Hunting
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:04 pm
Author: Chris MERCER
Published: July 16, 2011
Link: http://technorati.com/lifestyle/green/a ... se-jargon/
This May 2002 canned rhino hunt is a true story. The way that conservation officials/hunters describe it, they were doing the poor rhino a favour. Read on:-
A rhino cow was being non-consumptively utilised as a tourist attraction in Kuruman Game Park. Sentimental, urbanised people might erroneously or perhaps maliciously, describe the Game Park as a small piece of fenced land across the road from the industrial estate, but real conservationists would know that it was an 'extended wildlife system' as defined in the new regulations.
The 'active management' of the rhino cow began at 9a.m. in the morning when she was approached by licensed hunters on foot in accordance with good hunting practices. She was first shot humanely at about 9a.m.with a .458 Winchester in a manner which inflicted no more than minimal suffering and did not distress any other animals in the vicinity. Thereafter she enjoyed further humane treatment from time to time during the course of the day. At 4.30 in the afternoon she was seen to be bleeding from four quarters, flanks and hind quarters but could not have been suffering more than minimal discomfort because the ethical hunter was using an approved weapon of the correct calibre. She must also have been pleased to know that the ethical hunter had a permit issued by Kimberley Nature Conservation authorities to introduce her to the doctrine of sustainable use. For all this, and mindless of her duty to be sustainably utilised for the benefit of conservation, she had unlawfully retreated into a thicket. The ethical hunter was by now shooting from his safari vehicle in accordance with good hunting practices because she was wounded, albeit only minimally.
Not because he was afraid that his vehicle would get a puncture in the thicket or because he was tired from all that pulling on a heavy trigger, the ethical hunter decided at 4.30pm to pull out his cell phone and call up a helicopter from the industrial estate, which lay in plain sight across the highway from the extended wildlife system. The helicopter arrived within minutes and descended upon the thicket in order to flush the rhino cow out. When she emerged she received more humane treatment from the ethical hunter's .458 Winchester, which caused her to retreat back into the thicket. This meant that the process had to be repeated again and again. But this was the rhino's own fault because she exhibited a marked aversion to the humane treatment she was getting.
The helicopter pilot, who was not a true conservationist, alleged that she received humane treatment in this manner not less than ten times over a period of forty minutes before she agreed to be sustainably used and fell onto her knees. At this stage the hunting party were observed to break open beer cans and to take photographs in order to celebrate the success of their successful ethical hunt according to the prevailing norms of conservation society. All that humane effort must have been thirsty work. Out of a tender concern to avoid hurting the trophy parts of her body, no attempt was made to terminate her minimal suffering, and her active management was allowed to be prolonged until she eventually expired some time later in the evening. Too much should not be made of this because every true conservationist knows that animals cannot reason and therefore cannot suffer pain as we do and there is really no ethical difference in killing a rhino than in killing bacteria.
Unfortunately there are spoil sports in all walks of life and the circumstance of this hunt were leaked to some radical extremist bunny huggers who should get a life, who deceitfully reported the matter to the police in order to harm conservation in South Africa. The response of the hunting party and of the conservation authorities was, quite properly, to point out that the hunt had been conducted ethically and in accordance with good hunting practices and the prevailing societal norms: viz. the hunter was licensed by Kimberley conservation authority; he was a qualified marksman; he was a member of a recognised hunting association which was supervising the hunt; he initially approached the animal on foot, and he used a rifle of the approved calibre to avoid causing more than minimal suffering and distress to other animals in the vicinity. The rhino cow was deemed to be wild because the enclosure in which she roamed fell within the broad definition of an extended wildlife system, wherein active management was required. So this hunt could not lawfully be called either cruel or canned.
The Kimberley prosecutor, himself an avid hunter, and therefore a true conservationist, accepted these defences and declined to prosecute, saying it was impossible to prove that she had suffered more than minimally.
Published: July 16, 2011
Link: http://technorati.com/lifestyle/green/a ... se-jargon/
This May 2002 canned rhino hunt is a true story. The way that conservation officials/hunters describe it, they were doing the poor rhino a favour. Read on:-
A rhino cow was being non-consumptively utilised as a tourist attraction in Kuruman Game Park. Sentimental, urbanised people might erroneously or perhaps maliciously, describe the Game Park as a small piece of fenced land across the road from the industrial estate, but real conservationists would know that it was an 'extended wildlife system' as defined in the new regulations.
The 'active management' of the rhino cow began at 9a.m. in the morning when she was approached by licensed hunters on foot in accordance with good hunting practices. She was first shot humanely at about 9a.m.with a .458 Winchester in a manner which inflicted no more than minimal suffering and did not distress any other animals in the vicinity. Thereafter she enjoyed further humane treatment from time to time during the course of the day. At 4.30 in the afternoon she was seen to be bleeding from four quarters, flanks and hind quarters but could not have been suffering more than minimal discomfort because the ethical hunter was using an approved weapon of the correct calibre. She must also have been pleased to know that the ethical hunter had a permit issued by Kimberley Nature Conservation authorities to introduce her to the doctrine of sustainable use. For all this, and mindless of her duty to be sustainably utilised for the benefit of conservation, she had unlawfully retreated into a thicket. The ethical hunter was by now shooting from his safari vehicle in accordance with good hunting practices because she was wounded, albeit only minimally.
Not because he was afraid that his vehicle would get a puncture in the thicket or because he was tired from all that pulling on a heavy trigger, the ethical hunter decided at 4.30pm to pull out his cell phone and call up a helicopter from the industrial estate, which lay in plain sight across the highway from the extended wildlife system. The helicopter arrived within minutes and descended upon the thicket in order to flush the rhino cow out. When she emerged she received more humane treatment from the ethical hunter's .458 Winchester, which caused her to retreat back into the thicket. This meant that the process had to be repeated again and again. But this was the rhino's own fault because she exhibited a marked aversion to the humane treatment she was getting.
The helicopter pilot, who was not a true conservationist, alleged that she received humane treatment in this manner not less than ten times over a period of forty minutes before she agreed to be sustainably used and fell onto her knees. At this stage the hunting party were observed to break open beer cans and to take photographs in order to celebrate the success of their successful ethical hunt according to the prevailing norms of conservation society. All that humane effort must have been thirsty work. Out of a tender concern to avoid hurting the trophy parts of her body, no attempt was made to terminate her minimal suffering, and her active management was allowed to be prolonged until she eventually expired some time later in the evening. Too much should not be made of this because every true conservationist knows that animals cannot reason and therefore cannot suffer pain as we do and there is really no ethical difference in killing a rhino than in killing bacteria.
Unfortunately there are spoil sports in all walks of life and the circumstance of this hunt were leaked to some radical extremist bunny huggers who should get a life, who deceitfully reported the matter to the police in order to harm conservation in South Africa. The response of the hunting party and of the conservation authorities was, quite properly, to point out that the hunt had been conducted ethically and in accordance with good hunting practices and the prevailing societal norms: viz. the hunter was licensed by Kimberley conservation authority; he was a qualified marksman; he was a member of a recognised hunting association which was supervising the hunt; he initially approached the animal on foot, and he used a rifle of the approved calibre to avoid causing more than minimal suffering and distress to other animals in the vicinity. The rhino cow was deemed to be wild because the enclosure in which she roamed fell within the broad definition of an extended wildlife system, wherein active management was required. So this hunt could not lawfully be called either cruel or canned.
The Kimberley prosecutor, himself an avid hunter, and therefore a true conservationist, accepted these defences and declined to prosecute, saying it was impossible to prove that she had suffered more than minimally.