It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
People that hunt for fun are closet psychopaths. They murder for joy, not survival. They kill so they can show how "strong" they are by mounting carcasses in their homes for all to see. These creatures that kill for fun are not humans, they are demons, and they must be stopped.
SFBboth my parents are staunch liberals lol. i used to leanepretty left but i noticed hypocrisy and brainwashing of the movement in general and it no longer appeals to me kid.
There's hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum. And brainwashing? Put your tinfoil hat back on. But then again, the dumber you are the more likely you are to be right wing.
_Fluffy_'Nearly 40 years ago, Kenya banned trophy hunting. Within the past two years, other African countries have realized the wisdom of Kenya’s approach and instituted similar bans. Botswana and Zambia, once major destinations for pursuers of Africa’s “Big Five” – African elephant, African lion, Cape buffalo, leopard, and rhinoceros – have also prohibited this biologically reckless activity because of the harm it causes to wildlife populations. Even the United States, home to the world’s largest number of trophy hunters, has taken steps to join the trend. In April, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) banned the import of sport-hunted elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Tanzania over concerns that the hunts were driving down elephant populations already severely impacted by poachers.
It’s about time. If the Dallas Safari Club auction for the opportunity to kill a critically endangered black rhino in Namibia proved anything, it is that trophy-seekers will pay an exorbitant amount of money for bragging rights and a head to hang on the wall, instead of using that wealth to preserve and protect wildlife.
The winner of the auction agreed to pay $350,000 for the right to kill the black rhino – a creature highly desired by those who seek to add the rarest animals to their trophy collections. Contemplate for a moment what money like that could buy in poor countries that are often riddled with corruption. According to Transparency International, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania are three of the most corrupt countries in the world, and money from trophy-hunters fuels this corruption. Corrupt officials allow animals to be killed in dangerously high numbers – to the point of harming the conservation of the species. Corruption that led to poor wildlife management is exactly the reason that Kenya banned hunting so long ago and why others are following Kenya’s lead today.
The Namibian government decided to allow the slaughter of a black rhino as a fundraising mechanism, but those funds will not necessarily go back to black rhino conservation as some claim. Instead, they will go into a general pot of money allocated to all manner of projects including those that have nothing to do with rhinos, or which could even be harmful to rhinos, such as “rural development.”
Cashing in on the desires of some to shoot rare species and display their remains back home in lavish “trophy rooms” – macabre mausoleums filled with dead animals – is what is driving Namibia’s approach, not the conservation needs of the species. The best way to conserve critically endangered species like the black rhino is to ensure that every animal remains alive and contributing to the genetic diversity of the species. Species with a diverse gene pool are more able to overcome challenges to their survival. The Namibian case proves, once again, that cold, hard cash undermines wildlife conservation.
Fortunately, the black rhino is listed as an endangered species under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA), meaning that the winner will need to get an import permit from the FWS to bring the carcass home. The ESA makes it clear that such permits should be granted only when the import will enhance the survival of the species in the wild. Once the winner applies for the import permit, there will be a 30-day comment period. We plan to provide evidence to the FWS that the recreational shooting of a member of a critically endangered species is harmful to that species. We invite you to sign a petition that we will submit along with our comments showing that people do not support issuance of the import permit.
The US government needs to understand that the American public does not support the Orwellian idea of killing endangered species to save them – even if it comes with a big cash payout. Where will it end? Will a Safari Club International member offer $1 million for the opportunity to shoot an orangutan, $2 million for an Asian elephant, and maybe even more for a Siberian tiger?
While those animals are highly protected because they are listed as endangered under the ESA, others are not so fortunate, and the numbers killed by American trophy hunters annually are staggering. In 2012, the parts of approximately 600 African elephants, 750 African lions, and 698 leopards were imported into this country.
small excerpt of a poll page Reader Opinion What do you think: Is there a place for hunting in conservation? Vote and be counted.
American trophy hunters belong to clubs, such as the Dallas Safari Club and Safari Club International, where they can compete to kill the most animals for the most awards. To earn every award that SCI offers, at least 171 different animals from around the world must be killed. Many SCI members have records for killing more than 400 different creatures that populate their trophy rooms. Hunters receive award trophies for shooting a prescribed list of animals. For example, the “Trophy Animals of Africa” award requires the hunter to kill 79 different African species to win the highest honor.
Animals like elephants and lions are much more valuable alive than dead, to the economies of African nations and to the entire world. An animal can be watched throughout his lifetime, and there’s a growing pool of eco-tourism customers waiting for that thrilling experience. On the other hand, the creature targeted by the hunter dies, meaning the revenue gained is merely a one-shot deal. What’s more, the pool of people who want to kill elephants, lions, or leopards for fun is comparably tiny, and it’s declining. The pictures and the memories for the eco-tourists will last a lifetime, and it’s a trip they’ll never be ashamed to recount to their grandkids.
Make no mistake: Trophy hunting is setting wildlife conservation back, and there are better ways to save these animals than by shooting them.'
(Source): Teresa M. Telecky, PhD is the director of the wildlife department for Humane Society International.
I may be wrong here but wasn't that rhino old and infertile? Going to die soon of natural causes? Without the death threats I bet someone would've payed a lot more, which would've done more good no? I don't see how killing that rhino was bad, but I do think he should've fetched more money. People like you just believe that these people are monsters, that's cool, but you kinda hindered conservation here bud.
why the fuck are you talking about turkeys? California droughts? lets stick to the topic.
YES!
My Rebuttal.
lol that link is about as reliable as buzzfeed
and now you resort to taking peoples quotes out of context to be right. further proving you dont know shit about what youre talking about.
you and sjw should try actually talking about topics that you understand and know at least a little bit about, rather than just copy pasting every post you make.
.Hugo.lol that link is about as reliable as buzzfeed
and now you resort to taking peoples quotes out of context to be right. further proving you dont know shit about what youre talking about.
you and sjw should try actually talking about topics that you understand and know at least a little bit about, rather than just copy pasting every post you make.
Yes, I'm no expert on hunting/ conservation. That's why I read studies done by experts, which come to the conclusion that hunting does not help Africa in any way financially and it does not help villages, or conservation efforts either. While nature reserves and safaris do actually help Africa, and help conservation efforts. So before you spit out more bullshit that your uncle told you about how hunting helps animals, let's just stick to the facts that are rooted in numbers and not just personal opinion.
.Hugo.lol that link is about as reliable as buzzfeed
and now you resort to taking peoples quotes out of context to be right. further proving you dont know shit about what youre talking about.
you and sjw should try actually talking about topics that you understand and know at least a little bit about, rather than just copy pasting every post you make.
.Hugo.The thing is if only legal hunting is done, the animals are not going to go extinct, or even become endangered because of being hunted by humans.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahHAa
a
a
ahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha
This is actually one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site. Congratulations.
That seems like a bit of an over reaction. It doesn't take a genius to understand that legal hunting is regulated and permits are required and because of this, you can control the number of animals being hunted and therefore control the population of said animals. If numbers are low, you restrict the number of hunting permits, or stop handing out permits altogether until the population rises.
Obviously that isn't the case with poaching or illegal hunts.
S.J.WYes, I'm no expert on hunting/ conservation. That's why I read studies done by experts, which come to the conclusion that hunting does not help Africa in any way financially and it does not help villages, or conservation efforts either. While nature reserves and safaris do actually help Africa, and help conservation efforts. So before you spit out more bullshit that your uncle told you about how hunting helps animals, let's just stick to the facts that are rooted in numbers and not just personal opinion.
If we didn't kill off members of the herd, it could very well damage the overall well being of the population at large. There are instances where an older, non-reproducing, aggressive male rhino needed to be removed from the population because there was the strong chance that he would either kill younger, reproductive males or at the very least prevent them from mating. In such a situation, it would be in the best interest of the herd if the aggressive male were removed.
Honestly, if humans can't work together for their own survival how the hell do we expect rhinos (for example) to? That aggressive male rhino has no idea how detrimental he is to their existence- he is simply carrying out hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary genetic programming. We can't show him the error of his ways, it's not possible. So we need to do the next best thing in order to protect the general population, and we remove him from the equation.
Now, killing the male is not necessarily the only option to achieve this- he could be removed and relocated. But who would pay for it? It would be extremely costly (and insanely dangerous to humans) and the money simply isn't there. Hunting, unfortunately, is the one avenue that draws a six-figure payment for removing the problem animal and as such is the route that is taken.
Given that Africa is one of the more corrupt places on Earth, we are right to question if that six-figure payment genuinely 100% goes to the conservation effort. But, that is a separate dilemma that needs to be sorted and not directly linked to whether or not hunting can actually preserve a group of animals.
Does this apply to all trophy hunting? By all means, no. But it does show, I think, how selective hunting can benefit the general population of certain animals.
onenerdykidIf we didn't kill off members of the herd, it could very well damage the overall well being of the population at large. There are instances where an older, non-reproducing, aggressive male rhino needed to be removed from the population because there was the strong chance that he would either kill younger, reproductive males or at the very least prevent them from mating. In such a situation, it would be in the best interest of the herd if the aggressive male were removed.
Honestly, if humans can't work together for their own survival how the hell do we expect rhinos (for example) to? That aggressive male rhino has no idea how detrimental he is to their existence- he is simply carrying out hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary genetic programming. We can't show him the error of his ways, it's not possible. So we need to do the next best thing in order to protect the general population, and we remove him from the equation.
Now, killing the male is not necessarily the only option to achieve this- he could be removed and relocated. But who would pay for it? It would be extremely costly (and insanely dangerous to humans) and the money simply isn't there. Hunting, unfortunately, is the one avenue that draws a six-figure payment for removing the problem animal and as such is the route that is taken.
Given that Africa is one of the more corrupt places on Earth, we are right to question if that six-figure payment genuinely 100% goes to the conservation effort. But, that is a separate dilemma that needs to be sorted and not directly linked to whether or not hunting can actually preserve a group of animals.
Does this apply to all trophy hunting? By all means, no. But it does show, I think, how selective hunting can benefit the general population of certain animals.
relocate to a safari and people pay to see it and take pictures. then everyone can have the animal on their wall.
saskskierThat seems like a bit of an over reaction. It doesn't take a genius to understand that legal hunting is regulated and permits are required and because of this, you can control the number of animals being hunted and therefore control the population of said animals. If numbers are low, you restrict the number of hunting permits, or stop handing out permits altogether until the population rises.
Obviously that isn't the case with poaching or illegal hunts.
Well yea, I could have left it at 'hahaha'.
But here's the thing; just because it's legal doesn't mean it's sustainable. There are countless examples of legal hunting or harvesting of species that, although entirely within the confines of the law, still resulted in that species being extinct, at risk of extinction, or having a drastic enough decrease in numbers where their population can't rebound without serious conservation efforts.
I'm sure you can think of a ton of examples yourself. Cod, many species of whales, birds like the Passenger Pidgeon or moa, aurochs, etc etc etc.
Saying "The thing is if only legal hunting is done, the animals are not going to go extinct, or even become endangered because of being hunted by humans." is a completely asinine comment considering legal hunting has done just that over and over and over again.
The important word that you said is 'can'. You CAN control the numbers of animals being hunting so it's done in a sustainable fashion. But does that always happen. No. Absolutely not. Legal hunting can, will, has, and does drive species extinct and to endangered levels.
onenerdykidIf we didn't kill off members of the herd, it could very well damage the overall well being of the population at large. There are instances where an older, non-reproducing, aggressive male rhino needed to be removed from the population because there was the strong chance that he would either kill younger, reproductive males or at the very least prevent them from mating. In such a situation, it would be in the best interest of the herd if the aggressive male were removed.
Honestly, if humans can't work together for their own survival how the hell do we expect rhinos (for example) to? That aggressive male rhino has no idea how detrimental he is to their existence- he is simply carrying out hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary genetic programming. We can't show him the error of his ways, it's not possible. So we need to do the next best thing in order to protect the general population, and we remove him from the equation.
Now, killing the male is not necessarily the only option to achieve this- he could be removed and relocated. But who would pay for it? It would be extremely costly (and insanely dangerous to humans) and the money simply isn't there. Hunting, unfortunately, is the one avenue that draws a six-figure payment for removing the problem animal and as such is the route that is taken.
Given that Africa is one of the more corrupt places on Earth, we are right to question if that six-figure payment genuinely 100% goes to the conservation effort. But, that is a separate dilemma that needs to be sorted and not directly linked to whether or not hunting can actually preserve a group of animals.
Does this apply to all trophy hunting? By all means, no. But it does show, I think, how selective hunting can benefit the general population of certain animals.
There are more instances of older, non-reproductive members of a community of animals (the exact ones people think can be killed with zero consequence) being helpful to the overall health of the population than being detrimental.
Older members of populations still have purpose, whether it be educational, protection, or even just helping the 'safety by numbers' aspect. They may become detrimental when food/water/shelter is scarce, but at this point they're the weakest anyways and will be the first to die off come lack of critical resources.
Nature has its ways. It's nice people want to feel better about themselves by thinking they're actually helping out a population, but really they're almost certainly doing more harm than good.
VinnieFThere are more instances of older, non-reproductive members of a community of animals (the exact ones people think can be killed with zero consequence) being helpful to the overall health of the population than being detrimental.
Older members of populations still have purpose, whether it be educational, protection, or even just helping the 'safety by numbers' aspect. They may become detrimental when food/water/shelter is scarce, but at this point they're the weakest anyways and will be the first to die off come lack of critical resources.
Nature has its ways. It's nice people want to feel better about themselves by thinking they're actually helping out a population, but really they're almost certainly doing more harm than good.
Of course I'm talking about species with population numbers well below carrying capacity in their area, as is the case with the majority of these trophy kills (lions, rhinos, etc). Populations that are healthy or over-abundant are a different story.
VinnieFThere are more instances of older, non-reproductive members of a community of animals (the exact ones people think can be killed with zero consequence) being helpful to the overall health of the population than being detrimental.
Older members of populations still have purpose, whether it be educational, protection, or even just helping the 'safety by numbers' aspect. They may become detrimental when food/water/shelter is scarce, but at this point they're the weakest anyways and will be the first to die off come lack of critical resources.
Nature has its ways. It's nice people want to feel better about themselves by thinking they're actually helping out a population, but really they're almost certainly doing more harm than good.
When it comes to animals that are simply older & non-reproductive, then I completely agree- we can use them in other ways that help ensure their conservation. My example, however, focused on an animal that was that and also aggressive to the point where he could do more damage than good. Here is an article about it, that was also posted in another thread on NS: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/africa/namibia-rhino-hunt/index.html
We have to be very realistic when it comes to solutions here and treat the solutions to non-human animal survival with an utilitarian outlook- what action(s) will bring about the least amount of damage and promote the most growth to the group as a whole? While I agree that killing the animal was not the only possible option on the table (he could have been relocated, which I agree would probably be the best solution), how do you propose to do it? And with what non-existent African budget? No one is going to pay for that, and if enough money is somehow accumulated it would most like take way too long and the problem rhino could cause more issues for the existing rhino population. Especially when someone is waiving $350,000 in your face to take care of the problem right now.
I do not want to show praise to hunter in this situation, because I think he's a douchebag and is not doing this with regret, he obviously enjoys killing things. But just looking at how to handle the overall situation, I think it is the most realistic way to do it, unfortunately, given the amount of money it brings to the table that (hopefully) go towards sustaining the conservation effort.
onenerdykidWhen it comes to animals that are simply older & non-reproductive, then I completely agree- we can use them in other ways that help ensure their conservation. My example, however, focused on an animal that was that and also aggressive to the point where he could do more damage than good. Here is an article about it, that was also posted in another thread on NS: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/africa/namibia-rhino-hunt/index.html
We have to be very realistic when it comes to solutions here and treat the solutions to non-human animal survival with an utilitarian outlook- what action(s) will bring about the least amount of damage and promote the most growth to the group as a whole? While I agree that killing the animal was not the only possible option on the table (he could have been relocated, which I agree would probably be the best solution), how do you propose to do it? And with what non-existent African budget? No one is going to pay for that, and if enough money is somehow accumulated it would most like take way too long and the problem rhino could cause more issues for the existing rhino population. Especially when someone is waiving $350,000 in your face to take care of the problem right now.
I do not want to show praise to hunter in this situation, because I think he's a douchebag and is not doing this with regret, he obviously enjoys killing things. But just looking at how to handle the overall situation, I think it is the most realistic way to do it, unfortunately, given the amount of money it brings to the table that (hopefully) go towards sustaining the conservation effort.
"But $45,000 is the average cost to move a rhino from South Africa to Botswana."
READ!!!!!! You guys are wrong in so many different areas of this discussion and this clears it all up. You are welcome.
This article is from January 2014 The source is much more credible than anyone registered on this website and argueing against these individuals viewpoints would be foolish at best.
A Kenyan grassroots initiative, Walk With Rangers, has spoken out against the controversial rhino auction held by the Dallas Safari Club that saw the highest bidder, Mr. Corey Knowlton, cough up a staggering US$350 000 to hunt an endangered black rhino in Namibia.
walk-with-rangers
"The sum is pittance compared to the value of our wildlife," says Raabia Hawa, an honorary game warden with the Kenya Wildlife Service and founder of the Walk With Rangers initiative.
Ms. Hawa has published an open letter to Mr. Knowlton, expressing sadness at the threats he has received in heated debates on online forums. The open letter also addresses the conservation values of old rhinos which Mr. Knowlton contradicts in referring to the rhino as 'too old to breed' and deeming it valueless. Her views on this have been backed by world- reknowned wildlife biologist and documentary host, Ian Redmond.
Other conservationists speaking out through the initiative are Kuki Gallman, who has cited her personal 40 years of experience working with wild rhinos in Africa.
The initiative will be presenting a petition to Mr. Knowlton and the Dallas Safari Club signed by rangers and conservationists from the field in the coming few weeks, saying they are frustrated that the voices of those who really are saving species to the point of risking their lives, are too often ignored.
The open letter is available to read below. Walk With Rangers is an initiative that will launch in June 2014 aimed at raising awareness and funds to further enhance anti-poaching operations on the ground. The initiative is in collaboration with the Kenya Wildlife Service and its Tanzanian counterpart.
From a wildlife warden to a trophy hunter.
Dear Mr. Corey Knowlton,
I hope this letter finds you and your family well in light of recent developments surrounding the Namibian black rhino hunt auction.
Mr. Knowlton, I had only just returned from anti-poaching patrols when I opened up Facebook and saw the flurry of posts and comments mentioning your name. I did not comment until a few days later (please see your page inbox) as I felt I really needed to understand this situation better.
I have watched several of your interviews and would like to start by apologizing for what your family must be enduring, I know how important family is and you must feel terribly threatened. Please do convey my apologies to your wife, and your children on behalf of myself and the scouts I just spent two weeks with fighting poachers and illegal loggers.
Sir, please know that we are protectors of life, not just because we are rangers and scouts, but because we are human. We must only take that which is sustainable and in a way that will not bring harm to the delicate balance of nature. This is our way, the way of true Africa.
Sir, I have struggled to understand why SCI and DSC continue to put prices on the heads of our wildlife. It is laughable that they even think they have any right. The wildlife of a nation remains the sovereign property of its people. Would this not mean then, sir, that privatizing such public property would, in fact, be a gross violation of the rights of the African people? I will let you ponder over that for a while.
We are in the wake of a crisis that has gripped our region. Poachers have decimated our herds, and Africa is no longer teeming with wildlife. You kind sir, have been duped into believing that your hunt will aid conservation in Africa.
It will not. Aside from gaining Namibia huge disrepute, it will go against the very fiber of what we are trying so hard to achieve – the protection and true management of our last wild things. It is also imperative to note here that local African communities do not eat rhino meat. Please ask Mr. Carter of DSC to stop shaming our people and insulting your intelligence.
Initially when questioned on the hunt, the response resonated 'support for conservation and anti-poaching' with specific focus angling towards 'better training and equipping rangers.' Mr. Knowlton, let me assure you that this is most discourteous and rather insulting. Is this what SCI and DSC have reduced the value of our wildlife to? A few boots and uniforms?
Please sir, I plead with you to understand what we are facing. Exactly a year and some days ago now, my colleague and good friend was shot by poachers. He stood right in between a rhino they were targeting. He took the bullet for the rhino. He didn't ask it's age, he didn't ask if it was a breeding bull, he didn't ask if it was male or female, white or black. He just saw poachers, and a rhino, and did what he knew he had to do. THAT, kind sir, is true conservation, management and protection that will ensure the survival of our precious rhino species.
By now you must think I'm just 'another one of those bunny hugging antis' and I am fully cognizant that you are probably not seeing any 'conservation value' in my words. So I will share with you the following;
"In forty years of close association with black rhinoceros, I have NEVER known of a free ranging wild old male past his breeding period targeting, and killing, rhino females and calves but, rather, the odd fights have only, in my own experience, occurred amongst breeding competing males, as is common in other species.
In Africa old age is respected: by extension, it is un-African and basically unethical not to allow an old male that sired many calves a peaceful retirement, in the same way as breeding bulls in the cattle world are put out to pasture, not sent to the butcher, once they stop being productive. It is equally unethical to use two sets of measures for poachers, who shoot a wild animal for financial gain, and are arrested or shot, and for a wealthy legal hunter who can pay a fortune for the pleasure to kill it, and is congratulated instead? In both cases a dead endangered animal is the end product. This auction is cruel, ill-timed, and to be condemned.
If the person bidding to shoot the rhino bull has that spare cash available, why not DONATE it to the cause and leave the poor rhino alone? The old rhino does not deserve a bullet.
– Kuki Gallmann; Conservationist, author, founder of The Gallmann Memorial Foundation and honorary game warden."
Sir, we on the field do not understand the logic in this matter. For us, every single one is absolutely critical to the survival of the species, to the sustainable development of the ecosystem they are a part of, and most of all, to the well being and protection of our culture and heritage.
You seem to be a pragmatic man, which is why I'm writing to you. I note your concerns for your family and hope you see our concerns as conservationists and protectors of those we love as our own, the wildlife our friends have fallen trying to protect (I'm also quite sure my colleague would have taken the bullet if you were on the other end of the gun instead of a poacher).
Hunting never has been, and probably never will be, in the true interest of the African people or nations. I appeal to you to spend some time with us to see this for yourself. It is not conservation, and the government officials that continue to allow such 'fun hunts' on endangered and critical species, must be ashamed. Indeed they know our great herds are gone, and the more this continues, the more we will fall into the abyss of misery and I'm sure, kind sir, that you do not wish such a ferociously merciless fate for us.
Mr. Knowlton, as I write this I am reading the news from neighboring Tanzania. Poachers have killed one black rhino, and now there are just 35 remaining. Do you think perhaps that DSC would be willing to use the us$350 000 you gave them in good conservation faith, to do a translocation? I know the 'old bull past breeding' excuse was thrown around, but I share with you the sensible words of Dr. Ian Redmond, a world-renowned and respected conservationist and biologist, "An old male self-evidently has a good immune system and may carry the genes giving immunity to the next epidemic which might kill some apparently stronger young males. In such circumstances an older male might resume breeding and pass on those important genes."
Words worth considering don't you think?
Wildlife protectors and conservationists don't usually get to air our views Mr. Knowlton, rangers are too busy on the field, protecting wildlife and often don't have access to world news. I see SCI and DSC have taken full advantage of this, which isn't really fair.
You deserve a balanced view on this matter, so I will soon be sending you a petition, signed by conservationists and rangers from as many outposts as possible.
CashmereCatI may be wrong here but wasn't that rhino old and infertile? Going to die soon of natural causes?
Claims the hunter and the organization the created the hunt.
.Hugo.you and sjw should try actually talking about topics that you understand and know at least a little bit about, rather than just copy pasting every post you make.
You should read my latest post. If I don't understand the topic how am I able to fine reliable sources, how would I know what to search for?
Trying refuting my points instead of attempting to discredit legitimate sources. Do you know what a credible source is?
S.J.WYes, I'm no expert on hunting/ conservation. That's why I read studies done by experts, which come to the conclusion that hunting does not help Africa in any way financially and it does not help villages, or conservation efforts either.
I've read studies done on knee ligaments, but does that make me a skilled surgeon capable of carrying out such procedures? no. And reading one environmental/hunting/conservation article u found on buzz feed doesn't make u an environmental major and knowledgeable about everything that goes on in nature. So honestly, just butt out of hunting and so forth when u know nothing. If ur an actual environmental major, as I am so u know I'm not just spewing shit from one ecological science book i found in a library, I've spent my time in the field and done studies on shit like this, but if ur an Env. major then you can totally get into a debate with me on the pros and cons of hunting and so forth, but otherwise honestly just shut up, ur making urself look like a fool.
ohmyglob8I've read studies done on knee ligaments, but does that make me a skilled surgeon capable of carrying out such procedures? no. And reading one environmental/hunting/conservation article u found on buzz feed doesn't make u an environmental major and knowledgeable about everything that goes on in nature. So honestly, just butt out of hunting and so forth when u know nothing. If ur an actual environmental major, as I am so u know I'm not just spewing shit from one ecological science book i found in a library, I've spent my time in the field and done studies on shit like this, but if ur an Env. major then you can totally get into a debate with me on the pros and cons of hunting and so forth, but otherwise honestly just shut up, ur making urself look like a fool.
Hunters act like hunting is some big fucking secret. It's not. Your education is the culmination of the books and studies your be read and the teachers youve listened to. If I read the same books and listen to the same people on say YouTube, wouldn't that mean that I'm gaining the same valuable information as you? Regardless of whether or not in part of an institution.
youve done studies on animal conservation in Africa? This is about killing for fun not in Africa, not killing whitetail deer in vermont.
Please reveal what your studies uncovered about African conservation efforts, since you are "Environment Major" whatever that means...
>implying people without higher education dont have legitamate opinions.
>implying people that don't get a higher education can't educate themselves.
ohmyglob8I've read studies done on knee ligaments, but does that make me a skilled surgeon capable of carrying out such procedures? no. And reading one environmental/hunting/conservation article u found on buzz feed doesn't make u an environmental major and knowledgeable about everything that goes on in nature. So honestly, just butt out of hunting and so forth when u know nothing. If ur an actual environmental major, as I am so u know I'm not just spewing shit from one ecological science book i found in a library, I've spent my time in the field and done studies on shit like this, but if ur an Env. major then you can totally get into a debate with me on the pros and cons of hunting and so forth, but otherwise honestly just shut up, ur making urself look like a fool.
This is dumb. Educating yourself on a subject doesn't make you an expert, but it does make you have an informed opinion. One doesn't need a degree to be able to discuss a topic.
Instead of saying 'you don't have a degree in this so anything you say is wrong', then use your knowledge to correct what he said or add more to the conversation. As far as I can tell you know nothing about this either, an 'environmental major' doesn't mean you have studied the benefits or detriments of trophy hunting in Africa. In fact, if you're still in the process of getting your degree then he's just as qualified in this area as you are but with the added benefit of having looked stuff up on the subject.
ohmyglob8I've read studies done on knee ligaments, but does that make me a skilled surgeon capable of carrying out such procedures? no. And reading one environmental/hunting/conservation article u found on buzz feed doesn't make u an environmental major and knowledgeable about everything that goes on in nature. So honestly, just butt out of hunting and so forth when u know nothing. If ur an actual environmental major, as I am so u know I'm not just spewing shit from one ecological science book i found in a library, I've spent my time in the field and done studies on shit like this, but if ur an Env. major then you can totally get into a debate with me on the pros and cons of hunting and so forth, but otherwise honestly just shut up, ur making urself look like a fool.
Lol. People on this site are all like "you need to post a source for when you got that opinion from", so I started posting studies. Now you're telling me I can't even have an opinion because I'm not doing an enviromental major? Like any one else in this thread is studying enviromental science? Get fucked. I'm not an expert, that's why I choose to trust experts on the matter. I don't understand climate change but I still choose to trust the sciencetists on that and tell my prime minister that he needs to do something on that. And I never posted a buzzfeed article, or some bullshit opinion article. I posted facts. But looks like I can't have an opinion if I'm not studying it... But if you must know,I'm studying economics, and economically hunting does not help Afirca in any way. Where as safari's and conservation parks do.
_Fluffy_"But $45,000 is the average cost to move a rhino from South Africa to Botswana."
What source are you quoting? Not denying it, just would be good to read up on. Also, does the conservation effort have that available to spend? It would seem that with the $350,000 they got, they could relocate the few other "problem" rhinos mentioned in the article I posted.
From your large post above, it seems that the conservationists completely deny the possibility of males being aggressive to the point that they become problematic. This may well be the case, and if it is then it sheds further doubt as to the need to have these auctionable hunts. However, it isn't proven that they don't do that, it is just their opinion (according to the piece you quoted). At the very least, there appear to be 2 conflicting opinions about it, and both cannot be right at the same time.
onenerdykidWhat source are you quoting? Not denying it, just would be good to read up on. Also, does the conservation effort have that available to spend? It would seem that with the $350,000 they got, they could relocate the few other "problem" rhinos mentioned in the article I posted.
From your large post above, it seems that the conservationists completely deny the possibility of males being aggressive to the point that they become problematic. This may well be the case, and if it is then it sheds further doubt as to the need to have these auctionable hunts. However, it isn't proven that they don't do that, it is just their opinion (according to the piece you quoted). At the very least, there appear to be 2 conflicting opinions about it, and both cannot be right at the same time.
I don't know that I would call 40 years of experience just an opinion.
"Black Rhinos will fight each other over territory and females – even courting males and females sometimes fight one another."
Seems like age has nothing to do with it.
the old rhino killing baby rhino/younger more fit rhino mantra is nothing but hearsay. They mostly live in solidarity. Its nothing more than an excuse perpetuated by hunters and hunting organizations. Conservationist would never agree to allow such a hunt to take place, which is stated in my post.
Lions will kill other lion cubs. But what is true for one species is obviously not true for another.
_Fluffy_"In forty years of close association with black rhinoceros, I have NEVER known of a free ranging wild old male past his breeding period targeting, and killing, rhino females and calves but, rather, the odd fights have only, in my own experience, occurred amongst breeding competing males, as is common in other species.
kinda curious but if an old infertile rhino is attacked by a breeding male who mistakes him as a competitor and the old rhino wins, does this help rhino populations grow?
cornholiokinda curious but if an old infertile rhino is attacked by a breeding male who mistakes him as a competitor and the old rhino wins, does this help rhino populations grow?
How often do you mistake a 70 year old decrepit man for a 25 year old fit man?
_Fluffy_I know the 'old bull past breeding' excuse was thrown around, but I share with you the sensible words of Dr. Ian Redmond, a world-renowned and respected conservationist and biologist, "An old male self-evidently has a good immune system and may carry the genes giving immunity to the next epidemic which might kill some apparently stronger young males. In such circumstances an older male might resume breeding and pass on those important genes."
Words worth considering don't you think?
cornholiokinda curious but if an old infertile rhino is attacked by a breeding male who mistakes him as a competitor and the old rhino wins, does this help rhino populations grow?
SFBboth my parents are staunch liberals lol. i used to leanepretty left but i noticed hypocrisy and brainwashing of the movement in general and it no longer appeals to me kid.
I could talk all day about the hypocrisy and brainwashing conservatives take part in. Just overall a bad post.
