German hunter kills biggest Elephant for almost 30 years

originally posted by: deadeyedick
You are just trying to take up for the guy that is defenseless by his own doing.

No, I'm trying to add a bit of pragmatism into a discussion that has been purely centered on Anthropomorphic hyperbole and emotional histrionics. "Oh noes! A fuzzy member of the animal kingdom is dead. Boo-hoo, sob sob, how could someone shoot a majestic creature?" Man is essentially an animal... animals kill other animals. It's the circle of life.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

No, I'm trying to add a bit of pragmatism into a discussion that has been purely centered on Anthropomorphic hyperbole and emotional histrionics. "Oh noes! A fuzzy member of the animal kingdom is dead. Boo-hoo, sob sob, how could someone shoot a majestic creature?" Man is essentially an animal... animals kill other animals. It's the circle of life.

And how many other animals forge weapons and go and kill for fun and entertainment and pay money or trade to do so?

Sorry burdman30ott6, but there is no logical excuse for killing of animals for pleasure.

Sorry, but that 'no law broken' bubble is really meaningless, those allowing such killing on display are no different and the same guilty as those killing those wonderful creatures.

Please do not tell me it is in human nature... because there was a lot of other in human nature, but we have learned to control ourselves.

a reply to: burdman30ott6
10-4
I just call em as I see em and the elephant was legit and the lion killing was not but overall hunting helps save animals. I do think it is important to call out the bs such as the dentist whenever it comes up just in order to keep things as close to the truth as we can.

a reply to: blupblup

Lots of animals kill for fun. Most cats do, most canines do, orcas not only kill for fun, they play games with the carcasses of seals, flinging them around in a macabre game of hot potato.

Chimpanzees have been recorded sharpening sticks into spears with their teeth, then using the spears to stab bush babies and smaller primates.

Your argument fails.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Sorry, but that 'no law broken' bubble is really meaningless

[SNIP]

we have learned to control ourselves.

It's through "meaningless laws" (your words) that man has controlled itself. Your argument is self-contradictory.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I can respect that.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Oh of course.... the animal kingdom's very own game reserve.
Human beings spending 10's of thousands travelling the world slaughtering animals is exactly the same as what you mention.

I stated AND pay money to do so.

Of course nature is crazy and animals kill other animals for food, out of fear, because they can... whatever.
We're the only insane species (although some of us are evolved) that go around paying to slaughter other animals as a past time and/or hobby.

These incidents are indefensible and yet here people are... defending them..

There really is no hope when there are people so misguided and unevolved

a reply to: blupblup

Really? Humanity rapes their own, murders their own, makes war for profit against their own, aborts their own unborn by the millions, enslaves their own, and generally treats their own like dog crap... and a wealthy guy paying $60,000 into a struggling economy to shoot an elephant is the reason there's "no hope."

It's called perspective, please find some.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: blupblup

Really? Humanity rapes their own, murders their own, makes war for profit against their own, aborts their own unborn by the millions, enslaves their own, and generally treats their own like dog crap... and a wealthy guy paying $60,000 into a struggling economy to shoot an elephant is the reason there's "no hope."

It's called perspective, please find some.

Ahh the 'ole "there are worse problems than this happening in the world so this is irrelevant" argument.... nice try but no.
See funnily enough I'm blessed with the apparently rare capability to hold 2 and possibly 3 independent thoughts in my head at the same time... I can be concerned for the refugees, worry about cancer and war and even feel bad about animals needlessly being slaughtered by wealthy psychopaths with too much time and money on their hands.

Why is it in these threads someone always has to say "Yeah but X is Soooooo much worse, why don't you care about that?" It's so stupid.

No hope for the animals and saving what's left of them maybe?

And sure you're right... it's guys like this absolute prick of a man who are actually SAVING the planet.... not only is he saving elephants by killing them, he's now boosting the economy too!! What a hero.
Why is anyone even concerned at all.

Maybe these guys could start paying £50k/$50k a pop to kill some people.... we have a population crisis on our hands, too many homeless and what not... **** it man, why not? Save the economy AND help the planet, win-win.

originally posted by: blupblup
Maybe these guys could start paying £50k/$50k a pop to kill some people.... we have a population crisis on our hands, too many homeless and what not... **** it man, why not? Save the economy AND help the planet, win-win.

An elephant isn't a human being, neither is a lion. Again, perspective, you're lacking in it.

Would of been more heroic if he had faced it down with a bowie knife, guides wouldn't see to much repeat business after that !

a reply to: Sremmos80

I agree with you, people should be asking why these trophy hunts are still so widely done when they don't really contribute as much as the safari and other non hunt related tourism

Did you read my post about the black rhino that generated $350,000 of revenue in Namibia?
I would like to see a rundown on the money.
I am not sure how much money the non hunting safaris generate, but I do know that hikers are numerous on the Appalachian Trail and they generate no money for wildlife conservation.
Do you know who does? Anyone that buys ammunition..... that includes people that don't hunt, anyone from target shooters to gangbangers in Chicago.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That would be a downgrade for the elephant, you know anything about elephants?..I'm going to guess no. They may be more human than most of us.
Hey while we're at it..why not mountain gorillas too?
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: vonclod

More anthropomorphism? :rolleyes:

a reply to: butcherguy

I am not sure how much money the non hunting safaris generate, but I do know that hikers are numerous on the Appalachian Trail and they generate no money for wildlife conservation.

The Economic Case Against Trophy Hunting

Trophy hunting generally cuts short the earning potential of a living animal. For example, the ivory of a single poached elephant can earn about $21,000 on the black market. That’s a small fraction of the $1.6 million that same elephant can rake up through ecotourism over the course of its life.

The number of jobs generated by trophy hunting across the continent of Africa has been put at around 15,000. Some researchers, however, point out that the jobs created by the industry are rather low considering how much land is used for the sport. For the 11 countries where big game hunting is most widely practiced, hunting preserves take up about 15 percent of national territory, but account for less than one percent of their respective country’s GDP. The earnings from tourism overall are up to six times the amount accrued from trophy hunting.

Botswana appears to be leading the way in the battle to preserve the continent’s famous living treasury of animals. Tourism brought £227m into the economy last year. High-end camps attract visitors from around the world to appreciate nature that most people can see only on television. The president banned commercial hunting in 2014, and the country’s conservation projects are the envy of many.

Botswana appears to be leading the way in the battle to preserve the continent’s famous living treasury of animals. Tourism brought £227m into the economy last year. High-end camps attract visitors from around the world to appreciate nature that most people can see only on television. The president banned commercial hunting in 2014, and the country’s conservation projects are the envy of many.

The Myth Of Trophy Hunting As Conservation

Exposing The Hunters' Lies
Hunters claim they are "conservationists", arguing that the only way that wildlife can survive is if it is given an economic value. There is no disputing that trophy hunting is a lucrative business. The question is could it really be more valuable than eco-tourism? And, even more importantly, does it earn income for the millions of poor people who will otherwise regard wild animals as nothing but a nuisance?

Hunting versus eco-tourism

A November 2004 study by the University of Port Elizabeth estimated that eco-tourism on private game reserves generated "more than 15 times the income of livestock or game rearing or overseas hunting". (1) Eco-tourism lodges in Eastern Cape Province produce almost 2000 rand (£180) per hectare. Researchers also noted that more jobs were created and staff received "extensive skills training". (2)

New Report: Economics of Trophy Hunting in Africa Are Overrated and Overstated

“Local African communities are key stakeholders for conservation, and they need real incentives for conservation,” said Jeff Flocken, North American regional director, International Fund for Animal Welfare. “Non-consumptive nature tourism–like wildlife viewing and photo safaris–is a much greater contributor than trophy hunting to both conservation and the economy in Africa. If trophy hunting and other threats continue depleting Africa’s wildlife, then Africa’s wildlife tourism will disappear. That is the real economic threat to the countries of Africa.”

Trophy hunting: 'Killing animals to save them is not conservation'

For example, a Synovate eNation poll in 2011 found that of those responding to its survey, 70.4% of Americans would pay to view lions on an African safari, while only 6.6% would pay to hunt them.

And opposition is not just theoretical -- a poll conducted by the Beekeeper group on behalf of the IFAW in 2014 found that 82% of Americans surveyed support banning lion trophies, and 83% support banning elephant trophies.

Benefits exaggerated

Economically, the actual benefits accrued by local people from the hunts have been found to be exaggerated or practically non-existent in the case of trophy hunted animals like polar bears in Canada, according to a report for IFAW by Economists at Large. And in Tanzania -- one of Africa's top sport-hunting destinations -- an estimated 3-5% of hunting revenues are actually shared with fringe communities, according to a report by Hassanali Thomas Sachedina of St. Anthony's College, University of Oxford.

Conversely, eco-tourism has become such a critical line item in the economies of some African countries that some governments are taking steps against sport hunting in order to protect this more vital industry.

What The Safari Hunting Industry Doesn’t Want You To Know About Killing Lions

MYTH: Revenues from hunting go back and benefit small villages.

Dereck says that revenue almost always stays outside of Africa. They don’t benefit small villages. Most of these safari companies are American run. Of 600 permits to kill lions in all of Africa in 2012, 566 were bought by Americans.

There's more out there - and a couple of those are a few years old too - before all the media frenzy about these more recent atrocities

Yes - atrocities

a reply to: burdman30ott6

More anthropomorphism? :rolleyes:

So - it's ok to kill them because they're not human?

Being able to recognize human qualities in a fellow living creature isn't dishonest - except maybe to you

We're all mammals - we all share certain traits and qualities - and emotions

If it makes it easier for you to kill things - you're going to rationalize I guess

Deciding that other living creatures are somehow less than you pretty much gives away your entire relationship to the rest of this world - including your relationship to your fellow humans

a reply to: butcherguy

Did you read mine earlier that touches on the break down? It is a couple pages back and while the hunts generate money so do the safari trips and other options. It is far from this talking point that these hnuts are the sole contributer to these conservation sites.

Basic idea is that you can make more on keeping the animal alive then shooting it. Since more people will be able to come and see them.

originally posted by: PurpleDog UK

You miss the point..... Killing for killings sake shows the individual to be of an unstable mind or some sort of mental illness.....couple this with the fact that he thinks it's acceptable to pay to kill....!!! It's the same thinking as offering a donation to cancer research and then expecting to end a cancers patients life because 'he paid' to do so........

Hunting for anything BUT food and shelter is abhorrent, immoral, wrong and downright disgusting..... ALL who subscribe to this attitude illustrate a form of mental illness and an inferiority complex....

Regards

PDUK

Trophy hunting is not my thing. My husband and I shoot a deer each for meat out of our back pasture most years. We pay every year for that license. We would not starve without the meat, but I LIKE deer meat; I like it better than any other meat. I will say that if The Monster Buck was out there I would probably shoot him, and I will admit that there is an extension of ego to that, but mental illness is kind of a stretch. There is something primal and old and yes certainly, as I said before, ego driven. It doesn't fit in as well with contemporary society as it did 50 years ago, or 100 or 1000 or certainly 10,000 years ago but it is hard wired into human beings. It doesn't make us sick, it makes us predators that gain social status by our accomplishments and can communicate that status by trophies. Personally, I'm not that motivated to stuff a deer and put his head on the wall, or go trekking into the wilderness to find one, but if I get a good set of horns from my back 40, they go on the side of my barn. I'm not mentally ill or particularly violent.

All of this fits in just fine with the culture that I was born and raised, and currently live in (Montana). We aren't mean, or violent and frankly do more to help other human beings than I see in most other places. Not that hunting itself causes people to behave better but it certainly doesn't make them behave worse. So I think your "mentally ill" label is utter horse crap.

Now if deer were rare and bucks past four points even more so, I would let a big buck go on his merry way. That's why people will throw fits if you shoot a white deer around here, as well they should. They are very uncommon and valuing that and trying to protect it just so it's there is worthwhile. I don't think that what this man did was right because a big bull is so rare, and I think that this animal (from what I know of elephants) was still in his breeding prime and he could have still contributed good genetics. That is the difference between being conscientious stewards and pillaging thoughtlessly. Even if he was past his prime at least people can see him and I think people coming in to look at those elephants probably brings in more revenue than one guy shooting one.

My two cents...

Disclaimer: I want to be very clear here. I have NO ISSUE whatsoever with hunters that, for example, shoot deer or fowl and eat the meat and (depending on the animal) do something with the pelt/skin. Hunting for food and hunting for fun are drastically different (in my opinion, of course).

That being said, and I can't take credit for this because I heard it from somewhere else.....

Why is it when a kid kills an animal just for fun he gets taken straight into psychotherapy but when an adult does it.... it's just a hobby?