Trump wildlife board stuffed with trophy hunters

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sure, put the fox in charge of the henhouse the fox has plenty of experience so he must be right for the job

a reply to: MteWamp

What makes you think I haven't hunted? ..because I have a strong dislike of trophy hunters?, I have no problem with hunting deer or moose to put in the freezer. Trophy hunters, is another thing altogether..especially the ones who buy into oversea's hunts for elephants or big cat's, I have more respect for cockroaches.
So, ya I dislike the Trump kids for that reason.

a reply to: howtonhawky

I certainly don't like jr, but I wouldn't wish bad things to his wife and kids, broken homes are not a good thing, at least they have no financial worries.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: howtonhawky

I certainly don't like jr, but I wouldn't wish bad things to his wife and kids, broken homes are not a good thing, at least they have no financial worries.

very much agreed and i believe that it would be a blessing if they worked it out.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Sure, put the fox in charge of the henhouse

the fox has plenty of experience so he must be right for the job

False analogy. You put the rancher in charge of the hens. The rancher desires both eggs and chicken meat and recognizes the needs for selective harvest and culling. Poachers would be the foxes and, believe me, hunters are no friend of poachers.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I will have to look into the OPs article..I make a distinction between hunters who hunt game for food, and trophy hunters..I don't see trophy hunters as having the best interest of the animals at heart..they hunt for the thrill of killing and mounting a head on the wall.
JM2C

Liberal complains about something liberal doesn't understand...

Next.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Good analogy.

I'm also put off by trophy hunting, but not at all bothered by people who hunt for meat keeping a trophy or going after a record animal, as long as the meat is not wasted. I'm even OK if a person just makes sure the meat is used by someone. Shades of gray.

Even so, if a hunter takes an animal in a legal manner in the country they are hunting in, they should be able to bring it home with them. They broke no law, so not my business.

ETA - Poachers, throw them in a pen with a Lion or something. Let the animals get even.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I will have to look into the OPs article..I make a distinction between hunters who hunt game for food, and trophy hunters..I don't see trophy hunters as having the best interest of the animals at heart..they hunt for the thrill of killing and mounting a head on the wall.
JM2C

All African big game hunting done by Americans could properly be considered "trophy hunting" where the hunters are concerned because the FDA will not allow importation of any game meat from African into the US. This isn't a policy rooted in any sort of white knight "save the whales" foolishness, it's purely a protectionist policy to avoid certain diseases America's game and domestic stock animals don't have genetic immunity or prior exposure to from entering this country's food chain.

I'm not differentiating when I say "hunter" I mean legal hunter, be they for meat or for trophies. The salvageable portions of animals hunted in most African legal hunts are donated immediately to local villages which use the meat as food. In addition, the money spent on guide services and licensing goes to those villages or to programs intended to benefit both the people and the resource. (The OP seems concerned with whether that money actually sees it's stated purpose, which is a valid concern... for Africans, not for Americans. How the money is used is a 100% internal issue and of no business of the US government.)

ETA: I just checked the CDC's page and found you can't even bring in commercially purchased Biltong (Beef jerky popular in southern Africa) without jumping through major regulatory hoops. The meat has to come from one of the very few suppliers which is certified by the FDA and you have to possess an importer's certificate which effectively certifies that the meat has been sourced and handled in very, very specific manners. This is specifically because Africa is a known hotspot for foot and mouth disease, which would be devestating in any population of American herd animals.

Im not a fan of trophy hunting. You eat what you kill.

I also do not like poaching. But my lord...im hoping for some poachers to help with the deer here. I have to shoo them out of the way to get in and out if the driveway. Its all year round too.

They dig in the trash, eat all your plants, crap on the walk up to the door and all over the porch....

Its crazy

The main problem with this is there is a science/natural order behind it all that hunters don't really think (or care) about.

The reason that hunting worked historically (not just humans hunting animals, but also animals hunting animals) is because until recently (past 100 years or so, which is recent in biological terms) there was a physical challenge to the hunt. The weak got picked off while the strong got away. The strong reproduced and the population (in general) remained strong and survived.

The problem is that within the past 100 years advancements in human weaponry have rendered the way that biological selection has worked for millions of years no more, which has a terrible impact on the overall health of a herd (and eventually a species). Guns have advanced the point that the physical prowess that it once took to take down an animal is out the window. And both the strongest and weakest are equally easy to take out.

Unfortunately, the strongest and biggest are the trophies, which isn't helping either. Thus weakening the herd, then the species.

Hunters qualified to lead a wildlife board? Give me break.

a reply to: okrian

you are correct that our weaponry greatly increased while not much changed for the game animals in a positive way.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It is very easy to get biltong jerky just not straight from s.a.

ebay

a reply to: okrian

The main problem with this is there is a science/natural order behind it all that hunters don't really think (or care) about.

Hunters lead conservation.

They have successfully done so for decades.

I stopped reading after this sentence because it is obvious you've never even stepped foot outside of your urban jungle.

Another person whining about something he/she/it doesn't know a damned thing about.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: okrian

The main problem with this is there is a science/natural order behind it all that hunters don't really think (or care) about.

Hunters lead conservation.

They have successfully done so for decades.

I stopped reading after this sentence because it is obvious you've never even stepped foot outside of your urban jungle.

Another person whining about something he/she/it doesn't know a damned thing about.

in the usa for the most part yes but in the areas of big game it is a different story

the thread is about those areas where conservation funds and techniques are being usurped due to lack of control and power

over and over that is the disconnect i see when conservationist from the usa spout things that do not relate to the areas where extinction is closer than other areas.

you have to have a solid foundation in place before we can successfully implement the methods used in the usa to combat the dwindling numbers of herds.

throw all the money you want at the problem but it will be squandered by the criminals until the corruption is weeded out.

Since we have so many highly functioning conservation hunters out there i have a question for you all.

With the dwindling elephant populations out there what is the number of elephants that should be harvested this year in order to reverse to thinning herds? Overall speaking in s.a.

By all means please include any factors that come into play when arriving at your kill rate.

If you have more time you could also take a look at other species that are in regression overall.

This info is vitally important to mankind.

What techniques should be expounded or created in order to get to a point where we can successfully turn the numbers around so we can get to a point of return for the species that are in need?

points of addressment

ivory trade
poaching
dwindling refugee areas
lack of power for wardens down there
lack of control for conservation funds
please feel free to add any more i missed

I have a suggestion myself.

The animals for sale at the game ranches down there with positive herds could be purchased now and released into other negative areas where proper protections by wardens are in place. That is lieu of killing the current animals that are on the hunters market.

originally posted by: projectvxn

Hunters lead conservation.

They have successfully done so for decades.

I stopped reading after this sentence because it is obvious you've never even stepped foot outside of your urban jungle.

Another person whining about something he/she/it doesn't know a damned thing about.

So a blanket statement without any facts, incorrect assumptions, and an admission that you are responding to a post without reading it? Noted, about you here and for the future. Good luck with that whole dialogue (or credibility) thing.