kelpdiver 2 #26 August 23, 2016 This thread diverged into a number of interesting sub topics, but challenges having any focus. So scattershooting away: 1- 'Hunters provide more income than non shooting tourists.' I'd love to see some supporting evidence for this. I think I paid over $1000 in tourist taxes when I visited Tanzania for a climb + safari, and employed a number of guides. Didn't shoot any animals, but how likely would I have come if they weren't there? There are only so many 'trouble' animals that need to be culled, particularly in the big 5. So what's the relative draws in money? 2- 'Hunting fees is keeping the rest of the herd secure.' As I asked - is it actually working? Not for some species. At risk of diverging into that other thread- legalized prostitution should be straightforward but leads to secondary effects around traficking and slavery. Legalized gambling does as well. If you charge $10000 (no idea what pricing is like) to cull an old lion, then aren't you setting up a market for poachers to offer this for $5000 with no regards to resource management? Humans the world round have shown an inability to think about long term resource management, and enough for the the immediate revenue that the herd suffers unless the species in question has a very short lifecycle (< 2 years). 3- 'facts were wrong about the dentist poaching the lion.' Again, a bit devoid of any factual info here. My memory is pretty clear that the lion died a slow and horrible death due to the poor shooting of the guy. The uncertainty was in how illegal the actions where, and how ignorant he really was about any violations in the regs. 4- 'giraffes are hard to shoot' - given what I just wrote, that's not a good thing. The offending animal count have been humanely dispatched and fed to the local village. And pretty sure it's not a dangerous hunt. The most offensive variant of this are web cam hunts - hopefully more a joke than a reality at any scale. 5- 'I live here, so I know better than you' Disproven all around the world, esp when coming from people with financial interests in the topic. Argue with facts, not that. 6- From someone else 'People in cities shouldn't dictate what the people in Africa do.' This one is a great potential separate topic. Lots of meat to this one. I think about the recent uproar over Tanzania building a road across the Seregenti. I wish they could avoid doing that. It certainly could impact a decision for me to go there, though in all honesty, if I wanted to repeat that sort of trip, I'd probably go further south in Africa to something different. I don't see why I shouldn't discourage other Americans from engaging in this sort of killing tourism, just as we prosecute the fuck out of Americans who engage in sexual tourism, particularly against minors. As I suggest above, I question that it's possible for Americans to participate in only well managed culling without encouraging negative consequences. 7- 'Is fishing different in any way?' Another interesting one - we don't value non mammals to nearly the same extent, do we? While much of fishing is for consumption, there is the sport fishing angle, and the trophies. Worse, the best trophies are the biggest specimens, and for most species these are the most prolific for breeding. In response, many engage in catch and release, though done poorly, the released may be dying soon. Huge lobsters are being photographed and returned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,741 #27 August 23, 2016 QuoteAnother interesting one - we don't value non mammals to nearly the same extent, do we? While much of fishing is for consumption, there is the sport fishing angle, and the trophies. Worse, the best trophies are the biggest specimens, and for most species these are the most prolific for breeding. One of the unintended results of this is that many fish are rapidly evolving to be smaller (and to grow more slowly) so they remain under the size limits for fishermen. This is counter to the normal evolutionary drive common in many large fish of growing more rapidly to better fight and flee predators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cruelpops 0 #28 August 24, 2016 Personally I like the idea of a national purge. Once a year, for a specified 24-hour period, everyone is fair game and can go after each other to kill as many people as you can. At the end of the 24-hour period you are graded on the quality of your kill count - not quantity. You get a tax write-off for terminating social outcasts such as homeless people, the unemployed, drug attics, dealers and known criminals. You are also rewarded for good kills on the ultra rich and then assume a portion of their assets. Sounds like a good culling program. Can you imagine the tourist revenue it would bring to the host country. I would be all in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #29 August 24, 2016 billvonBut we generally place more value on animals we relate to. Dogs are social and relate well to people, and have emotions and reactions that we share. So we have a visceral reaction to seeing someone killing a dog for no good reason, because we can put ourselves either in the place of the dog or the place of someone who loves the dog. (In fact, we're wired to do this.) Lions and giraffes evoke a similar (perhaps not as strong) level of kinship. And now that we know that chimpanzees and dolphins are closer to us in terms of intelligence than we once thought, we often have similar reactions to people killing those animals. This seems right to me. You could, though, make a pretty fair argument that killing any sort of animals for sport is wrong. Yet the sailfish remains on my wall.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,741 #30 August 24, 2016 QuotePersonally I like the idea of a national purge. Once a year, for a specified 24-hour period, everyone is fair game and can go after each other to kill as many people as you can. Wasn't that a movie? Just think what a few dozen Islamic extremists (or Trump supporters) with 747's could do in 24 hours . . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #31 August 24, 2016 Coreeece***Here's my question -- is fishing any different? I suppose one has to question whether or not fish know what pain is? Do they have the mental capacity to suffer? I don't know. I'm guessing it hurts to get a sharp piece of metal jammed through their mouths and hauled to the surface. You could make a reasonable argument that even catch and release fishing is just cruelty for the sake of sport. And, as another poster accurately stated, catch and release done sloppily just kills the fish more slowly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #32 August 24, 2016 divertechYou are right of course, giraffe aren't all that difficult to shoot as your extensive experience in this regard must proof. Sure tourist with cameras "can" provide more income but they don't. Sure the locals can kill the nuisance animal, how are we making money by doing that? Sure the African savannah can balance it self, all we need to do is get rid of all the humans and fences, seems like a workable solution. No money is not the solution to everything but it bloody well helps doesn't it? Look I understand some people don't like or understand trophy hunting but it is the only way to keep wild life going on a sustainable manner. If there is no monetary value to animals people would use the land for other purposes to make a living. Well done on "travelling extensively through South Africa, Botswana and Namibia" I have lived here all my live and I am involved with nature conservation and yes I am a "biltong" hunter. PS You do realize that culling (look now it isn't hunting) happens in all parks in Africa? Culling of different species occurs in most provincial and national parks in Ontario, Canada, as well. frequently, 100's of deer. sometimes bear...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #33 August 24, 2016 AndyBoyd***But we generally place more value on animals we relate to. Dogs are social and relate well to people, and have emotions and reactions that we share. So we have a visceral reaction to seeing someone killing a dog for no good reason, because we can put ourselves either in the place of the dog or the place of someone who loves the dog. (In fact, we're wired to do this.) Lions and giraffes evoke a similar (perhaps not as strong) level of kinship. And now that we know that chimpanzees and dolphins are closer to us in terms of intelligence than we once thought, we often have similar reactions to people killing those animals. This seems right to me. You could, though, make a pretty fair argument that killing any sort of animals for sport is wrong. Yet the sailfish remains on my wall.... and yet in china dogs are killed for a very good reason -- people eat them...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,103 #34 August 24, 2016 Enough of this. God gave man dominion over all the other animals. If She is fine with it, so am I.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cruelpops 0 #35 August 24, 2016 billvon Quote Personally I like the idea of a national purge. Once a year, for a specified 24-hour period, everyone is fair game and can go after each other to kill as many people as you can. Wasn't that a movie? Just think what a few dozen Islamic extremists (or Trump supporters) with 747's could do in 24 hours . . . . Yep, from a movie but it's an interesting concept. I added the point system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
divertech 0 #36 August 24, 2016 Fact is most of these animals (that gets bitched about) gets killed on game FARMS not reserves, big difference. If it wasn't for hunters spending thousands of $'s to hunt these animals it simply wouldn't be profitable to run these game farms thus no game on the farm anymore (see how this benefits the heard?). Hunters pay huge sums of money to hunt the trophy/old animals thus making it possible to run the game farm and it keeps it open for the photo tourist. Please just bring your own prostitutes this is Africa AIDS is a problem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,230 #37 August 24, 2016 AndyBoyd******Here's my question -- is fishing any different? I suppose one has to question whether or not fish know what pain is? Do they have the mental capacity to suffer? I don't know. I'm guessing it hurts to get a sharp piece of metal jammed through their mouths and hauled to the surface. You could make a reasonable argument that even catch and release fishing is just cruelty for the sake of sport. And, as another poster accurately stated, catch and release done sloppily just kills the fish more slowly. Unlike humans fish do not possess a neocortex, which is the first indicator of doubt regarding the pain awareness of fish. Furthermore, certain nerve fibres in mammals (known as c-nociceptors) have been shown to be involved in the sensation of intense experiences of pain. All primitive cartilaginous fish subject to the study, such as sharks and rays, show a complete lack of these fibres and all bony fish – which includes all common types of fish such as carp and trout – very rarely have them. In this respect, the physiological prerequisites for a conscious experience of pain are hardly developed in fish Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-fish-pain.html#jCpNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #38 August 24, 2016 Yes, that study was the first thing that popped up when I Googled "fish" and "pain." If you scroll down a bit there are other studies that come to other conclusions. "Fishing may not seem like such a relaxing sport anymore, as scientists claim to have found that fish feel pain, just like humans. One researcher believes fish have the same intelligence as other animals and consequently, people should care more for their welfare. Flying in the face of what is considered popular opinion, he added fish have good memories and exhibit behaviour seen in primates, such as building complicated structures like specially-shaped sandcastles, as well as using tools." I don't know whether either study is correct, and I'm not arguing for either position. It seems like an unsettled question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #39 August 25, 2016 AndyBoydYes, that study was the first thing that popped up when I Googled "fish" and "pain." If you scroll down a bit there are other studies that come to other conclusions. "Fishing may not seem like such a relaxing sport anymore, as scientists claim to have found that fish feel pain, just like humans. One researcher believes fish have the same intelligence as other animals and consequently, people should care more for their welfare. Flying in the face of what is considered popular opinion, he added fish have good memories and exhibit behaviour seen in primates, such as building complicated structures like specially-shaped sandcastles, as well as using tools." The research that Bigun linked to from phys.org examined every major study on fish pain. Their main criticism was that "fish do not have the neuro-physiological capacity for a conscious awareness of pain. In addition, behavioural reactions by fish to seemingly painful impulses were evaluated according to human criteria and were thus misinterpreted. There is still no final proof that fish can feel pain." The article you referenced just listed a couple of opinions conflated with a study on how crayfish might experience stress. AndyBoydI don't know whether either study is correct Given what I just wrote above, I'd go with phys.orgNever was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #40 August 25, 2016 Ok. The sailfish stays on the wall then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,230 #41 August 26, 2016 AndyBoyd Ok. The sailfish stays on the wall then. About 20 years ago; I was teaching college full-time. At that time, I was an avid fisherman with a penchant for fly-fishing trout (Arkansas has some great trout fishing). One of my female students blew a gasket. "How could you hurt fish like that?!?!?! What do you mean? Those hooks in their mouth MUST be torture. No. Fish have no nerve endings in their mouths and the flopping around you see isn't due to pain; it's due to the flight mechanism when caught. But, EVERYTHING feels pain!!! OK. Take your fingers and pinch your elbow skin as hard as you can. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
michalm21 0 #42 August 26, 2016 Very interesting and a perfect fit for this thread. http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #43 August 27, 2016 Maybe the latest scientific studies show that fish don't feel pain like humans do. I haven't done the research, so I'll have to take your word for it. That's only one part of the question, though. Surely we'd have to agree that the fish are undergoing some types of stress or discomfort when they are hooked and hauled up to the surface. Is it OK to subject an animal to that stress just so human beings can have fun? And what about the killing? Is it OK to kill an animal and mount it on the wall for sport? I just think that these are the types of questions that we should be asking about hunting and fishing. It would clearly be hypocritical of me to take a firm stance against hunting and fishing, so I won't do that. I do think that this a conversation worth having, though. And the sailfish stays on the wall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,230 #44 August 27, 2016 I have a personal rule. If you kill it; you eat. I don't hang Trophies on the wall. While we might not like the skull meat, my dogs will clean the skull.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #45 August 27, 2016 Seems reasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,303 #46 August 31, 2016 BIGUNI have a personal rule. If you kill it; you eat. I don't hang Trophies on the wall. While we might not like the skull meat, my dogs will clean the skull. How do spiders taste anyways? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,230 #47 August 31, 2016 Crunchy & Squishy depending on size.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,303 #48 August 31, 2016 Those aren't descriptors of taste, they are descriptors of texture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #49 August 31, 2016 SkyDekker***I have a personal rule. If you kill it; you eat. I don't hang Trophies on the wall. While we might not like the skull meat, my dogs will clean the skull. How do spiders taste anyways? I know an entomologist and she says they taste with their feet. (End of their legs)I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,303 #50 August 31, 2016 Entomologists don't study spiders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites