Guardian article on African Hunting

"Allow the rich to bag a few animals...."

"The rich," has not been my experience... I run into plumbers, electricians, carpenters, average people of average means, who are passionate about hunting and experiencing new things. I am sure there are some billionaire oil tycoons out in the African bush... and the type of hunt you chose would likely reveal them... a Lord Derby Eland hunt or a full bag Bongo/Forest buffalo hunt is pretty pricey... but the stats of 500K animals in 1964 to 20 Million animals currently in South Africa was NOT a project for.the rich. If they stop African hunting, the value of the animals and the land they live in is solely in the meat they provide, and they will be poached out of existence, by local tribes, in short order. These type of hunts may not be for everyone, but this far, they are the only successful strategy and maintain wildlife and wildlife habitat.
 
The Guardian is a typically left-leaning publication, but to be fair, they generally at least pay lip service to both sides of any debate, although of course their overall political bent is always fully visible. This was an interesting article, clearly written by someone who is forced to admit that there is value to trophy hunting but who is also loathe to admit it.


"...The reserve, one of the world’s largest protected areas, is home to elephants, leopards, hyenas, zebras and about 1,000 wild lions...That word, however: protected. It applies to some, but not all, of its animal inhabitants....based on a central contradiction: that one might save wildlife by killing it."
"The most vociferous anti-hunting lobbyists will never get to what he calls “the dirty end” of conservation, where killing something can apparently save it."

This ^ is the classic and ever-present blind spot of the anti's: the inability to see and understand a distinction between conserving a species as opposed to conserving every single individual animal.



...The client (whom I agreed not to identify; let’s call him Elmer)...

Not even going to touch this ^ comment...


...the unbalanced dynamic – the squire throwing his offcuts to the dust for his public to divide – felt, to me, uncomfortable...

And that is the problem. They don't or won't see what actually is. The reality is subservient to how they feel.


If banning trophy hunting would lead to the loss of wilderness areas and a collapse in animal populations, would it still be the right thing to do?

That's the phrase, more than any other, that leapt out at me...would banning the hunt "still be the right thing to do?" In other words, banning hunting is, to these people, obviously and unquestionably the right thing to do. If evidence proves that banning the hunt would harm and eventually doom the animals as a whole...and mountains of evidence do indeed show that to be the case...well, it's still the "right thing" so they are actually questioning whether it should still be done, and they're casting about desperately looking for a way to justify doing so.
 
Leftists are "confounded" by things that work, that they don't want to work or don't agree with. Leftists see the world and want the world to be, not as it actually is. :rolleyes:

hoytcanon said:
"Allow the rich to bag a few animals...."

"The rich," has not been my experience... I run into plumbers, electricians, carpenters, average people of average means, who are passionate about hunting and experiencing new things. I am sure there are some billionaire oil tycoons out in the African bush... and the type of hunt you chose would likely reveal them... a Lord Derby Eland hunt or a full bag Bongo/Forest buffalo hunt is pretty pricey... but the stats of 500K animals in 1964 to 20 Million animals currently in South Africa was NOT a project for.the rich. If they stop African hunting, the value of the animals and the land they live in is solely in the meat they provide, and they will be poached out of existence, by local tribes, in short order. These type of hunts may not be for everyone, but this far, they are the only successful strategy and maintain wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Click to expand...
Africa had better be careful, the Texas high-fence hunting operations seem to be very popular. It's a lot easier to go to Texas to shoot a Zebra or Wildebeest than it is to go to Africa.

We were recently on a Texas hunting ranch and the number and variety of African game animals they had was staggering.
 
To go to Texas to hunt African games wouldn’t be my thing. But to each there own.
 
I Dont Care About You said:
Leftists are "confounded" by things that work, that they don't want to work or don't agree with. Leftists see the world and want the world to be, not as it actually is. :rolleyes:


Africa had better be careful, the Texas high-fence hunting operations seem to be very popular. It's a lot easier to go to Texas to shoot a Zebra or Wildebeest than it is to go to Africa.

We were recently on a Texas hunting ranch and the number and variety of African game animals they had was staggering.
Click to expand...
Hunting "put and take" animals is gross... I wouldn't hunt a high fence ranch whether in Texas or in South Africa. Hunting indigenous animals in their natural environment is all I am interested in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom