Largest Bull Elephant Shot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey lead,

Uhmm...Guess where the lions share of the money to pay those anti poaching guards comes from? HUNTING! Also guess how the habitat remains kept open. FEES FROM HUNTING!! The white rhino and black rhino remain on this planet today from the resources that are derived from hunters. South African game farmers (read professional hunting operations) are the ONLY reason we have a viable population of white and black rhinos left on the planet. PERIOD end of story. And they are the primary source of protection for rhinos as you read this.

The fees that pay for anti poaching units comes primarily from hunting. The areas that allow hunting have much fewer poachers because those areas derive money from sustainable use of the game animals in the area. This will come as a shock to you but try to understand. You can only sustainable hunt if there is a surplus of animals. PERIOD. And to maintain that surplus those animals must be carefully managed. In areas where they are not managed and do not provide money and security for the local people they are inevitably poached into extinction.

Kenya had 160,000 elephants on the day hunting was stopped in that country. Today there are between 16,000 and 20,000 left. The primary reason hunting was stopped in Kenya is that professional hunters were getting in the way of government backed commercial poachers. And professional hunters are the primary block between commercial poachers and crooked politicians in Africa today. Everywhere animal rights groups have succeeded in bribing politicians and stopping hunting, wildlife has suffered.

Do yourself a HUGE favor and look up elephant population numbers in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique and Tanzania. Those are all countries that allow hunting of elephant and carefully manage and provide protection to elephant.

Then have a look at the population numbers in Kenya, Sudan, Somalia, Uganda and Angola. All countries which used to have a thriving safari business but have stopped legal controlled carefully manged sport hunting.

Then look up elephant numbers in Botswana. Which until two years ago was a primary trophy elephant hunting destination. The president of Botswana at the behest of international animal rights groups has declared big game hunting on government land illegal. Lets revisit the population numbers in ten years and compare. The picture will not be rosy.

So while I understand that hunting pulls at your heart strings, you must understand that your emotionally driven misunderstanding of the situation is the kind of group think that is loving African and other fauna to death. You read that correct, the bleeding heart sappy National Geographic soccer mom crowd is the PRIMARY reason we are losing elephant and rhino to poachers at the rate that we are. If your uninformed opinions come to regulatory reality then you are causing these animals to lose the only protection they have.

Many people get confused at the difference between a commercial poacher and a professional hunter. Let me help you with your understanding here. A commercial poacher makes his living from killing any and every animal that is of value to him for it's byproducts. They are criminals and are often associated with international crime rings.

A professional hunter is in charge of a block of land known as a concession and hunts to strictly maintained rules and scientifically set quotas. His job is to conserve and support healthy populations of animals within his block. The quotas are set so as to cause no decrease below sustainable levels and no increase above sustainable levels within the block. If these numbers are not strictly adhered to then the block is closed down and the professional hunter no longer has a job or a business. Thus one of the professional hunters duties is to maintain an effective anti poaching unit to keep the poachers at bay. Without the protection of the professional hunter the poachers run rampant and the animals are quickly whipped out.

While I know it isn't politically correct and it is socially unpopular amongst the self impressed urban inlelligencia. Hunting is wildlife's number one ally. One must only take a look at our very own country to see what proper management of wildlife does for healthy populations. Hint...Theodore Roosevelt is a good placed to start.

Please wake up before it's to late. the problem with your way of thinking is that we do not live in a perfect world where if we declare an animal sacred an un huntable it will flourish and grow in population. The reality of the situation is that unprotected these animals will be whipped out by unscrupulous commercial poachers with the help of crooked politicians. The other undeniable truth is that professional carefully manged hunting are these animals last and best hope.
 
BTW

Lead,

I find it astonishing that you would use as an example a chart of declining ASIAN elephants which are not legally hunted anywhere on the planet....

Are you aware of that? Or are you like most animal rights people totally ignorant of wildlife and the management thereof throughout the world?
 
Sadly that is incorrect. The only difference between legal and illegal, as I just mentioned, is that some human bureaucrat has granted an arbitrary license and heavily profited from it. It's the same end result, a dead creature.

This absolutely incorrect and laughably ignorant. Properly manged hunting seasons and monies derived from hunting are the reason we have the abundance of wildlife in this country today. You can't sustainably hunt unless you have biological surplus of said species.

And given that humans have caused the extinction and decline of dozens of species THROUGH HUNTING we are obviously not very good at saving species...

Absolutely true. However your ignorance and emotion on this subject is blinding you to the fact that once again your are confusing non regulated commercial scale hunting with proper regulated sport hunting. A simple look at game population in America today vs at the turn of the century makes this argument undeniable.

Recently, an auction for 1 hunting permit to kill a Black Rhino was granted for $350,000. Yep, that's a lot of money. Seems REAL conservation efforts would be to just put that money toward saving them, without pulling the trigger.

And if you cared for the rhino and it's continued existence should go and shake that guys hand. So he takes one old non breeding bull and donates $350K that goes to preservation anti poaching and conservation of the species. I hear you animal rights people talk the talk but show me the money Skippy! You are a lawyer with tons of spare time on your hands. How much money have you personally donated to effective conservation of the rhino or the elephant? Please answer honestly and for that matter how much money have organizations such as PETA or HSUS donated to anti poaching and game conservation? Answer ALMOST NONE because they don't care about wildlife or conservation of wild lands they care about controlling people.

This ALL boils back to the greed of a hunter for his trophy, versus a desire to save a species.

This simply a falsity that is promoted by various animal rights groups. Which as noted above provide ZERO meaningful support for wildlife and especially African wildlife. And in fact have done FAR more damage than good when it comes to the conservation of the mega fauna in Africa.

As evidenced by history, the hunter will kill the animal whether it benefits or harms the species. The after-effect (benefit or harm) is secondary to the discussion. Anecdotal or cherry-picked evidence may show short term increases in animal populations from "legalized" hunting and expensive permits, etc. However, this is not the model for long-term success.

Real conservation individuals would NOT kill the creature and just donate to the cause.

Another example of willful ignorance. As evidenced by history it is the hunter primarily who has paid the way for and promoted the incredible resurgence of game species in America and Africa. This is absolutely irrefutable, I find it a bit shocking that man of your higher education is so ignorant of the wildlife miracle brought about by Theodore Roosevelt and his wildlife policies. I also find it disturbing that you don't understand enough about the wildlife policies in various African countries and South Africa in particular that have brought multiple major species back from the brink.
 
Here's a paper outlining the problem. NOWHERE does it suggest the solution is to "cull" and "hunt" or otherwise profit from killing more elephants... pretty noteworthy.

Which is a major over site and takes away from the validity of the paper. Have a look below.

http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/
And another.

http://srel.uga.edu/outreach/ecoviews/ecoview031117.htm

Another interesting one with point and counter point.
http://endangeredspecies.about.com/o...ed-Species.htm

Here is one from our friends at National Geographic.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
Sadly that is incorrect. The only difference between legal and illegal, as I just mentioned, is that some human bureaucrat has granted an arbitrary license and heavily profited from it. It's the same end result, a dead creature.
This absolutely incorrect and laughably ignorant. Properly manged hunting seasons and monies derived from hunting are the reason we have the abundance of wildlife in this country today. You can't sustainably hunt unless you have biological surplus of said species.

This.

Species went extinct long before man because their needs outstripped the ability of an ecosystem to support them (among other reasons). This rose colored glasses viewpoint on animal species survival pre-homo sapien is one that can only be contrived by willfully ignoring the few hundred million years of creatures coming and going before the first caveman threw a rock at a lizard. If man were solely responsible for the extinction or continuation of a species, we'd have brontosaur crossing signs on highways, and the Alaskan brown bear would not be the largest land predator by orders of magnitude.

The funds derived from the issue of hunting licenses pay for the research and management of game animals and their habitats. Some people here should be thanking us that they can still see many of the creatures in the wild that we are able to today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top