Trump son on safari kills variety of wildlife...
Discussion
Had to google, just used 'Trump's son' and first page was full of this.
Sad story for various reasons. Just another littleman who is lacking something and needs to make himself feel like Johnny Bigb
ks (as safely as possible) by using powerful rifles to bring down endangered beautiful species. For me, the shooting the elephant and cutting off it's tail (Trump snr says they didn't do it) as some trophy is the worst one. Though the other three endangered trophy kills are also foul.
Sad story for various reasons. Just another littleman who is lacking something and needs to make himself feel like Johnny Bigb
ks (as safely as possible) by using powerful rifles to bring down endangered beautiful species. For me, the shooting the elephant and cutting off it's tail (Trump snr says they didn't do it) as some trophy is the worst one. Though the other three endangered trophy kills are also foul.
(making me thirsty I don't know the current situation in Zimbabwe, but in most places any hunter wishing to go after an animal such as this would need to apply for a licence first. The decision to grant a licence should be based mainly on conservation and ecological considerations - ie is this population too large for its given area, are cats (in this case) proving a problem to local farmers and their stock, can the population afford to lose numbers, what is the general health of the population etc. The licence will carry a hefty fee which, in most cases, goes towards the state's wildlife department and conservation projects.
In addition, the hunter will have to pay the fees of the hunting outfitter firm, which for a big cat will be a lot of money. In doing so he is paying the wages of one or two professional hunters, a tracker, a driver, a cook and numerous other support staff in areas that need inward investment.
Leopards are undoubtedly beautiful and majestic animals. That in itself shouldn't remove an animal from a quarry list. Indeed, that is why trophy hunters prize them. They are also difficult to hunt. There are two main methods used. The more common method is to leave a bait and to lie in wait, which is more difficult than it sounds. The other is walk and stalk, possibly with the aid of dogs. This is much more challenging. There is a further method, called canned hunting, which involves releasing a caged animal, which is totally unacceptable to any ethical hunter.
If you think that trophy hunting is acceptable, then there is no logical reason to not hunt the big five in the right circumstances or to take photos of the kill. If you don't accept that, then you won't agree. Trophy hunting isn't my particular bag but it just seems to me that a lot of the arguments around it - and indeed any hunting - are clouded by sentimentality. When it is properly managed it has an overall beneficial effect on a hunted area in terms of conservation and economics.
In addition, the hunter will have to pay the fees of the hunting outfitter firm, which for a big cat will be a lot of money. In doing so he is paying the wages of one or two professional hunters, a tracker, a driver, a cook and numerous other support staff in areas that need inward investment.
Leopards are undoubtedly beautiful and majestic animals. That in itself shouldn't remove an animal from a quarry list. Indeed, that is why trophy hunters prize them. They are also difficult to hunt. There are two main methods used. The more common method is to leave a bait and to lie in wait, which is more difficult than it sounds. The other is walk and stalk, possibly with the aid of dogs. This is much more challenging. There is a further method, called canned hunting, which involves releasing a caged animal, which is totally unacceptable to any ethical hunter.
If you think that trophy hunting is acceptable, then there is no logical reason to not hunt the big five in the right circumstances or to take photos of the kill. If you don't accept that, then you won't agree. Trophy hunting isn't my particular bag but it just seems to me that a lot of the arguments around it - and indeed any hunting - are clouded by sentimentality. When it is properly managed it has an overall beneficial effect on a hunted area in terms of conservation and economics.
bobskii said:
Some of the lads brought some in for me last week. Absolutely lovely!
Plus Kudu are a real problem in these parts, we had a couple of fatalities and several collisions with guys heading into work in the morning and again in the evening. One of the buggers ran across the road in front of me last week and it was huge! Would have made a real mess of the bakkie.
Local wildlife and local two legged sorts just seem to walk out in the road when the urge takes them. We had some near misses with both Plus Kudu are a real problem in these parts, we had a couple of fatalities and several collisions with guys heading into work in the morning and again in the evening. One of the buggers ran across the road in front of me last week and it was huge! Would have made a real mess of the bakkie.
Sad to see a shot leopard. However, say he paid a million dollars to pay for the kill and that money can now be used to rear 10 more leopards, is it worth it? I once heard an argument that there are vast swathes of wild unspoiled land in the US that make money through hunting that would otherwise be another field full for growing cereals.
VinceFox said:
eharding said:
BruceV8 said:
And? I'm still not getting your point.
He hasn't got one...he only has a position. Namely, prancing up and down on what he perceives to be the moral high ground, although his location is what I perceive to be smack bang in the middle of Right-On-2@ Boulevard. All down to perception.
k all about me mate. Perceive away, that's your position, after all.I think this is the point. Elephants are great, but I recall reading an article saying their numbers have to be controlled. If you have to kill a few elephants anyway, why not get some saddo with more cash than sense to boost his own fragile ego by killing them for you, and charge him a fortune for the experience. That money can then be ploughed back into safeguarding the future of the other elephants.
Priciples are all well and good, but sound economic sense is what will preserve these animals.
Priciples are all well and good, but sound economic sense is what will preserve these animals.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think this is the point. Elephants are great, but I recall reading an article saying their numbers have to be controlled. If you have to kill a few elephants anyway, why not get some saddo with more cash than sense to boost his own fragile ego by killing them for you, and charge him a fortune for the experience. That money can then be ploughed back into safeguarding the future of the other elephants.
Elephants are great, there is chat about them being one of the other animals (due to their intelligence) to be bumped to a higher level, there was a thread about it a bit ago.Should elephants numbers be controlled (if that is accurate) in this manner though?
At the turn of the 20th century, it is estimated that elephants numbered between 5 and 10 million, but hunting and habitat destruction had reduced their numbers to 400,000 to 500,000 by the end of the century. In the ten years preceding 1990 the population more than halved from 1.3 million to around 600,000, largely caused by the ivory trade, prompting an international ivory ban. While elephant populations are increasing in parts of southern and eastern Africa, other African nations report a decrease of their elephant populations by as much as two-thirds, and populations in even some protected areas are in danger of being eliminated Chad has a decades-old history of poaching of elephants, which has caused the elephant population of the region, which exceeded 300,000 in 1970, to drop to approximately 10,000 today. In Virunga National Park, in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, the number of elephants living in the observable area of the park fell from 2,889 in 1951 to 348 in 2006.
Then there is this from the link in the thread.
But many conservation groups are uncomfortable with private hunts, especially in Zimbabwe, where endemic corruption and a poor security situation means poaching and overkill is rampant whilst little money filters down to the poor. One of Zimbabwe's most eminent conservationists told The Independent yesterday that he believed private hunting should be banned for two years until a genuine count of the country's animals could be completed. "The government deliberately overestimates how many animals we have so they can grant more licences and make more money," Johnny Rodriquez, of the Zimbabwe Conservation Taskforce, said. "If things carry on the way they have recently there won't be any animals left in the next five or six years. "You can't paint all the private hunters with the same brush but there are a lot of unethical guys out there."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...
True. Managed hunting is no threat to wildlife - quite the reverse. Wildlife levels have dropped in kenya since hunting was closed in 1977. In studies in the UK, it was found that moorland that was managed and used for shooting had much more wildlife of all kinds than those that were not.
Even poaching isn't the biggest overall threat for most species, although it is a critical threat to some. That dubious honour goes to loss of habitat caused by human's encroachment. This goes against the grain for most people but the fact is that the best way to preserve wildlife is to consider it a commodity.
As an example, if you live in a poor rural community in east or southern Africa, elephants are big dangerous animals that destroy your crops. They also happen to have teeth that are so valuable that one could feed your family for a year. So poaching becomes very attractive for a number of reasons - and there is no control over it.
But poaching is also dangerous and not just because of the animals. The Kenya Wildlife Service is all but a paramilitary organisation and fatal firefights with poachers are common. At the end of the Bush War in Namibia and Angola, the South African army was redeployed on anti poaching duties. Between 1991 and 1994 poaching was all but eradicated there - mainly because all the poachers had been killed.
But if half a dozen rich foreigners come every year to shoot an elephant that would have been shot anyway and pay enough money keep you and your whole family in safe gainful employment all year round to do so, all of a sudden you don't want to go paching and nor do you want anyone else to. You also don't want or need to turn more bush into farm land. A flourishing elephant population becomes in everyone's interest.
Even poaching isn't the biggest overall threat for most species, although it is a critical threat to some. That dubious honour goes to loss of habitat caused by human's encroachment. This goes against the grain for most people but the fact is that the best way to preserve wildlife is to consider it a commodity.
As an example, if you live in a poor rural community in east or southern Africa, elephants are big dangerous animals that destroy your crops. They also happen to have teeth that are so valuable that one could feed your family for a year. So poaching becomes very attractive for a number of reasons - and there is no control over it.
But poaching is also dangerous and not just because of the animals. The Kenya Wildlife Service is all but a paramilitary organisation and fatal firefights with poachers are common. At the end of the Bush War in Namibia and Angola, the South African army was redeployed on anti poaching duties. Between 1991 and 1994 poaching was all but eradicated there - mainly because all the poachers had been killed.
But if half a dozen rich foreigners come every year to shoot an elephant that would have been shot anyway and pay enough money keep you and your whole family in safe gainful employment all year round to do so, all of a sudden you don't want to go paching and nor do you want anyone else to. You also don't want or need to turn more bush into farm land. A flourishing elephant population becomes in everyone's interest.
MaceV6 said:
carmonk said:
Bravo!
and a lovely clean shirt with no blood on his knife. Almost like he's a cowardly little fk who got handed a piece of a dead animal so he can pretend to be a great white hunter.
If you look closely you can see the blood on his trousers where it looks like he has wiped the knife.and a lovely clean shirt with no blood on his knife. Almost like he's a cowardly little f
k who got handed a piece of a dead animal so he can pretend to be a great white hunter.Donald Trumps kids are well known for being hunters and Donald disagrees with it.
If you do a bit of research you will find that these are fenced off reserves where the animals are bred to be hunted. Alot of the money goes back into the 'community' and pays towards the tribes. Its not a case of hunting wild animals as you'd think.
I'd like to add I'm not for or against hunting but a few pictures don't paint a thousand true words.
BruceV8 said:
carmonk said:
cowering in a covered vehicle behind bodyguards whilst gunning down fine animals
What makes you think this is how the hunting was conducted?carmonk said:
BruceV8 said:
carmonk said:
cowering in a covered vehicle behind bodyguards whilst gunning down fine animals
What makes you think this is how the hunting was conducted?I agree that that 'hunting' conducted in the way you describe is unethical and no self respecting hunter would want to do it like that. But we have no evidence that Trump hunted like that.
BruceV8 said:
carmonk said:
BruceV8 said:
carmonk said:
cowering in a covered vehicle behind bodyguards whilst gunning down fine animals
What makes you think this is how the hunting was conducted?I agree that that 'hunting' conducted in the way you describe is unethical and no self respecting hunter would want to do it like that. But we have no evidence that Trump hunted like that.
And I think the distinction between trophy hunting and hunting to give villagers food is not valid one. Give the villagers a gun and they could go out and shoot their own food, they don't need to wait around starving until some pale-faced daddy's boy shows up to save the day. It's just an excuse to justify the participants' inadequacies.
carmonk said:
The evidence is that I've seen it done like that (on TV) and I've not heard it being done in any other way.
You've seen a TV programme? Sorry I didn't realise you were an expert on the subject. I can assure you that what you saw on TV is not the norm and would not be considered ethical by the vast majority of hunters.carmonk said:
I hardly think the hunting ventures would be successful if the lives of the rich, paying clients were put in any danger. Maybe miniTrump seized a rifle and dashed swiftly into the brush, returning hours later bloodied and bruised bearing the head of a leopard... Nah, I don't think so either.
One of the reasons the clients go hunting is that their everyday urban lives are devoid of any excitement or danger. That is exactly what they are seeking when they go in to the bush.carmonk said:
And I think the distinction between trophy hunting and hunting to give villagers food is not valid one. Give the villagers a gun and they could go out and shoot their own food, they don't need to wait around starving until some pale-faced daddy's boy shows up to save the day. It's just an excuse to justify the participants' inadequacies.
I partially agree. Giving the locals meat is a nice by-product of hunting, rather than its sole aim. The problem is that in a lot of African countries access to firearms is controlled beacause of, among other things, uncontrolled poaching. Besides, guns and ammunition are expensive and take a lot more skill to use effectively than most people imagine. BruceV8 said:
carmonk said:
The evidence is that I've seen it done like that (on TV) and I've not heard it being done in any other way.
You've seen a TV programme? Sorry I didn't realise you were an expert on the subject. I can assure you that what you saw on TV is not the norm and would not be considered ethical by the vast majority of hunters.BruceV8 said:
carmonk said:
I hardly think the hunting ventures would be successful if the lives of the rich, paying clients were put in any danger. Maybe miniTrump seized a rifle and dashed swiftly into the brush, returning hours later bloodied and bruised bearing the head of a leopard... Nah, I don't think so either.
One of the reasons the clients go hunting is that their everyday urban lives are devoid of any excitement or danger. That is exactly what they are seeking when they go in to the bush.BruceV8 said:
carmonk said:
And I think the distinction between trophy hunting and hunting to give villagers food is not valid one. Give the villagers a gun and they could go out and shoot their own food, they don't need to wait around starving until some pale-faced daddy's boy shows up to save the day. It's just an excuse to justify the participants' inadequacies.
I partially agree. Giving the locals meat is a nice by-product of hunting, rather than its sole aim. The problem is that in a lot of African countries access to firearms is controlled beacause of, among other things, uncontrolled poaching. Besides, guns and ammunition are expensive and take a lot more skill to use effectively than most people imagine. carmonk said:
This one certainly doesn't paint a thousand words, it paints one, and that word is 'prick'. I don't see the breeding issue as relevant, my main point is regarding the people that partake in this 'sport'. Cowardly and pathetic beyond words, with a spattering of mental illness thrown in for good measure. Hunting for food or pest control is one thing, cowering in a covered vehicle behind bodyguards whilst gunning down fine animals like that is entirely another.
Agree 100%. They could inject just as much, if not more, money simply by donating it. Or, if they wanted to feel more "involved", they could render service like the missionaries, or work with some charity organization. Why kill a beautiful animal? Why not work towards creating more habitat for them so that "manageable numbers" can be increased?
Stupid, cowardly cretins.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff