Publications
Partners
Or not. This is far too emotional an issue, it should be dealt with realistically. There are risks to conservation if hunting is banned ... like it or not.
I spent several years of my life as a nature conservationist (game ranger ... I don't like the term, its being glorified) Part of my job while in reserve management involved killing animals. The reserves were fenced you see, so game numbers increased (same as farming cattle) to the extent that at some time they would overgraze and destroy the environment they depended on. So we culled. (Also known as predator simulation) Some animals were captured and either sold or translocated to other reserves, depending on conservation value, financial viability etc.
Culling was not a nice job, it involved clinical destruction of animals, regardless of age, sex etc. We culled at night with a spotlight, so we could get close shots and cause minimal stress and disturbance. The idea was to simulate predators ... which means the first animal in your sights you eliminated, baby, pregnant female, whatever ... a predator would not choose. And afterwards it involved hours of butchering, as the meat could not be wasted and was sold as staff rations. It was hard work, not fun.
Hunting is another thing altogether. Hunters hunt for fun, for ego, for self esteem. It is highly offensive for many, but like it or not, hunters derive pleasure from killing animals. I think most actually love nature and the outdoors, and even appreciate the beauty of that which they destroy. Its just human nature, a prehistoric instinct, the adrenalin rush and pride after making the kill ... regardless of how warped it is. Its human nature for many.
I think the anti hunting lobby is refusing to see the true nature of human beings. Oddly, many in the anti hunting lobby will gladly eat battery eggs, beef and lamb from animals that had their testicles removed to make them fatter and more tender for our consumption. They'll eat netted fish, that involved the cruel destruction of many non target species, yet attack the angler who kills a trout he catches himself for his own consumption.
I do believe the trophy ethic is a very warped one though. Does it require more skill to put a lead slug through the brain of a female kudu compared to a spectacular male? Why do humans get such a thrill from the destruction of the most beautiful, or the biggest, the most spectacular? I fail to see how anyone wants to kill a leopard, unless it is perhaps destroying your source of income. How do we measure ethics? I feel if you kill something it should be for a good reason ... like eating it. Why can't I kill an impala for biltong, but a lion can without criticism? (I mean to eat the impala, I know lions don't make biltong !!)
Lets compare the ethics of hunting compared to industrial animal farming. To me there is no comparison, hunting is far more kind to animals. The hunted animal has lived a far better life up to the moment we end it. The farmed animal is often imprisoned in terrible conditions its entire life, it often has its genitals removed, its appendages like beaks cut off. It is fed all sorts of antibiotics, steroids in some cases. It often spends hours in trucks transported in horrendous conditions, to abattoirs where it queues with its mates before its death. Sorry, comparing the two, hunting is far far more humane, regardless the perhaps somewhat backward processes going on in the hunters mind. (Or perhaps natural processes ... processes that form part of the human mind that we try to deny?)
Finally, my first comment was the effect of a hunting ban on conservation. Conservation is heavily dependent on habitat conservation, before species preservation. Its pointless saving a species when there is no habitat left for it to live on. Hunting has provided an alternative to beef farming, especially in the drier bushveld areas. Huge areas are now "game farmed" instead of beef, or beef and game are on the same land due to the value of game in terms of hunting. If hunting is banned, huge currently conserved areas will revert back to beef farming. (Conservation means "the wise utilisation of our natural resources", with emphasis on UTILISATION.)
There is of course also the eco tourism market, but it is not big enough for the smaller farms to survive off. (Tourists want Big 5, a term funnily enough invented by the hunting fraternity)
So the moral of my argument is ... hunting is a reality and catering for it serves to protect huge tracts of our countries natural habitat. It may confuse many that hunters enjoy killing for fun, but perhaps try to think about how you judge people, and have a look at what you eat and thereby support before judging.
I spent several years of my life as a nature conservationist (game ranger ... I don't like the term, its being glorified) Part of my job while in reserve management involved killing animals. The reserves were fenced you see, so game numbers increased (same as farming cattle) to the extent that at some time they would overgraze and destroy the environment they depended on. So we culled. (Also known as predator simulation) Some animals were captured and either sold or translocated to other reserves, depending on conservation value, financial viability etc.
Culling was not a nice job, it involved clinical destruction of animals, regardless of age, sex etc. We culled at night with a spotlight, so we could get close shots and cause minimal stress and disturbance. The idea was to simulate predators ... which means the first animal in your sights you eliminated, baby, pregnant female, whatever ... a predator would not choose. And afterwards it involved hours of butchering, as the meat could not be wasted and was sold as staff rations. It was hard work, not fun.
Hunting is another thing altogether. Hunters hunt for fun, for ego, for self esteem. It is highly offensive for many, but like it or not, hunters derive pleasure from killing animals. I think most actually love nature and the outdoors, and even appreciate the beauty of that which they destroy. Its just human nature, a prehistoric instinct, the adrenalin rush and pride after making the kill ... regardless of how warped it is. Its human nature for many.
I think the anti hunting lobby is refusing to see the true nature of human beings. Oddly, many in the anti hunting lobby will gladly eat battery eggs, beef and lamb from animals that had their testicles removed to make them fatter and more tender for our consumption. They'll eat netted fish, that involved the cruel destruction of many non target species, yet attack the angler who kills a trout he catches himself for his own consumption.
I do believe the trophy ethic is a very warped one though. Does it require more skill to put a lead slug through the brain of a female kudu compared to a spectacular male? Why do humans get such a thrill from the destruction of the most beautiful, or the biggest, the most spectacular? I fail to see how anyone wants to kill a leopard, unless it is perhaps destroying your source of income. How do we measure ethics? I feel if you kill something it should be for a good reason ... like eating it. Why can't I kill an impala for biltong, but a lion can without criticism? (I mean to eat the impala, I know lions don't make biltong !!)
Lets compare the ethics of hunting compared to industrial animal farming. To me there is no comparison, hunting is far more kind to animals. The hunted animal has lived a far better life up to the moment we end it. The farmed animal is often imprisoned in terrible conditions its entire life, it often has its genitals removed, its appendages like beaks cut off. It is fed all sorts of antibiotics, steroids in some cases. It often spends hours in trucks transported in horrendous conditions, to abattoirs where it queues with its mates before its death. Sorry, comparing the two, hunting is far far more humane, regardless the perhaps somewhat backward processes going on in the hunters mind. (Or perhaps natural processes ... processes that form part of the human mind that we try to deny?)
Finally, my first comment was the effect of a hunting ban on conservation. Conservation is heavily dependent on habitat conservation, before species preservation. Its pointless saving a species when there is no habitat left for it to live on. Hunting has provided an alternative to beef farming, especially in the drier bushveld areas. Huge areas are now "game farmed" instead of beef, or beef and game are on the same land due to the value of game in terms of hunting. If hunting is banned, huge currently conserved areas will revert back to beef farming. (Conservation means "the wise utilisation of our natural resources", with emphasis on UTILISATION.)
There is of course also the eco tourism market, but it is not big enough for the smaller farms to survive off. (Tourists want Big 5, a term funnily enough invented by the hunting fraternity)
So the moral of my argument is ... hunting is a reality and catering for it serves to protect huge tracts of our countries natural habitat. It may confuse many that hunters enjoy killing for fun, but perhaps try to think about how you judge people, and have a look at what you eat and thereby support before judging.
