Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on September 13, 2015, 05:58:15 PM
-
Interesting story, from the NY Times no less, on the detrimental affects of hunting bans in various regions of Africa. I particularly like this sensible quote, by one of the people the white liberal guilt contingent always thinks they are "helping":
“We had a lot of complaints from local communities,” Ms. Kapata said. “In Africa, a human being is more important than an animal. I don’t know about the Western world,” she added, echoing a complaint in affected parts of Africa that the West seemed more concerned with the welfare of a lion in Zimbabwe than of Africans themselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/a-hunting-ban-saps-a-villages-livelihood.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
-
It does illustrate how emotion-driven and inconsistent the nominal Leftist is.
They're all about "social justice", until it gets kicked to the curb, for something else that tugs at their heartstrings even harder, usually something furry.
-
African hunting is about prioritizing Africans over the wildlife. A lot of folks show their true colors when they value random wildlife in a place they've never been over the people who live there.
-
African hunting is about prioritizing Africans over the wildlife. A lot of folks show their true colors when they value random wildlife in a place they've never been over the people who live there.
On top of that, you have to add in the typical liberal inability to understand simple economics. Hunting brings in money that pays for more livestock and food as well as Park Rangers to control poaching. They can't seem to understand that regulated hunting and illegal poaching are not the same thing and getting rid of hunting actually makes the poaching worse.
-
Also hunting places a monetary value on the animal, this is good at preserving the health of a species. Also great white American/European hunters spend a crap load of money when they hunt in Africa.
-
Most of the decline in numbers of certain species is due to poaching, not legal trophy hunting.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
Somebody already sit it. Oops!
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
On top of that, you have to add in the typical liberal inability to understand simple economics. Hunting brings in money that pays for more livestock and food as well as Park Rangers to control poaching. They can't seem to understand that regulated hunting and illegal poaching are not the same thing and getting rid of hunting actually makes the poaching worse.
I have had the honor of actually changing somebody's mind on this. Now, they weren't a staunch anti-hunter, but by working through the economics of it, I was able to convince them that such hunting was for the best. Points I hit:
1. Legal hunting generally targets 'excess' males. Generally, this amounts to older non-reproductive males and bachelors. Poachers go after whatever they can catch. Another example was the game wardens auctioning off a permit to kill a rhino that had grown old enough that he couldn't have sex anymore, but was still bothering the females, harassing their offspring, etc... It sold for nearly half a million, if I remember right.
2. Removal of excess males increases reproductive success for the females - take a lion pride. With excess males removed, there will be fewer 'successions' for the King, and remember that the incoming king kills the cubs of the previous. You also have greater food availability with the extra game that the males would have eaten.
3. The income puts *value* on the animals that would otherwise not be there. If they have value, they will be protected. Otherwise, as seen here, they're regarded as nuisance animals and they'll *encourage* the poachers.
-
I have had the honor of actually changing somebody's mind on this. Now, they weren't a staunch anti-hunter, but by working through the economics of it, I was able to convince them that such hunting was for the best. Points I hit:
1. Legal hunting generally targets 'excess' males. Generally, this amounts to older non-reproductive males and bachelors. Poachers go after whatever they can catch. Another example was the game wardens auctioning off a permit to kill a rhino that had grown old enough that he couldn't have sex anymore, but was still bothering the females, harassing their offspring, etc... It sold for nearly half a million, if I remember right.
2. Removal of excess males increases reproductive success for the females - take a lion pride. With excess males removed, there will be fewer 'successions' for the King, and remember that the incoming king kills the cubs of the previous. You also have greater food availability with the extra game that the males would have eaten.
3. The income puts *value* on the animals that would otherwise not be there. If they have value, they will be protected. Otherwise, as seen here, they're regarded as nuisance animals and they'll *encourage* the poachers.
Is there a website that goes over things like that and also about how much food an animal provides for the villages and stuff?
-
Is there a website that goes over things like that and also about how much food an animal provides for the villages and stuff?
There probably is, however I don't know of it.
-
It does illustrate how emotion-driven and inconsistent the nominal Leftist is . . .
We could have defused the leftist's "Cecil the Lion Murdered by Hunter" narrative by pointing out that Cecil the Lion killed and ate Wanda the Wildebeest and made orphans of her babies . . . >:D
-
Think about what happens in this country. If there are predators around that harass people and livestock, ranchers shoot them. Wolves and bears? However, if there is value in hunting them, ranchers may not do that. The wild hog population in Texas is going that way a little. They made it legal to shoot them from helicopters so now there are people who sell that service. Coyotes might be an example. Out in the rural areas, they don't come around houses and people because they get shot. In suburban and urban areas, they are not hunted at all. What would suburbanites be doing if lions were roaming around the neighborhoods instead of coyotes.
In Africa, they may not be able to shoot them, but they will put out poison bait and make other efforts to kill them and keep them away. They are a dangerous nuisance to the locals. However, big game hunters pay a lot of to kill those animals. Because of that, they will make greater efforts to manage the animals instead of just getting rid of them.
Tom Gresham made the point on his radio show that animals that people like to hunt tend to survive and thrive. Animals that people don't want to hunt tend to die out if they can't move in with humans. Tom Gresham used the example of ducks and geese in the US and a certain extinct woodpecker. Duck numbers were real low early in the 20th century. Hunters and hunting groups asked for the regulation and taxes that pay for game management and habitat maintenance/restoration. Duck numbers are good now. Nobody wanted to hunt that woodpecker. I would say wolves are another example. People shoot them, but they don't hunt them for sport.