Can we hunt him using an Apache?
Discussion
Captainawesome said:
a cow is pretty big...why doesn't he just shoot a cow???? Everyone ok with that?
If he had shot a cow in the head and killed it dead we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think you'd be in quite some trouble if you were to shoot a cow with a crossbow then leave it staggering about in pain for 40 hours before shooting it dead.
wiggy001 said:
Do you seriously believe we need to kill animals (whose numbers have plummeted in the last 20 years) in order to preserve their numbers? I call b
ks. It may help to clear the conscience of those involved (if they have a conscience) but that is all.
It's the equivalent of me breeding unicorns in my house then shooting them when I run out of space, despite them being the only unicorns in the world. And charging a fortune for the "priviledge".
I've visited reserves in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Tanzania. When I stump up to get driven around and take photos I'm bunging a grand or two into the local economy. Someone who wants to shoot a big mammal is going to be spending at least 20 times as much as me, and likely a great deal more than that. Unsurprisingly most of the reserves are in the middle of nowhere where the economy is basically subsistence farming or tourism associated with the reserve. The impact of the safari industry on the ground is self evident.ks. It may help to clear the conscience of those involved (if they have a conscience) but that is all. It's the equivalent of me breeding unicorns in my house then shooting them when I run out of space, despite them being the only unicorns in the world. And charging a fortune for the "priviledge".
Regardless of what is happening globally to a species, a reserve has to manage its animal populations to maintain the stability of the reserve as an eco system. For example, IIRC about 20 years ago Hwange's elephant population was getting too great and was causing problems for its neighbours. The solution was to cull. No doubt if someone had stumped up with the cash to try to relocate some of the elephants to another reserve that could take them, they'd have done so. But in the absence of that some were killed to keep the population under control. This meant there was a fair amount of legitimately sourced ivory available and, again if I remember correctly, a temporary exemption from the CITES ban on the ivory trade was discussed. Had the parks been allowed to sell their ivory it would have raised a huge amount of money. I'm pretty sure they weren't as it was assumed it would boost poaching, which is understandable but tough on the reserves.
Most of us have the gut reaction "ivory trade; bad. Killing elephants and lions; bad." But as is often the way, reality is more complicated than that. If we're really interested in animal welfare and maintaining biodiversity, then we have got to look beyond our gut instincts and see if they actually match reality.
H
I just don't get the mindset of somebody who wants to put an arrow into an iconic wild beast. If the ends justify the means as you've eloquently described that's great, but it doesn't change my mindset concerning the American dentist and his ilk.
ATG said:
I've visited reserves in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Tanzania. When I stump up to get driven around and take photos I'm bunging a grand or two into the local economy. Someone who wants to shoot a big mammal is going to be spending at least 20 times as much as me, and likely a great deal more than that. Unsurprisingly most of the reserves are in the middle of nowhere where the economy is basically subsistence farming or tourism associated with the reserve. The impact of the safari industry on the ground is self evident.
Regardless of what is happening globally to a species, a reserve has to manage its animal populations to maintain the stability of the reserve as an eco system. For example, IIRC about 20 years ago Hwange's elephant population was getting too great and was causing problems for its neighbours. The solution was to cull. No doubt if someone had stumped up with the cash to try to relocate some of the elephants to another reserve that could take them, they'd have done so. But in the absence of that some were killed to keep the population under control. This meant there was a fair amount of legitimately sourced ivory available and, again if I remember correctly, a temporary exemption from the CITES ban on the ivory trade was discussed. Had the parks been allowed to sell their ivory it would have raised a huge amount of money. I'm pretty sure they weren't as it was assumed it would boost poaching, which is understandable but tough on the reserves.
Most of us have the gut reaction "ivory trade; bad. Killing elephants and lions; bad." But as is often the way, reality is more complicated than that. If we're really interested in animal welfare and maintaining biodiversity, then we have got to look beyond our gut instincts and see if they actually match reality.
Very good post.Regardless of what is happening globally to a species, a reserve has to manage its animal populations to maintain the stability of the reserve as an eco system. For example, IIRC about 20 years ago Hwange's elephant population was getting too great and was causing problems for its neighbours. The solution was to cull. No doubt if someone had stumped up with the cash to try to relocate some of the elephants to another reserve that could take them, they'd have done so. But in the absence of that some were killed to keep the population under control. This meant there was a fair amount of legitimately sourced ivory available and, again if I remember correctly, a temporary exemption from the CITES ban on the ivory trade was discussed. Had the parks been allowed to sell their ivory it would have raised a huge amount of money. I'm pretty sure they weren't as it was assumed it would boost poaching, which is understandable but tough on the reserves.
Most of us have the gut reaction "ivory trade; bad. Killing elephants and lions; bad." But as is often the way, reality is more complicated than that. If we're really interested in animal welfare and maintaining biodiversity, then we have got to look beyond our gut instincts and see if they actually match reality.
I just don't get the mindset of somebody who wants to put an arrow into an iconic wild beast. If the ends justify the means as you've eloquently described that's great, but it doesn't change my mindset concerning the American dentist and his ilk.
djdest said:
First comment on article said:
This cowardly, lying, scumbag serial animal killer will never, ever regain what he lost. He will spend the rest of his pitiful life looking over his shoulder ever waking minute. May he rot in hell.
Difficult to disagree.The dentist seems genuinely sorry about the whole incident.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northame...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northame...
Following on from the dentist who liked to kill lions we have an Italian vet who also liked to hunt lions. And then this happened.....
Vet who shot dead lion for sport dies after plunging off cliff while on another hunting trip
Vet who shot dead lion for sport dies after plunging off cliff while on another hunting trip
article said:
A trophy hunter who pictured himself with a dead lion has died after falling down a ravine.
Big game hunter Luciano Ponzetto, 55, who also shared a picture of himself with a dead leopard , a shot baby elephant and other animals, slipped on ice while hunting birds in Italy.
Big game hunter Luciano Ponzetto, 55, who also shared a picture of himself with a dead leopard , a shot baby elephant and other animals, slipped on ice while hunting birds in Italy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff