Not taking this Lion down

[Raven Song]

This is probably going to end up in a nice big fight... but... I want to know how people feel about hunting... due to recent events including an American Dentist, a bow and arrow, and forty hours of suffering for Zimbabwe's celebrity Lion Cecil...

I personally don't have anything against "purposeful hunting", such as the cutting down of herd sizes of none endangered buck and such. I have major issues with trophy hunting, and especially canned hunting... I mean where is the sport in having said lion walk directly into your range and aim... there isn't any!!!

so yeah...

[jacojerb]

A friend of mine told me something very valid and ironic the other day: currently hunting is the biggest income for wildlife conservation. Wildlife parks make a looot of money out of hunting, and are thus able to take care of the other animals in the park...

Trophy hunting is something that bothers me a lot. I really don't like it. But due to the above point, I see that it is necessary. But I say, if you hunt something, don't just shoot it and leave. Don't let the animals death be a waste. Eat the meat, and make biltong. Make a rug out of the skin. Don't just shoot it and leave...

[Leeward]

Hunting, in and of itself, I have zero objection to; in fact I think I would enjoy it myself. We eat meat, so why be hypocrites about where it comes from?

If it's necessary for a species' survival (i.e. culling) then I'm also not really bothered by it other than by the fact that the ecosystem imbalance that made it necessary was probably caused by human activity.

I have a problem with it when it is purely for "sport" and/or profit, with no concern for utilisation of the carcass or the survival of the species (I'm mostly talking about poaching here). Unnecessary suffering makes it even worse. If you're going to hunt something, you need a valid reason (e.g. meat), you must take into account how endangered the species is, and you must do it as humanely as possible.

I find it somewhat absurd to hunt a predator though, since their meat is generally not palatable; however, I can understand the use of pelts and trophies. I just think they are very unsporting to hunt since they do not consider humans a threat and therefore don't run away (article on the subject).

Concerning "Cecil", I think the whole incident is being blown completely out of proportion. Lions are used in canned hunting all the time, and nobody complains unless it's a "celebrity" specimen. If one truly cared about conservation and wildlife welfare, this would be unremarkable news.

[Raven Song]

I am reminded of a line from the Hannibal series...

"You must use everything. Do not waste the meat, the skin, the fur, the bones. Everything must be worshiped and used for a purpose.
Otherwise it's just murder." - That was said by a serial killer when talking to his daughter about hunting a deer...

Also on canned hunting... people complain a hell of a lot! My mother has been to three marches and protests about it this year alone. There are petitions and law suits and all sorts of stuff. Yes this one is being blown up because he is a famous lion, but he isn't the first one to cause a stir.

That being said I agree with you. I think it is being blown a little more out the water than it deserves. To the point that this father of two has had to close his business...

[jacojerb]

If he closes his business, someone else will have to buy the ground. And those people might not be wildlife enthusiasts. It might become something totally different

Or, I don't actually know about this story at all, but this is the case for a lot of game reserves in S-A. If they close down, there's a chance the animals might have to find another home. Thus... Hunting is justifiable

[Valerion]

http://www.yelp.com/biz/river-bluff-dental-bloomington

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I have a problem with it as I have an ethical problem with causing unnecessary harm to sentient creatures. That would extend to culling as well, though to a lesser extent. There you run into issues of getting involved in situations that do not concern you, although balancing a nature reserve may be one's business, whether it's our place to fix everything and why it couldn't be done through relocation or other non-lethal or less harmful methods.

I'm not sure whether it was really settled that hunting was beneficial to conservation or not but the economic arguments are irrelevant to the ethical arguments. It would be seen as madness to argue that the forced labour on fishing boats in Asia are a good thing because otherwise those people wouldn't have a job. The bigger question is whether you think it's acceptable to push forward a desirable outcome through an undesirable method.

I can at least keep my position mostly consistent by not eating meat and avoiding buying animal products. For the general population the reaction against the killing makes little sense as there is no ethical principle which has been violated through the act. There would be a violation through luring him out of a protected area but that doesn't seem to be what most people are upset about. A lion may be a more dramatic animal but it's life is not more valuable than a cow or a dog. That's not even getting into the inconsistency when people are happy to eat meat but oppose farming dogs or cats for food.

[jacojerb]

Hunting is beneficial to the conservation industry, but only due to lack of better alternatives. Donations are rare and in small amounts. Without money, they'll lose the land, and, either the land will remain unoccupied, leaving loads of room for poaching, or someone else will buy the land, which he'll then use for either the same thing the previous people used it for, and probably also fail, allow hunting, or use the ground for a different purpose, in which case the animals would have to be relocated. Tourism in wildlife parks does create profit, but if you could charge a guy 10-20 times as much to hunt than to just stay, it's sadly a lot more profitable. I'm not actually sure how much it usually costs, I remember someone telling me R3000 for a buck, but this was probably about 10 years ago. Compare that to maybe R150 for camping there, to R500 for a chalet, both of which have their own maintenance and thus costs

Ideally, the government must pay to help maintain wildlife parks, but even the government is interested in things that make profits, or help it's people. Tourism just isn't enough. Sadly, when the economy is failing, they have to start compromising with the nature

The ideal is that people who don't hunt, cover those costs. But I just don't see that happening. The government isn't gonna do it, the general public wouldn't do it easily...

I've heard of people who go to these places to buy themselves a buck, and put it on a "do not kill" type list. That sounds plausible, but for me, personally, I wouldn't pay R3000 to save a bucks life. Don't think of me as cruel or anything, but that money can help a lot of people, and I'm more interested in helping my own species for now. Maybe if I'm rich one day....

Edit: Sorry, my price estimate was waaay too high
http://www.africanskyhunting.co.za/pricelist.html

Might be more reasonable to achieve with donations.

Re-edit: those prices are in Dollar o.o I'm not paying that. Sorry. Nope. Not until I get a decent salary

[Rakuen Growlithe]

All that is based on the presumption that you must pay for the land. Land doesn't cost anything. It was there before South Africa, it was there before taxes and it was there before human beings. Private individuals have to pay for the land they use but the government can easily set aside land as nature reserves and not pay anything. You just leave it alone.

[Raven Song]

JJ my problem with helping humanity is that humanity does little to help itself and they are supposed to be the smart things around here. Animals can't help their world being destroyed by us. They need more help than humans who seem intent on destroying their own world.

[jacojerb]

All that is based on the presumption that you must pay for the land. Land doesn't cost anything. It was there before South Africa, it was there before taxes and it was there before human beings. Private individuals have to pay for the land they use but the government can easily set aside land as nature reserves and not pay anything. You just leave it alone.

The problem is poachers. Fences need to be built, and rebuilt. There needs to be at least a few people on site, monitoring. Those people need to eat. They need offroad cars or quadbikes to get from the one side of the reserve to the other quickly. They need firearms to deal with poachers. Those are the basics. Then there's drones, technically not necessary, but helps a lot...

Just leaving it alone means that they will likely be poached. And to prevent that costs a lot of money. The animals can't pay that. And they can't take care of themselves either

I agree that just leaving it alone is the ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world. Sad as it is, they cost us money that someone has to finance. Earlier, you mentioned relocating animals instead of culling. Once again, ideal, but costs a lot of money.

Also, as I previously mentioned, as a government, if your country isn't doing well economically, you have to start sacraficing nature. Having a huge peice of land, just for nature reserve, that could've been used for farming, or anything else, even if the land technically costs you nothing, it's costing a lot in potential profits that could help the country. And a government needs to look at that. You can't be bankrupt, or worse, in debt, and refuse to use your land for trying to get yourself out of it.

[jacojerb]

JJ my problem with helping humanity is that humanity does little to help itself and they are supposed to be the smart things around here. Animals can't help their world being destroyed by us. They need more help than humans who seem intent on destroying their own world.

I personally wouldn't support charities. There just isn't enough regulations on it to ensure that the money actually goes where it needs to

I'd rather spend money inversting in small businesses. People who are trying to help themselves, and struggling. Helps make a few jobs, a few less people suffering, and thus a few less people who have to resort to crime. Basically, help the people who really work for it

Animals do need the help, and if you want to be the one helping them, great. They do need you. I just prefer helping my own kind first. Maybe if more people are well off, there would also be more people capable of helping animals.

[Leeward]

All that is based on the presumption that you must pay for the land. Land doesn't cost anything. It was there before South Africa, it was there before taxes and it was there before human beings. Private individuals have to pay for the land they use but the government can easily set aside land as nature reserves and not pay anything. You just leave it alone.

Even though I thoroughly endorse the idealism here, I think this view is a little naïve. Land ownership may be a human construct, but the fact is that since we are humans we have to abide by it. Governments have to make the best they can out of what they've got. Sadly, humanity comes first, and setting land aside for nature is not among their top priorities. Extremely ironic, isn't it?

[Splicer-Fox]

Hunting is tricky.

What happened with Cecil was poaching, as I understand it.
The lion was baited out under shady conditions.
The person paying for the hunt has done similar crimes in the past.
I do hope he gets punished accordingly for his crime.

However I do feel that for some animals, building industry around them is all that can protect them.
Even if it is hunting.
Creating sustainable hunting practices for tourism could be a good thing for the animals involved.

I think I would kill a buck and I have already killed many birds.
But there is no way in hell you can get me to hurt a fox.
I have seen videos of fox hunts using dogs.
Its savage and I would make it illegal.
Using guns to cull Foxes that are protected for the sport of hunting I will accept.

The Industry for animal parts is even more problematic than hunting.
But at least technology might elevate some of the ethical problems there.

Both Nature and Man can be incredibly cruel.
But at least Man can choose to be kind when he does not have to be.

[Valerion]

Walter has sorta-apologised:
http://www.startribune.com/read-the-ful ... 318947551/

Right now he is being yelled at by virtually everyone that can. So people do care about this, a lot. Or at least when you can emotionally charge them about it.

Also, hunting has some economic impact:
http://businesstech.co.za/news/general/ ... th-africa/

[Neon]

Edit: Sorry, my price estimate was waaay too high
http://www.africanskyhunting.co.za/pricelist.html

Might be more reasonable to achieve with donations.

Re-edit: those prices are in Dollar o.o I'm not paying that. Sorry. Nope. Not until I get a decent salary

While I don't really have much to say on the matter, what struck me here was the fact that African Sky allows you to buyout both elephants and a LEOPARD to hunt. Seriously. A leopard? While I understand that they're not critically endangered or something similar, this still bugs me. Quite a bit.

[Leeward]

I've heard that you can hunt a female springbok for as cheap as R300, if you know where to look.

[Splicer-Fox]

I was wondering about the bow and arrow used to hunt the lion.
Not even a thousand spears seem effective at killing a buck and thus leads to unnecessary agony.
I would say that a basic weapon like bows, spears, and crossbows should be made illegal for animals it cannot kill instantly.
I have the bad feeling Cecil may have suffered.

I thought of this because of a film called Africa Addio.
This has actual mass poaching in it so be warned.

As you can see from this film.
I doubt that a single arrow would be able to kill a lion fast enough to be called humane.

[Raven Song]

Cecil did suffer. for 40 hours!

[Leeward]

Apparently Cecil was found alive ~40 hours after having been shot with the bow; they had to humanely put him down with a gunshot to the head.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

An interesting read while people are all upset about what happened to Cecil. In short, it's comparing what was done to Cecil to what is just done to chickens. The author takes the side that what happens to chickens, with little outrage, is far, far worse than what happened to Cecil.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/30/9074547/ce ... icken-meat

So compare those 40 hours of pain and couple years of happy lion life to the weeks of excruciating agony that broiler chickens endure toward the end of their lives — and then consider that you're very likely inflicting that agony on more than one chicken.