Donald Trump's sons face criticism for African hunting photos

I already had a go around on Facebook about the pic of the dudes holding up the leopard they shot. Nobody wanted to play with me after I explained why it was a good thing lol.
 
Maybe the PETA crew and their supporters should go to go to Africa, and do the Treadwell dance with the cats, elephants, and buffalo; what a buncha morons. Anyway, well healed hunters continue to contribute to the solution rather than the problem. If the majority of rural Africans had their way, the big grass eaters and their predators would be extinct.
 
[YouTube]4_SYGAeuhm0[/YouTube]
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_SYGAeuhm0>

[YouTube]sGqWCYGbA-c[/YouTube]
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGqWCYGbA-c>

[YouTube]RoMHNP117zY[/YouTube]
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMHNP117zY>
 
lilsurfer said:
I don't see the disrespect that the antis are talking about in these photos. As long as the Trumps abided by all laws, which I'm sure they did, then there is no problem here. I don't know if I would call African safari hunting "conservation", but it is a fact that PETA puts down alot of animals and contributes nothing to conservation. I know vegetarians that think PETA is crazy. Personally, I wouldn't shoot an elephant but to each his own. On a lighter note, these are some sweet pictures. Definitely something I'd like to try some day.
Click to expand...

Do you know ANYTHING about "safari" hunting? It would appear not. Please explain how sportsman paying large amounts of money to hunt animals that would otherwise be culled or starved is not conservation. The money they pay provides jobs for locals, giving value to wildlife. In turn locals are less likely to poach.

Who pays for the game commisions and park workers that run preserves?

Please enlighten us on your version of conservation.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmer47
conservation and hunting go hand in hand . if the animals have no value they will be destroyed . if they have value and bring income to the locals they have a reason to maintain a population .

ignore this.


"Ignore this"? farmer47 has hit the nail on the head with a perfectly accurate statement. Lilsurfer, if you doubt it, then you know absolutely nothing about African hunting.
 
Turkeyslayer 1300 said:
Do you know ANYTHING about "safari" hunting? It would appear not. Please explain how sportsman paying large amounts of money to hunt animals that would otherwise be culled or starved is not conservation. The money they pay provides jobs for locals, giving value to wildlife. In turn locals are less likely to poach.

Who pays for the game commisions and park workers that run preserves?

Please enlighten us on your version of conservation.
Click to expand...

I was referring only to elephants. My definition of conservation is hunting which either a) controls a species from overpopulation or b) benefits a person or community in a social or economic way. To shoot an elephant is conservation only in the sense that it controls a nuisance or threat to humans or provides them with food or economic benefit. On the other hand, it is not conservation in that it is the hunting of a threatened species. That is why I said, I don't know if I would call this conservation in the truest sense of the term. Again, I was referring only to the elephant. I apologize, I should have made that more clear. I don't have any problems with it whatsoever, and I'd do it in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity.
 
lilsurfer said:
I was referring only to elephants. My definition of conservation is hunting which either a) controls a species from overpopulation or b) benefits a person or community in a social or economic way. To shoot an elephant is conservation only in the sense that it controls a nuisance or threat to humans or provides them with food or economic benefit. On the other hand, it is not conservation in that it is the hunting of a threatened species. That is why I said, I don't know if I would call this conservation in the truest sense of the term. Again, I was referring only to the elephant. I apologize, I should have made that more clear. I don't have any problems with it whatsoever, and I'd do it in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Lil surfer,
Depending on who is doing the counting there are between 650,000 and 850, 000 elephants in Africa. You might want to compare that number to the amount of elk in North America for perspective. The fact is, the areas that can have elephants in Africa have too many to support.

Elephants are listed as "threatened" because their habitat is shrinking due to human population growth. That's the threat, too many elephants for the space, or not enough space for the elephants depending on how you look at it.

A anti-hunting group like PETA is quick to grab a word like "threatened" and an iconic animal like the elephant and run with a headline grabbing, fund-raiseing opportunity and leave out a few inconvenient facts. Consider that these are the same people that slip the occasional mumbled "endangered" into a press release about seals. Are they good at it? Damn right, they convinced you, and you're a hunter.

Combine an iconic animal ( or a cute one) with a famous last name, throw in the very common human reaction to resent the rich and you get PETA's SOP. They play people like fish, and they are very good at it.
 
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals.
Yup, they are Professional Eco Terrorists in my Book.
I am proud to be an Infidel when being described by those Fcku Tards.
just my .02 coffee infused statement.
Good on the Young Trump Boy spreading some wealth,
Rob
 
lilsurfer said:
I was referring only to elephants. My definition of conservation is hunting which either a) controls a species from overpopulation or b) benefits a person or community in a social or economic way. To shoot an elephant is conservation only in the sense that it controls a nuisance or threat to humans or provides them with food or economic benefit. On the other hand, it is not conservation in that it is the hunting of a threatened species. That is why I said, I don't know if I would call this conservation in the truest sense of the term. Again, I was referring only to the elephant. I apologize, I should have made that more clear. I don't have any problems with it whatsoever, and I'd do it in a heartbeat if I had the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Well since you said it. It a large number of areas now elephants are very overpopulated and hunting them is done to keep levels in check. All of the animal is used by the local populations for food and the money that is spent to hunt goes right back into the communities there.
So that is exactly what happened, based on your statement. Elephants are not threatened in South Africa. These people understand this is their lifeblood, they will not jeopardize that.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35045

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/september/elephant.htm

http://www.good.is/post/video-african-elephant-overpopulation-poses-environmental-threat/
 
Last edited:
If only we could convince some PETA members that there are some nice cuddly lions and leopards on the African Serengeti that just love being hugged and kissed on the lips....

on a more serious note, though I like others have no interest in killing an animal like an Elephant I have nothing against it, if done for the right reasons, and I'm sure in most cases it is done for the right reasons, like, feeding villages and bringing much needed money to very poor people in Africa, also there are many problem animals in Africa the would otherwise be just killed and probably wasted if not for hunting.

I don't think organizations like PETA could ever be convinced that there is actually a real need for hunting, their minds are closed and welded shut never to be opened under any circumstances


I do have to say one thing about those Trump boys,,,,,,,,, Thank God they didn't learn how to fix their hair like dad's :)
 
Fall Guy said:
I know a guy who went on an archery safari to Africa last year. He stocks shelves at a national grocer for a living. He works hard, saves and plans. 'Well-heeled' he is not.
Click to expand...

I'll bet he didn't pay for for a 21 day or 30 day safari. I managed to get to Tanzania, but I don't put myself in the same category as the fellows who can make an annual event of it, or who boost the GNP of the country each time they visit.
 
Boomer said:
I'll bet he didn't pay for for a 21 day or 30 day safari. I managed to get to Tanzania, but I don't put myself in the same category as the fellows who can make an annual event of it, or who boost the GNP of the country each time they visit.
Click to expand...

Not everyone goes for a 21 day Safari, in fact most don't. Hunting in Africa is far less expensive for most species than North American hunts. There's lots of game available at very reasonable prices.
Even so, when one considers that I could hunt plains game,leopard and Cape buffalo for about the same as a Stone's sheep hunt in BC, I consider it a bargain. Plains game only hunts of a week or 10 days with 4-6 animals on the list can be had for about the same as a lower priced elk hunt in North America.
 
"...according to TMZ, they shot a variety of animals including, a crocodile, kudu, civet vat and water buck. ..."


They shot a civet vat? Is that how they got the crocodile and the water buck - all the water ran out of the vat so they were able to get the other animals that were swimming around in it?
 
whats more valuable to an african tribe, an elephant that eats their crops and has no value, or an elephant that is basically a walking 100 000 dollar check. What keeps them from shoting the elephant if its a pest.
 
TheTooner said:
"...according to TMZ, they shot a variety of animals including, a crocodile, kudu, civet vat and water buck. ..."


They shot a civet vat? Is that how they got the crocodile and the water buck - all the water ran out of the vat so they were able to get the other animals that were swimming around in it?
Click to expand...

I would assume it was a civet cat.

The dirty little secret that animal rights nutbars like Ingrid Newkirk and her gang of brainwashed PETA acolytes is that trophy hunting is the single most important factor in preserving and protecting Africa's endangered or threatened species. By placing a dollar value on each animal, local villagers are given an incentive to NOT poach/kill/poison the local pride of lions/elephants/leopards, etc...

Outfitters/PH/Government partnerships ensure that animal populations are properly managed and conserved. Crop/livestock losses are made good, local villagers share in profits from local hunting concessions and many are hired as trackers, porters, skinners, stewards, cooks, etc... Finally, local villagers share the majority of the meat, as it is non-exportable, giving locals access to one of the rarest and most expensive commodities on the continent...FREE PROTEIN. Something most Africans living in countries that prohibit legal hunting rarely enjoy.

If you want to compare a conservation success story to abject failure, simply look to Zimbabwe or South Africa compared to Kenya. The latter banned legal hunting, turning one of the richest ecosystems on the planet into a virtual wasteland. Of course, PETA was never interested in actually conserving animal species, but keeping those donation cheques rolling in.
 
bearkilr said:
Not everyone goes for a 21 day Safari, in fact most don't. Hunting in Africa is far less expensive for most species than North American hunts. There's lots of game available at very reasonable prices.
Even so, when one considers that I could hunt plains game,leopard and Cape buffalo for about the same as a Stone's sheep hunt in BC, I consider it a bargain. Plains game only hunts of a week or 10 days with 4-6 animals on the list can be had for about the same as a lower priced elk hunt in North America.
Click to expand...

If you want to hunt leopard, you'll have to pay for a 21 day hunt even if you just stay for a week. If you intend to go, I would strongly advise that you pay the little extra for the 10 days, rather than just 7, you might need those extra 3 days. My hunt was for 10 days, but there were no cats, or any of the big five other than buffalo available to me. I would have dearly loved to have hunted lion, as lion are so iconic of Africa, but it wasn't in the cards on a 10 day license. As it was I passed up more than I shot. I did get my buff though.
 
bearkilr said:
Not everyone goes for a 21 day Safari, in fact most don't. Hunting in Africa is far less expensive for most species than North American hunts. There's lots of game available at very reasonable prices.
Even so, when one considers that I could hunt plains game,leopard and Cape buffalo for about the same as a Stone's sheep hunt in BC, I consider it a bargain. Plains game only hunts of a week or 10 days with 4-6 animals on the list can be had for about the same as a lower priced elk hunt in North America.
Click to expand...

Plains game hunts are a pretty good deal, even when the typical price correction of:

Package price X 2 + 5000 + Taxidermy + Freight is applied. Cheaper than B.C. in many ways, but the "miscellaneous" adds up real quick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom