Skip to comments.Hunting animals to save them?
Posted on 01/26/2012 3:23:17 PM PST by texas_mrs
You don't have to go to Africa to hunt exotic animals. In fact, Texas may have more of some endangered exotics than live in the wild. That's because breeding them is a billion dollar business in Texas, where over 100 species roam large ranches and can be hunted for sport. The hunters and the ranchers they pay to hunt the trophy animals say the money generated by hunting these animals is helping to save them. They claim only 10 percent of any species can be killed annually. But to animal rights people fighting to shut them down, they're nothing more than slaughter houses. Lara Logan reports on this little known practice on "60 Minutes" Sunday, Jan. 29 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I don’t like trophy hunting. To me, it’s immoral to hunt just for the trophy and not for the food. For example, when I hear that somebody has killed the bear and took its gall bladder and nothing else, breaks my heart.
However, I do recognize the principle that hunting makes economic sense and actually helps prevent extinction of a species by creating an economic incentive to keep them around.
That I support.
Trophy hunters rarely leave the meat unharvested, and I doubt that there is an epidemic of gall bladder-less bears littering our forests. If you have proofs to the contrary, I’d love to see them.
I agree with you there and I don’t have a problem with people hunting for food. Hunting is going to be one of those necessary evils, until the Good Lord recreates the Earth and removes the need to do it.
The least those, who do hunt animals just for the Asian medication (almost total bs, imo) is use the rest of the animal.
If it wasn’t for trophy hunting in parts of Africa, some countries there would have no economy at all. A typical safari runs around $30,000.
Poaching of all kinds of animals is a problem. Anybody who says it isn’t is either misinformed or lying.
I don’t care if this article is about 20 years old. If it was a problem back then, it likely still is.
Well I've heard stories in the West Virginia mountains of cute sows enticing the boars leading them to fermenting blackberry bushes. Poor fellas fall down dead drunk in some flea bag cave, knocked out for the winter. Waking up in the spring with a missing gall bladder and no sows to be found. Sad, sad story.
That much!? There goes one dream...
Yes. And I said I do understand how trophy hunting actually creates an economic justification for keeping a species alive.
But that doesn’t mean I have to like it. :)
While hunting is a hush-hush taboo subject in polite America, it is a necessary evil ( if you want to call it evil ). Thousands of people are killed each year due to animal/vehicle collisions. It can be argued that there is more wildlife now than ever before in American History.
Meat is meat: and the more harvested by hunters means less auto/animal collisions.
We are hunter/gatherers by nature; its what God intended. Whether you buy it at Walmart in cellophane or collect it on the road, or kill it and grill it your own bad self: Its what we do.
God gave us animal things to eat and use.
Get over it.
I, the hunter. You can call me Keith. I am of the woods.
God Bless, and Good Day.
If the times says it’s so it must be true.
Or complete BS.
There is a full frontal assault right now against all high fence hunting. It’s bullshit from anti everything tree huggers. I say let’s legalize hunting activists of all stipes
First, you don’t know God’s intents. In a world that wasn’t originally created to see death, I can’t see God putting that sort of activity as something He’d be enthused about.
Secondly, anything that takes a life is evil, but there are greater evils and lesser evils. Hunting, because it is necessary, would classify as a lesser evil.
As I said, and I’ll say it again for those who either don’t read posts or read them for context, I said my main problem are those who hunt, but don’t use most of the animal.
Dining on the meat and using the fur is a reasonable use of the animal.
It's not for me, but as long as the meat is used if Joe Blow thinks he's a great white hunter shooting an oryx in Texas, that's his issue.
I can set you up with a safari for a lot less, depending on the trophies you want.sang
I can set you up with a safari for a lot less, depending on the trophies you want.sang
Maybe squirrel hunting in Kentucky would be within my budget.
The last deer I shot was in December..a 65-75 lb. corn-fed doe about 5 years old. I enjoy the outdoors, observing animals, friends, cold clear mornings.... appreciate the feel, accuracy and heft of my rifle (in this case a 22-250. I enjoy the shot and do everything I can to insure an instant kill of the game I shoot. This last deer I dropped immediately with a neck shot but it took more time that I would have liked for her to expire (bleed out as they say —a full 10 minutes that seemed forever). This deer provided backstrap, sausage, hamburger etc. that I will use the rest of the year as a meat supplement. As a friend agreed, we hate the killing and the animal agony (when it occurs), but wonder what goes on in the feedlot and processing plants. I am guessing much worse in the scheme of things.
I just hunt black-tailed jackrabbits in the desert.
Ditto. High fence game ranchers figured out a way to make a good living by catering to people willing to pay the money to hunt an exotic. Find a need and fill it. Entrepreneurship at work.
Couple of things.
Colorado (and probably other states) has a program which allows hunters to donate their big game to the Division of Wildlife, which gives the meat to needy people. I know one guy who does this every year, if he is successful.
Loosely related: My folks run cattle in Texas. The PETA types that want people to stop eating meat are missing one thing. Millions of animals will never be born and have a life at all if these animal right nuts are successful.
Did you know that vegetarian is an old Indian word that translates as “poor hunter”?
I’ve been hunting since the Beatles were a band from the Siskiyous to the Okeefenokee, and that’s the first time I’ve been told I don’t know $hi+ about it because the New York Slimes says so. Fine, OK, the bears are doomed, renew your subscription...LOL
I suspect that with some people, I could provide all the proof in the world and it either wouldn’t be enough or they wouldn’t care.
If the issue of hunting ethically is some thing you care about, Muddler, you can find your own stats and determine for yourself if it’s a problem.
Otherwise, I have a good feeling as to which side of the issue you’re on.
Cows would be an endangered species if humans did not eat beef.
Anyone doubt that?
I was also considering going to Texas to hunt jackalopes.
I don’t call this hunting, but is it my business to tell people how to waste their money?
As long as they keep letting their stock breed and reproduce is it so bad?
I mean it’s not like they are planned parenthood killing off the breeding stock.
I agree, trophy hunters aren’t looking to sell gall bladders in any case. Just selling one ain’t worth the cost of the license and is a federal offence to start with. It is the poachers, not legitimate hunters, who engage in that trade.
It sounds like you’re comdemning hunters who hunt older, past their prime male animals which make good trophies, but have ceased to breed, and keep the headgear but donate the meat and hide to the needy, whether African villages or food kitchens in the depressed cities of America. Did I get that right, or did I disturb your convenient little worldview?
I can also cite case after case where over-restriction of hunting has contributed to massive winter die-off of entire herds when the food stocks are depleted and starvation and/or disease takes over! The NY slimes doesn’t usually report those stories - doesn’t fit with their politics!
Those are fine. Just because hunting can be a moral act of husbandry does not mean that I should view the act with a Yee-haw Yippee-ki-ye. :)
We can have regrets about necessary acts. Or am I intruding upon your worldview?
Regretfully, I must call Bravo Sierra on the following premise taken verbatim from the article:
“They claim only 10 percent of any species can be killed annually.”
The folks down in Texas beg to differ. Seems their feral hog population needs a 60 to 70 percent annual cull just to keep the hog population from further expansion. They even legalized airborne hunts.
Google “Aporkalypse Now”. It is a ‘hawg wild’ situation in Texas.
“First, you dont know Gods intents. In a world that wasnt originally created to see death, I cant see God putting that sort of activity as something Hed be enthused about.
Secondly, anything that takes a life is evil, but there are greater evils and lesser evils. Hunting, because it is necessary, would classify as a lesser evil.”
May I suggest that before you continue to try to become a theologian, consider keeping your day job.
That's not hunting, it's poaching. It's a serious crime. Most trophey hunters eat the animals too, and if they don't they donate the meat to shelters or food pantries.
May I suggest that you get to know the Bible a bit more before you accuse me of not knowing it?
I am not aware of the Bible calling taking any life as being good. It is necessary, such as taking an animal’s life so it can feed a family. It can be merciful, such as taking an animal, near the end of its life, to the vet to put down rather than suffer to its inevitable end. It can be protective. It can also be many things, but it is not good.
If you read about our creation, since our source of food was supposed to originally come from plants, and only plants, it’s obvious that God’s original intents did not involve taking an animal’s life for any reason.
If His original intent was not to take a life, then there will come a time when it will no longer be necessary.
Until that point, it is necessary, but it still is not good. It’s not something we should feel guilty about, but it’s not something to ever be rejoiced over.
If you read Exodus 23:19, “The first of the firstfruits of your land you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mothers milk”, there is the implication that, when we do need to take an animal’s life, that we should be mindful to be merciful and be aware of the animal’s welfare when we use them for our purposes.
Poaching is still a form of hunting. It’s an immoral form, but it is still a form. There’s no natural law that states that when we kill an animal that we have to use any part of it.
As I said, I’m not against hunting itself.
Yes, you are. What is regretable about promoting wildlife health and sustainability by hunters?
Fyi - hunters in Africa nearly always give the meat of their prey to local villagers. Poachers kill for profit.
To those of us who are ethical hunters, you essentially equating poaching and hunting is just as offensive.
“If you read about our creation, since our source of food was supposed to originally come from plants, and only plants, its obvious that Gods original intents did not involve taking an animals life for any reason.”
The above is precisely my reason for my previous post. To assume that Man may successfully and accurately determine what is in the mind of the Divine is, by definition, a act of notable hubris. Just because the Garden of Eden’s beasts were vegetarians, tells us nothing sufficient to arrive at your conclusion.
“If His original intent was not to take a life, then there will come a time when it will no longer be necessary.”
The “If” at the beginning of that sentence is where we disagree. What is done by minor critters in no way compares to the acts of a God.
In short, I fear that all too often our seeing moral issues in the most mundane acts of non-humans (I lump collectivists in with those beasts) is projection. A cat simply kills. Sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly while it plays with its prey.
To assume moral value to the cat’s acts is akin to assigning moral value to the lunch choices of Libtards in the Big Sh*tty restaurrant. Both are merely apetitive choices, animals feeding.
That difference is why German has two destinct words for the act of eating. “Essen” for humans, “fressen” for animals.
Did I confuse Libtards with animals - no, it was deliberate.
The unnecessarily taking of a life is what makes it regrettable, but necessary. Yes, it may be an old bull, or whatever, but it is still taking a life.
Yes, it does contribute to the health of the heard or species, but there’s still something a bit sad about that regardless.
Call me soft, but that’s the way it is.
Adultery is a form of sex, an immoral kind.
As I’ve already pointed out, there is moral hunting (using the animal as complete as possible) and immoral hunting (poaching or just trophy hunting and letting the rest of the animal rot).
Yet, 50 million human babies have been killed, and they just throw the remains in the trash.
Abortion is an unquestionable evil.