harvey's side here. My opinion is modern trophy hunting doesn't look much different from colonial times.

Here is what I wrote on the topic. Sources are referenced in the original article on the site.

https://wildthingsinitiative.com/wester ... y-hunting/

Western Influence On African Trophy Hunting

Image

Despite the best efforts of powerful pro-hunting organizations, perception will never outweigh facts. Trophy hunting was, and continues to be, a sport built upon Western countries exploiting African wildlife and people.

Many Western non-governmental organizations (NGOs), like Humane Society International (HSI), lobby against trophy hunting in Africa on the basis of science and morality. However, proponents of trophy hunting counter those arguments on the basis African countries want the practice continued. They claim economic and conservation benefits contradicting most recent studies.

Its one thing to argue about perceived benefits of a destructive process and the interpretation of scientific studies and another to argue trophy hunting is an “African” practice. To many hunting groups and lobbyists, anyone who disagrees with trophy hunting is trying to enforce their radical views on countries who don’t want them.

In other words, if foreign groups think African countries should ban trophy hunting, they are enforcing a new form of colonialism. But the reality is the opposite. Those proposing trophy hunting are the ones promoting colonialist attitudes.

Anyone looking at the history of trophy hunting in Africa will agree there were strong colonial undertones. The British rule over present-day Kenya serves as a perfect backdrop for the story of trophy hunting’s beginnings on the continent.

Towards the end of the 1800s, Europe’s first wave of hunters were groups of explorers and traders bent on killing huge sums of wildlife. Adventurers needed meat to feed themselves and their exploration teams while traders sought to benefit from the ivory industry. All types of European hunters during this time saw wildlife as resource for exploitation is some form or another.

There was a shift in the type of European hunter after the turn of the century. The early 1900s saw an increase in white settlers in Kenya. White settlers sought to eliminate wildlife and clear out competition for land and resources.

Wildlife numbers continued to be decimated through direct hunting but also thanks to habitat destruction and the introduction of fences. Hunting was no longer about sustaining oneself or profiting off the ivory trade. Hunting was now about eliminating competitors for land.

Wildlife species, such as rhinos and elephants, were routinely killed if they ventured onto private lands or if they were seen as a nuisance.

The influx of foreign hunters during this time were of considerable wealth. It was still difficult and expensive to travel to East Africa. Very few were allowed the privilege to hunt wildlife in this part of the world.

Theodore Roosevelt ventured to the continent in 1909 a few weeks after his presidency ended in the United States. Funded by the Smithsonian, Roosevelt and team brought back over 11,000 specimens for the museum. Roosevelt was personally responsible for hundreds of kills, according to his diaries.

While it is true Kenyans were hunting wildlife at high numbers before the British arrived, there was a distinct change after they arrived. Being under colonial rule, many native Africans became subservient in some regards.

Legal restrictions and high costs prevented many Africans from obtaining the weapons needed to join Europeans in their hunting prowess. Africans went from being the primary hunters to skinners, cooks, porters, and trackers supporting hunters.

Wildlife continued to be a source of exploitation but now served to stroke the egos of wealthy powerful foreigners. Where hunters were previously ardent explorers toughing out a living at the expense of wildlife, the new era of hunters relied on their wealth to prove their worth.

Roosevelt, in particular, spent much of his life attempting to prove his manliness. Growing up in a wealthy family and suffering from asthma, Roosevelt yearned for a more wild life. He succeeded in becoming one of America’s most influential naturalists but his hunting escapades in Africa were a result of his wealth and social stature.

Hunters, during the time, could afford all the comforts of home. Teams of guides, porters, and cooks catered to their every whim. Hunters could expect to start the day with coffee in bed and a full breakfast waiting for them. After a few hours of hunting they would come back for an afternoon siesta with food and drinks before leaving for another couple hours of hunting before sunset.

If African trophy hunting during the early 1900s was steeped in colonial attitudes, what’s changed in the last century? Unfortunately, not much.

It’s true many hunting business owners and professional hunters are now native Africans. However, most of those individuals are simply descendants from the original generation of expatriates. It is a case of wealthy expatriates setting up their future generations for success on the continent.

Thanks to the high levels of poaching and increased chance of extinction, hunting is off limits for many Africans who are too poor to afford the high fees associated with hunting. Many Africans are still limited to subservient positions of cooks and trackers with a few now becoming professional hunters and an even smaller amount of hunting business owners.

Similar to the past, species like elephants are still hunted to reduce conflict with farmers. A large part of the industry is built on foreigners coming to protect innocent locals by killing pesky wildlife.

The trophy hunters are still mainly foreigners just now with Americans being the gross majority. The United States imported more than 1.26 million wildlife trophies from 2005 to 2014. And when it comes to vulnerable and endangered animals, no country comes close to matching the United States’ prowess. Over 500,000 trophies from CITES-listed mammals were imported to the United States from 2011 to 2015. China was the next largest importer with less than 100,000 trophies.

Five of the ten most imported trophies come from African species like impala and wildebeest. South Africa and Namibia are two of the three countries of origin for American hunters’ trophies. The simple facts are Americans are driving the demand for the sport.

Image

Descendants of expatriates are making money off wealthy Western foreigners exploiting wildlife so how is trophy hunting argued as an “African” practice?

All that money hunters pay for a trophy kill doesn’t solely go back to conservation, despite what the industry wants the public to think. A lot of the money goes directly into the pockets of powerful hunting organizations.

Groups like Dallas Safari Club, sister organization Safari Club International (Arizona-based), and Conservation Force (Louisiana-based) are powerful lobbyists. Conservation Force is a member of the IUCN, an observer for CITES, and has consultative status with the United Nations.

The Conservation Force’s goal is to promote the “positive perception and perceived relevance of the hunting and angling conservation community.”

The money and power they hold allow them to accomplish their goal of promoting a positive perception with many of the unassuming public.

And part of Conservation Force’s attempts at promoting a positive perception comes from the negative perception wealthy industry leaders promote about organizations like HSI. Trophy hunting advocates are essentially the child caught in a lie telling an adult they’re lying.

Colonial trophy hunting in the early 1900s benefited wealthy foreigners and exploited both native wildlife and people. Trophy hunting, today, continues the tradition of exploiting native wildlife and people. European countries and the United States need to take initiative and distance themselves from organizations like the Safari Club and Conservation Force.


https://wildthingsinitiative.com/
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Lisbeth »

Those proposing trophy hunting are the ones promoting colonialist attitudes.
Agree!
Hunters, during the time, could afford all the comforts of home. Teams of guides, porters, and cooks catered to their every whim. Hunters could expect to start the day with coffee in bed and a full breakfast waiting for them. After a few hours of hunting they would come back for an afternoon siesta with food and drinks before leaving for another couple hours of hunting before sunset.
That’s what today’s expensive lodges have copied O** lol

Hasn’t the import of wildlife trophies been prohibited in the USA lately?
A lot of the money goes directly into the pockets of powerful hunting organizations.
Yep!

I tend to think that you are against trophy hunting ;-)

(Wasn't Theodore Roosevelt the one who founded the "Rough Riders" during the war against Spain in Cuba :-?)


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
JKuku
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:30 pm
Country: United States
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by JKuku »

Obama implemented some trophy bans which Trump then reinstated. Bans are done at the individual species level and they're very political so it's really anyone's guess what regulations will be in the near term.

Roosevelt was kind of a founder of the Rough Riders depending on how you look at it. It was a regiment made of volunteers which is how Roosevelt got into it in the first place. He was originally second in command until the Commander was promoted. But Roosevelt was definitely the lead actor which helped get the group the Rough Riders nickname.

Roosevelt is an interesting character. He did a lot of wildlife conservation but also did a lot of things that were pretty terrible. For example, he was disheartened hunters were wiping out bison and cattle ranchers were destroying habitats. But then he went out and hunted one of the few remaining bison to appease his ego while simultaneously starting a large cattle ranching business...

I'm reading "The Wilderness Warrior" right now to learn more about him. There are a lot of things he should be praised for but also things we should view as mistakes and move on from. Unfortunately, many blindly follow all of his policies on the basis of him being the most influential conservationist of the time.


https://wildthingsinitiative.com/
User avatar
Flutterby
Posts: 44150
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:28 pm
Country: South Africa
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Flutterby »

Very interesting article Jkuku. \O :ty:


User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Trophy Hunting

Post by Richprins »

Interesting thoughts, JK! \O

I don't know about trophy hunting, but hunting has always existed in Africa. The Zulu king traditionally had large areas of his kingdom set aside for his personal recreational hunting use, for example, which ironically helped with conservation... ..0..


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
Post Reply

Return to “Hunting”