An Issue of Animal Conservation

The fee for hunting licenses are used to develope habitate and manage populations. You might as well have folks pay to hunt and collect the money than let pochers steal the game and them spend more money looking for the pochers. It's kind of like legalizing pot.

You all have such intelligent and valid opinions - I can see both sides of the issue, since living in Northern Michigan a lot of my friends and family do enjoy hunting for sport.

I guess when it comes right down to it, my fear is that this sort of "auction" of a rhino's life will lead to less respect for nature and its preservation. Obviously, this rhino is going to die sooner rather than later anyway and would not be of use to a herd any longer, but there's something terribly unsettling about the idea that somebody is going to shoot it and then pose with it like a prize buck. I wish there was a way for me to make sure he dies with dignity and respect.

On the other hand, I'm NOT a fan of how a lot of animal conservationists are dealing with the situation. It's hurting more than helping to make threats and accusations. Ideally, the situation would conclude with both the rhino's and hunter's lives being valued.

Rickie The Grey wrote: The fee for hunting licenses are used to develope habitate and manage populations. You might as well have folks pay to hunt and collect the money than let pochers steal the game and them spend more money looking for the pochers. It's kind of like legalizing pot.

That's also a good point.

Let us view this from another point of view....

Lets say we take every child predator in the world, stick them on an island somewhere
(lets be honest they're not exactly breeding stock now are they - kids don't have the capacity to breed)
so yeah...
we'll stick them on an island and charge 1,000,000 a head to hunt them... that's got to be the ultimate hunt from a hunters perspective... can the predator with full mental capacity outsmart the predator with full mental capacity... well worth £1,000,000.

Can we justify this by saying... oh well, they don't contribute anything to nature but harm so they are fair game ??

We're donating the £1,000,000 per head to save the children and other child based charities ?

Is it justifiable ?? if so then why so ?? if not then why not ?? and what is the difference ??

Are we not all born of the same creative force ?

With a secondary thought to this... perhaps those that love to hunt should hunt each other...

100 people, all with the same rifle, all with even chance all on the same island... the proverbial "Thrill of the Hunt".

only this time in order to do so, they have to put their own lives in danger as the hunters are the hunted...

We'll charge a fee, last man standing gets half and half goes to worthy charities.

I wonder then how many hunters would be willing to risk their own mortality for the sport they love.

Hunting a helpless animal is cowardly, the rhino has no capacity to fight back... let him take it on with a sharp stick like a neanderthal would have, then we'll see if he's still happy to "HUNT".

Leandros Von wrote: Let us view this from another point of view....

Lets say we take every child predator in the world, stick them on an island somewhere
(lets be honest they're not exactly breeding stock now are they - kids don't have the capacity to breed)
so yeah...
we'll stick them on an island and charge 1,000,000 a head to hunt them... that's got to be the ultimate hunt from a hunters perspective... can the predator with full mental capacity outsmart the predator with full mental capacity... well worth £1,000,000.

Can we justify this by saying... oh well, they don't contribute anything to nature but harm so they are fair game ??

We're donating the £1,000,000 per head to save the children and other child based charities ?

Is it justifiable ?? if so then why so ?? if not then why not ?? and what is the difference ??

Are we not all born of the same creative force ?

I want to let you know Leandros that I entirely respect your position. I don't know if you are a vegetarian or not but I have half a mind to become a vegetarian when I am a more able cook (though I almost am already - though more out of practicality than anything else).

That being said I find positions like your's unhelpful in a debate, can you see how your view is going off at a tangent?

Let me explain:

People view animal life and human life as being separate things.
Some people (seemingly yourself) view animals as being equally worthy of life as humans.
Others do not.
Some of those that do not go out and hunt.

Now you can stand there and shout at them for murdering animals all you want and they will sit there and smile at you as they drive their off-road vehicles to go hunting.

You have to accept that your position is not going to be the one they will take. They will hunt.

Your argument is about animal rights not animal conservation which is why if we went down that road we would be distracted from the real issue at hand which is that people will always want to hunt and we need to find the best way to do it.

It is probably best that one looks at this situation pragmatically rather than ideally.

Looking at the situation pragmatically, I see human ego as the problem. We no longer hunt because we “need” to nor do most give thanks or treat the animal with dignity or reverence once they have killed it.

People view animal life and human life as being separate things.

That is the source of the problem and Leandros Von was addressing it in my view. Like in another thread currently going on… many are angry at situations and the way they perceive things to be. And rather than deal with the internal conflict which drives that resentment they are opting to look for someone or something to blame.

Why are we here if not to better our self, our understanding of the universe and our place in it?

I understand what you’re saying, and on another website based on debating topics rather than the root of the problem, it would be dismissed or frowned upon when we could all just set around and bash ideas and opinions! hahhahahhahha

This of course is just my view and opinion.

For what it’s worth…

shortbread64 wrote: ...there's something terribly unsettling about the idea that somebody is going to shoot it and then pose with it like a prize buck. I wish there was a way for me to make sure he dies with dignity and respect.

A proper hunter will find a way to reconcile the two, in my opinion. The respect of the animal is a very integral part of healthy hunting habits, not just for the conservation of wildlife, but for the conservation of man's soul.

Yes Wescli thank you.

Watts talks about... in one of his videos (I've listend to too many now ) that humans are not materialistic.

Materialism given to mean 'a love of material things', because we do not really 'love' material things. We just have a desire to own material things. Greed rather than respect.

That being part of, as you say, 'the root of the problem' that causes hunting.

shortbread64 wrote: On the other hand, I'm NOT a fan of how a lot of animal conservationists are dealing with the situation. It's hurting more than helping to make threats and accusations. Ideally, the situation would conclude with both the rhino's and hunter's lives being valued.

I can't speak to the specifics she mentions but very often (you see this too with GM food experiments) people take uncompromising views about things. Thinking ideally rather than pragmatically.

It's just a good thing that we are here to teach the ideals so that they eventually become the most pragmatic solutions! :laugh:

Leandros Von wrote: Hunting a helpless animal is cowardly, the rhino has no capacity to fight back... let him take it on with a sharp stick like a neanderthal would have, then we'll see if he's still happy to "HUNT".

Without turning this into a negative discussion, I'd like to make two simple points:

1. The rhino has roughly 2-4 tons more in its favor than a typical human (most of that being muscle) that they can move at an average of 50 km/hr. It has a sharp horn on the top of its head. It has plenty of capacity to "fight back." In every instance of true hunting, the animal outclasses man in almost every regard except range.
2. Some of us hunt to survive. The world economic system has produced rampant poverty and even the most cheaply-produced hateful-murder-meat (from industrial farms) is too expensive for some families who go hungry daily. With a small investment in equipment, a single hunter in a single season can provide enough meat to last his family the year. Ask me how I know.

The problems I have with hunting are all with sport hunting, because they value trophies over conservation. Hunters who hunt for meat, leather, fur, and bone (while they do take trophies on occasion) typically value conservation, because to preserve the animals' safety is to preserve their own way of life.