Big game hunting - marmite

levigsp

Well-Known Member
I haven't signed up. Maybe I should and I'm just being lazy but I suspect I'm like lots of folk and have no real interest in a) the British Shooting Show or b) "trophy hunting" / big game hunting. In the same way that if the time comes, I wouldn't expect pigeon shooters of the world to fall over themselves to defend deer stalking (as an example), I'm not sure why I'm being expected to defend something I've got no interest in or will never participate in.

I could only vaguely tell you what the issue is about (banning any African game companies from attending British Shooting Show, regardless of whether it's for conservation, trophies or otherwise I think), but I couldn't go into any real detail. I hear all this talk about it being "the thin end of the wedge" and it'll ultimately lead to a ban on shooting in the UK, but quite honestly I don't believe it. The link is tenuous at best and I think the problem of Big Game Hunting is one of image and perception. I find some of the image of Big Game Hunting to be distasteful and smacks of the excesses of the victorians and the raj etc. I suspect the reality is far removed from my image of overweight aristocrats in pith helmets, but if that's the image held by someone with a reasonable education and who shoots and has grown up around fieldsports, then what sort of image do the general public have of big game hunting? It's all be about shooting the last tiger in existence whilst sat astride an elephant in their eyes. The costs are certainly eye watering for some species and out of reach of most, so that only reinforces the view that it's elitist.
Can I ask you a couple of questions please? Do you keep anything you shoot to display, eg antlers or taxidermy of any type? do you find the same distasteful?
 

levigsp

Well-Known Member
big game hunting is far more ethical than deer stalking in the UK.

1 It is far more selective as the oldest trophies normally past their breeding age are the most highly sought

2 In many countries Elephants, lions, buffalos etc only thrive in the hunting reserves as these areas provide an income for the country as a whole, it provides an alternative income from clearing the bush for farming, it creates employment for the locals who come to value the game animals as a resource, these reserves employ a huge anti poaching team and much of the money from the legitimate hunting is siphoned off to help pay for the upkeep of the national parks

3 Many of the reserves are in areas where no eco tourist will ever go people often quote Kruger and Etosha but these are two tiny pockets of Africa and the carbon footprint and footfall per dollar generated is huge compared to hunting where a handful of hunters produce the same if not greater income.

4 Deerstalking is a walk in the park compared to trying to select an old bull elephant and following it day after day in order to get a shot.

5 Is a buffalo's life worth any more/less than a roe deer's life?

6 All of the animal is utilised


Yes there are bad practices often in SA but most SA operators on the whole offer fair chase ethical hunting and there are many areas in SA that are unfenced (I have no issues with fenced reserves providing they are big enough) but on the whole big game hunting is ethical and sustainable
How very trues, especially 4, if the uk deer stalker had to stick to the rules I follow in Poland, most would pack in and go and play bowls.
 

sikamalc

Administrator
Site Staff
It appears that some shooting people live in cloud cuckoo land.
Possibly because they have no idea of hunting abroad? or maybe they think hunting in the UK for deer or Wild Boar is completely different? Or maybe they think that Africa is the only place we are considering?
What about Europe? What about Moose hunting in Finland then, or Whitetail hunting in Finland, or Canada in Alaska and Caribou, or maybe in Siberia for Siberian Roe Buck, or maybe a good stag off a Scottish hillside, or possibly an Ibex in Spain? where are you going to draw the line then.
Tell me what is the difference between any of this and Africa? or is it that people think that just because its Africa its not right, because the press and people that NO nothing about Africa told you so.

As I have said before, if no monetary value is attached to African game it will not survive. Many think that the whole of Africa revolves around game parks. They have no conception of how game is managed and land conserved. Tourism does not generate enough income, and with the ease of travel many parks are under severe pressure to cope with the influx of tourists wanting to see the game. More vehicles, more people, more accommodation, means more pressure on precious water resources, more waste to get rid off, more rubbish, more soil erosion. Don't see that in a hunting camp, its very limited and small scale with high revenue which benefits the wildlife.

Many poachers steer clear of hunting areas, simply because they know there is a high chance of being seen and caught. One only has to look at the amount of money big game hunting generates to see that the local community then look upon the game as worth keeping and not poaching, and also protecting their asset, because that's what it is. AN asset not a hinderance which in some places it has been looked upon.

We see all these useless politicians in this country and well to do actors and spongers who have no talent in my book, telling everyone its cruel, and yet they go back to their comfortable life style and plush apartments and think they have justified their being here by making their voice heard about how its so cruel and should not happen.
Try telling that to a local African with rags for clothes and a few pots and pans for their worldly possessions looking for their next meal. So when a hunter who has paid a small fortune kills an Elephant or a large Kudu or Eland shares the meat to the local community, watch how hungry people are

Yes I have done it many times, including Elephant once, which had lost a quarter of its trunk in a poachers snare. Stand there and watch a 5 year old child eating raw meat because they are so hungry and tell me its cruel. In 3 hours they had partly devoured or taken away the meat to dry.

All these bleeding heart activists and so called save the planet lot, what a joke most of them are, they have no idea.

Rant over!
 
Last edited:

levigsp

Well-Known Member
It appears that some shooting people live in cloud cuckoo land.
Possibly because they have no idea of hunting abroad? or maybe they think hunting in the UK for deer or Wild Boar is completely different? Or maybe they think that Africa is the only place we are considering?
What about Europe? What about Moose hunting in Finland then, or Whitetail hunting in Finland, or Canada in Alaska and Caribou, or maybe in Siberia for Siberian Roe Buck, or maybe a good stag off a Scottish hillside, or possibly an Ibex in Spain? where are you going to draw the line then.
Tell me what is the difference between any of this and Africa? or is it that people think that just because its Africa its not right, because the press and people that NO nothing about Africa told you so.
That's just it, there is no difference and hasn't the NEC already stated they will not allow any trophy's or trophy hunters etc in the future, that will directly effect most stalkers.
 

sikamalc

Administrator
Site Staff
img038a.jpg


img039a.jpg


Took me a little while to scan and load these so apologise. This is the picnic party on tribal lands in Zimbabwe after I had downed a cow Elephant at 20yds charging. These are some of the local people waiting for their share of the meat. I took no ivory or skin from this animal as it went back to the game dept and was sold and then the profits shared with the local community. Most trophy hunting the meat is shared out to the locals especially on tribal lands.
Can you really see your average animal rights or activist living this life style or complaining they havnt got their daily vitamins to take or natural yoghurt. NO Tescos or Sainsburys here.
Now tell me the meat is waisted, possibly 2 ton of Elephant gone in about 2 hours.

Just so you also know, the top photo there is a guy standing to the right of the tree with a black hat on top of a woolley hat. That's the village chief. He had a push bike as his status symbol. No tyres on it and rags for a saddle. But to him it was like having a new car.
 

sikamalc

Administrator
Site Staff
And here is the Cow Elephant after the shot. You can see that part of the trunk is missing. It has no prehensile lip/tip. At the time we found several wire snares in the area and believe that poachers from Zambia had set the wire snares to catch local game. But it appears that this Elephant had put its trunk through a snare whilst feeding and it had garrotted the trunk, thus making it extreamley difficult for it to feed properly. It had also made it very ill tempered, and charged as soon as it saw us. It was dropped on the spot with one shot from my 375HH. It took just under 3 days to track it and find it.
All of the meat went to the locals and the ivory was taken away with the skin, nothing was wasted. I should add that I received nothing from this what so ever, no ivory, nothing. All of it went back to the game dept and the profit from it was eventually shared out with the local community. I did get some tail hair which the tracker made into a bracelet for me.
 

Attachments

TomT3

Well-Known Member
Very informative and Interesting thread chaps, shame on the people condemning this form of shooting , it is no different from our own, as stated by sikamalc and others this area of shooting is integral to the health and Well being of these villagers etc , I have no experience in this field but one thing I am sure of is that the majority of safari hunters take cull animals of which none of their meat hides etc is wasted. Poachers are another story altogether and don’t deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as true safari hunters.

The sooner some UK hunters realise that we are all fighting for the same cause the better.
 

camodog

Well-Known Member
Many, including deer-stalkers, will find trophy-hunting distasteful. Many African species hunted can't claim the added justification that they provide food. Can't agree that we must all stick together no matter what; we can and should apply discrimination and discretion. I don't think we're still defending badger-baiting or cock-fighting are we?
May I suggest you look up 'Blessman International'. May be enlightening re hunting in Africa !
Kind Regards,
'Camodog'.
 

75

Well-Known Member
if your perception is that Big Game Hunting is carried out by overweight aristocrats in pith helmets. Think on this, there are plenty of antis out there who have the perception that deer stalking is carried out by overweight landed gentry who are only interested in taking the "Monarch of the Glen" to hang his head on a wall back in the stately home.
My pith helmet comment was (I thought) clearly tongue in cheek and you have missed the point of my post entirely.

I think big game hunting has an elitist image problem (more so than other forms of shooting). I’m not saying that is reality, but I think the general public believe it to be more about trophies than any other reason (and more about trophies than any other form of shooting). I agree there are plenty that believe deerstalking to be the preserve of the landed gentry, but big game hunting takes this to another level. You ask someone on the street why people shoot deer and a few will say trophies and a few will understand they need to be managed. Most will understand that venison is fairly widely consumed. Ask them why someone would shoot a lion and I bet 99.9% of them say it is about trophies and can think of no other reason beyond that. They wouldn’t consider it food, conservation, humane or anything else. And that’s why the image is distasteful to many.
 
Last edited:

Basil H

Well-Known Member
I recently came across the website africasustainableconservation.com which I found very informative. A recent item posted there is a very well argued riposte to Mr. Gove's recent effort, written by a U.S. graduate student. I don't expect he had the benefit of a media centre.
 

riddick

Well-Known Member
here is the letter.

Letter to Michael Gove from US wildlife management student on hunting and conservation
Date: July 16, 2019Author: somervillesustainableconservation1 Comment
Austin Farley (Facebook)
Dear Michael Gove,
My name is Austin Farley and I am a wildlife management student in the United States. It is unlikely that you will read this letter; but for the sake of wildlife conservation everywhere, I at least have to make the effort. I have to inform you that your views on trophy hunting and wildlife conservation in general are extremely dangerous to several species.
Like yourself, hunters also care deeply for wildlife. This respect, compassion, and love for wildlife is the reason that hunters protect more habitat worldwide than the national parks system, 25% more habitat on the African continent alone! Hunters also personally fund several anti-poaching units to prevent the cruelty and abuse that poachers cause to wild animals through their gin traps, snares, spike traps, poison darts, and dogs.
Hunters also provide more revenue per capita for conservation projects than any other group. A study done in the Timbavati Game Reserve in 2016, for example, showed that 46 hunters provided 3x more revenue for the protected area than 24,000 tourists. This means that in order to boot out all of the hunters like you desire to do, you would need 72,000 tourists in a single year or you need to put more strain on tourists by charging them much more to tour. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that 72,000 people leave a far larger carbon and environmental footprint than 46 people do.
Another extremely dangerous thing to do is treat what you call “iconic” species as a priority over others. Elephants are a good example. In Southern Africa, elephants are considered overpopulated in many countries and are causing the declines of several species of baobab trees, acacia trees, songbirds, etc. Due to the destruction of sensitive forests with no opportunity of regrowth due to constant pressure from the pachyderms. Why isn’t the elephant problem being managed? Because elephants are more “iconic” and “charismatic” to people in the U.S and U.K than some dull trees and nameless birds. Prioritizing a species that you think is appealing to the eye over the entire ecosystem will not only lead to a loss of biodiversity and environmental degradation, but it will cause a collapse in the populations of the iconic species in the long-term. The great elephant die-off of Tsavo is a perfect example of this kind of tragedy.
You mention your ban on ivory in passing, and as well-intentioned as you may be, the ban won’t help solve the ivory poaching problem that we have and only exacerbates it. We have already gone through this line of logic, ban this object and it will go away. It has happened with alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, rhino horn, and now it is happening with ivory. How did these bans work out? A degree in history isn’t required to know that they ended in the opposite way than desired. They created black market king pins like Al Capone, El Chapo, Pablo Escobar, the Ivory Queen, and the various Chinese and Vietnamese sponsored poaching syndicates across the world. Violent crime increased, poaching increased, and use in the products increased. The only way to reduce elephant poaching is a regulated and legal ivory trade coupled with demand reduction campaigns. Continuing with failed bans hoping that they work is nothing short of insanity.
You mention ethical concerns that you have with the practice, and I feel that it is much to common that we mistake our personal discomforts and distaste for things with actual normative ethics theories. I argue that trophy hunting is ethical through the normative ethics theories known as Deontological ethics and Consequentialism ethics. Deontological ethics are otherwise referred to as duty-based ethics. As the apex species of this Earth, it is our duty to manage wildlife populations in a way that benefits both of us. Consequentialism ethics are a basis that if all or most of the consequences are beneficial to all parties involved, it is ethical. Properly regulated trophy hunting causes the increase of wildlife populations, protects habitat, provides jobs, funds conservation projects, provides recreation opportunities, benefits communities, and feeds families. The wildlife, communities, outfitters, government, and hunter all benefit from the exchange. Therefore, according to Consequentialism ethics, trophy hunting is an ethical activity.
You make a claim that trophy hunters “don’t kill for food or to control populations but only for entertainment” yet none of the meat is wasted and populations are kept in check or stimulated to increase depending on the management plan. So according to Consequentialism, how does the motive matter at all other than personally offend you? You have every right to find the motive of someone distasteful, but you must understand that it isn’t your duty to dictate that others live their lives how you want them to. Does the determination for sustenance really justify the hunt? Does the source of all morality originate from our stomachs? When I am told that “hunting for food is ok but trophy hunting isn’t”, I wonder if they are aware that the Dodo, Passenger Pigeon, Pinta Island Tortoise, Great Auk, Irish Stag, Steller’s Sea Cow, Labrador Duck, Moa, Elephant Bird, and Caribbean Monk Seal were all hunted to extinction for the sole purpose of sustaining a desire to eat. But were these extinctions ok because “they were hunted for food”. According to actual ethics, this would not be the case.
I strongly urge you to please listen to organizations that have a scientific credibility such as the IUCN and other organizations that have warned you against banning trophy imports instead of listening to opportunist animal rights groups who have their own agenda as the priority and not conservation. The IUCN has produced many peer reviewed research papers that outline specifically the benefits and drawbacks of hunting. “Informing decisions on trophy hunting” is a paper that I encourage you to read and understand.
Another thing that you choose to attack is Game Ranching, which has been the key factor in the conservation of many species including but not limited to: Addax antelope, Aoudad, Arabian Oryx, Barasingha Deer, Black Wildebeest, Blesbok, Bontebok, Mountain Bongo, Dama Gazelle, Formosan Sika Deer, Thai Eld’s Deer, Mesopotamian Fallow Deer, Indian Hog Deer, Nubian Ibex, Nile Lechwe, Red Lechwe, Pere David’s Deer, Scimitar Horned Oryx, Nubian Wild Ass, and the Grevy’s Zebra.
If you were to ban hunting on game ranches, you would greatly impact the conservation of the above species for the worst and reduce many of their populations from anywhere between 30% to 99%.
You also pose the question of whether countries would do better with only tourism and a ban on hunting. The good news is that you already have the examples of Kenya, India, and Brazil. The bad news is, all of them are utter failures to wildlife conservation. Kenya has lost between 60% to 80% of its large wildlife populations since the 1977. India has lost 50% of its wildlife and 80% of its suitable habitat since 1973. And Brazil continues to lose wildlife and be deforested. Every single country to have banned hunting is losing wildlife at an alarming rate. The reason for this is simple, the animals do not have a tangible value to those that live with them.
I understand that you may find trophy hunting distasteful and that you will never participate in the activity. But please don’t let your personal emotions compromise the delicate balance that we have to maintain in the uphill battle that we call wildlife conservation.
Regards,
Austin Farley
 

bogtrotter

Well-Known Member
My pith helmet comment was (I thought) clearly tongue in cheek and you have missed the point of my post entirely.

I think big game hunting has an elitist image problem (more so than other forms of shooting). I’m not saying that is reality, but I think the general public believe it to be more about trophies than any other reason (and more about trophies than any other form of shooting). I agree there are plenty that believe deerstalking to be the preserve of the landed gentry, but big game hunting takes this to another level. You ask someone on the street why people shoot deer and a few will say trophies and a few will understand they need to be managed. Most will understand that venison is fairly widely consumed. Ask them why someone would shoot a lion and I bet 99.9% of them say it is about trophies and can think of no other reason beyond that. They wouldn’t consider it food, conservation, humane or anything else. And that’s why the image is distasteful to many.
The image of any kind of shooting is distasteful to many , what we must do is try to educate all the more reason why
we should stick together.
 

25 Sharps

Well-Known Member
My pith helmet comment was (I thought) clearly tongue in cheek and you have missed the point of my post entirely.

I think big game hunting has an elitist image problem (more so than other forms of shooting). I’m not saying that is reality, but I think the general public believe it to be more about trophies than any other reason (and more about trophies than any other form of shooting). I agree there are plenty that believe deerstalking to be the preserve of the landed gentry, but big game hunting takes this to another level. You ask someone on the street why people shoot deer and a few will say trophies and a few will understand they need to be managed. Most will understand that venison is fairly widely consumed. Ask them why someone would shoot a lion and I bet 99.9% of them say it is about trophies and can think of no other reason beyond that. They wouldn’t consider it food, conservation, humane or anything else. And that’s why the image is distasteful to many.
But that is just because they are ignorant or poorly educated.
 

bowji john

Well-Known Member
I have members of my wife's family staying here - one of them is a veggie playing with idea of joining the vegan religion

I asked her to at last read the above letter to Gove so as to be better informed

She refused to even read it - preferring the emotional orgasm of the righteously ignorant

That, I suspect, typifies the nature of the problem

PS

This looks like it will be an interesting read - but not at the current price !!

 

TomT3

Well-Known Member
But that is just because they are ignorant or poorly educated.

She refused to even read it - preferring the emotional orgasm of the righteously ignorant
And sadly there is the crux of the problem -ignorance, stupidity and trend. Vegans and veggies antis etc don’t WANT to understand in case they are proven wrong. Veggies still eat fish for god sake!! New millennials think it’s cool to be vegan! We need to educate these people not condemn certain factions of the shooting community!
 

Silvius

Well-Known Member
And sadly there is the crux of the problem -ignorance, stupidity and trend. Vegans and veggies antis etc don’t WANT to understand in case they are proven wrong. Veggies still eat fish for god sake!! New millennials think it’s cool to be vegan! We need to educate these people not condemn certain factions of the shooting community!
They don't want to understand because what they practise is actually a "modern religion". In order to get the reward of being self righteous, they need to refuse to countenance the heresy of the old pagan faiths. They have no desire to be rational because they are believers who have seen the light.

The earth is round and goes round the sun but no one wanted to know until recently because it didn't fit with the teachings of the church. Unless we are to sink back into a dark age of religious intolerance and the suppression of the truth we need to stand up for people being allowed to hold their own values unmolested by the self righteous and by the state. We need to band together to do this because the opposition is banding together to spread its madness. They will come for all of us if they can pick us off one group at a time.

I have not signed this petition but that is only because I don't know where it is. Anyone want to post a link? Thanks.
 

riddick

Well-Known Member
They don't want to understand because what they practise is actually a "modern religion". In order to get the reward of being self righteous, they need to refuse to countenance the heresy of the old pagan faiths. They have no desire to be rational because they are believers who have seen the light.

The earth is round and goes round the sun but no one wanted to know until recently because it didn't fit with the teachings of the church. Unless we are to sink back into a dark age of religious intolerance and the suppression of the truth we need to stand up for people being allowed to hold their own values unmolested by the self righteous and by the state. We need to band together to do this because the opposition is banding together to spread its madness. They will come for all of us if they can pick us off one group at a time.

I have not signed this petition but that is only because I don't know where it is. Anyone want to post a link? Thanks.
wow that's a bit "deep" sir,, but I think we know what you mean metaphorically speaking.
 

Top