Hunters Conserve Wildlife - Intelligence Squared US

Vote
Comment

Sort comments by

Newest

Upvotes

IQ2

Edgar Mkhitaryan

11 October 2020 - 13:15 PM

I think that hunting, especially in Africa, is a much broader issue that cannot be discussed without the direct participation of people who live in Africa. And even within Africa,…

I think that hunting, especially in Africa, is a much broader issue that cannot be discussed without the direct participation of people who live in Africa. And even within Africa, each country is different, so one would have to look at each country, its laws, corruption levels, etc. Sadly, I don't think the audience was provided with sufficient information, such as Namibia, a country where hunting is legal, but wildlife is managed by communities and not by the government directly. There is a much lower incidence of poaching and greater national pride in the country's natural resources.

Read more Read less

IQ2

Jayden Hawkins

6 December 2018 - 21:20 PM

Your mom

Read less

IQ2

H Muns

7 January 2017 - 15:20 PM

Reviewing the results of this debate.... wow. All I can say is wow. The animals are running the zoo. Literally.

Read more Read less

IQ2

peyton keppler

8 December 2016 - 18:25 PM

i am a hunter myself and hunting the weak on my property has brought the big bucks back and now my hunting ground is full of 10 point or more…

i am a hunter myself and hunting the weak on my property has brought the big bucks back and now my hunting ground is full of 10 point or more bucks

Read more Read less

IQ2

24 June 2016 - 04:30 AM

On 2016-06-24 00:30:29, Louis White wrote:
Both sides presented valid arguments. However, the argument for the motion presented an objective, global perspective while the argument against focused on trophy hunting, specifically elite trophy hunting. Adam Roberts, who garnered the majority of "heart-felt" applause, anthropomorphized heavily, playing on the emotional aspects of big game elitist trophy hunting by targeting the "blood thirsty" hunter and opening with his severe, "Daddy bull won't be coming home tonight", which successfully set the ambiance for his rhetoric (rant). This wasn't a debate so much as a sales pitch, by both sides, but especially the argument against the motion with their eulogy-esque drama. I'm a hunter who hasn't hunted for decades, by choice, but I still apply for the license to do so and for bonus points in Big Game drawings ... exactly because it contributes to the conservation effort. There are numerous studies and reports that demonstrate the positive, conservation aspect of hunting. There are numerous conservation advocates and groups that speak out in favor of hunting. There are numerous reports on the detrimental outcomes of curtailing hunting to "preserve" game, that result in the cherished animals starving or decimating a habitat area or other wildlife or adversely impacting a human populations. The debate's final results reflect the ideology of the audience, the premonition of which can be seen at the debate's opening. The online results reveal a loudly dissenting opinion.

Read more Read less

IQ2

20 June 2016 - 21:37 PM

On 2016-06-20 17:37:45, Jayson Thomas wrote:I have never hunted in my life and don't think I will be a hunter. However, I support the hunter side. This is like freedom…

On 2016-06-20 17:37:45, Jayson Thomas wrote:
I have never hunted in my life and don't think I will be a hunter. However, I support the hunter side. This is like freedom of religion. We all share the earth. It is free game since life exist. Human came to today from killing other life (plants have life too). Everyone has their favorite food, favorite art, favorite pets and, more importantly, their own way to live. We work for the companies in the city, where we may get our paycheck and buy food. Should this be the only way to earn a living? No, someone can still live the old-fashioned way: hunting for a living. You may like to watch movie in your free time for enjoyment. Should that be the only way to spent your free time? It is a free game. When we talk about other top food chain animals killing an old/sick animal is important because it is a way to conserve the species, why should human killing is wrong? It is the same thing to that specie in fact. 1 animal died is 1 animal die. Who killed it makes no change to it at all. If you like to protect them, you should have the freedom to do so. No one will force you to kill. However, if people likes to hunt, we should not force them not too. It is not your business. It is a free game. You have not ownership of that animal. If you want to protect it, buy the land and keep them inside. Then, people will not hunt those because they are yours. Forcing people not to hunt the animal you don't own is the same as if one tried to own those animals without paying for it.

Read more Read less

IQ2

14 June 2016 - 18:38 PM

On 2016-06-14 14:38:57, Simon Williamson wrote:Its a shame the need to control elephant populations was not brought up. The Animal Rights experiment to ban culling in such places as the…

On 2016-06-14 14:38:57, Simon Williamson wrote:
Its a shame the need to control elephant populations was not brought up. The Animal Rights experiment to ban culling in such places as the Kruger has proved to be an environmental disaster leading to starvation of elephants, huge degradation of habitat and danger to local survival of less robust species. Therefore if it is necessary to cull elephants (which now even the AR scientist advisors of Kruger are admitting) how can sport hunting of excess numbers be incorrect. Hunting of excess populations helps protect habitats regardless of money raised.

Read more Read less

IQ2

24 May 2016 - 07:34 AM

On 2016-05-24 03:34:57, Nancy wrote:I'm only talking about the great USA because we have great controls here and have no control outside of our borders. Hunters are necessary. Without them…

On 2016-05-24 03:34:57, Nancy wrote:
I'm only talking about the great USA because we have great controls here and have no control outside of our borders. Hunters are necessary. Without them the natural order would be a feast and famine of animal populations. They would over breed and then die off due to starvation, disease, etc... Hunters cull the herds and keep them healthy and at the right level for the rest of us to enjoy.

Read more Read less

IQ2

23 May 2016 - 22:29 PM

On 2016-05-23 18:29:15, PoppaTBone wrote:I have hunted for over 50 years and over that time period, I have at times struggled with my choice. To take a life is no…

On 2016-05-23 18:29:15, PoppaTBone wrote:
I have hunted for over 50 years and over that time period, I have at times struggled with my choice. To take a life is no small matter. The conundrum is that ALL life, plant and animal is sacred. I prefer to eat food that I have a direct relationship with; consequently I garden, forage, fish and hunt. The green peas we strip out of a pea shell are undeveloped seeds or carriers of genetic material for future generations. Our stripping them is a direct act of killing. And when I pull a carrot from its earthen nursery, I then chop and mutilate it. My point is that humans cannot survive without taking a life. I totally support banning all lead shot and bullets from the sport. I also will not use any game cameras, electronics such as depth finders and fish graphs for my pursuits and I abhor any poaching or unethical practices of hunting. I believe a greater threat to the integrity of natural systems on our planet is human overpopulation. Oceans, wild lands and the quality of farmlands and our atmosphere are at risk by the "success" of human numbers.

Read more Read less

IQ2

22 May 2016 - 03:20 AM

I often wonder why some people dismiss emotion as unimportant in debates like this. Those same people would most likely assume humans are superior to other species because humans are…

I often wonder why some people dismiss emotion as unimportant in debates like this. Those same people would most likely assume humans are superior to other species because humans are capable of emotions such as compassion and empathy, emotions that other species are incapable of feeling (except we now know that many other species ARE capable of feeling those emotions). Perhaps we should have a debate about human emotions.

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 May 2016 - 16:25 PM

On 2016-05-21 12:25:58, Michele Jankelow wrote:
I found this debate to be highly informative inasmuch as the "for" arguments have clearly no understanding or knowledge of the corruption and manipulation of money and using wildlife for its own greed sake in African countries. Of course there are countries who may be responsible but they are few and far between. The corruption and mismanagement of wildlife is beyond tragic and devastating. All credit to Wayne Pacelle and Adam Roberts who are informed, educated and knowledgeable of what takes place out there. To rely on scientific assessment in all its forms whether manipulated or not always proving to be unreliable. Friends in high and influential places seems to be the order condoning hunting. The US FWS should be disbanded for its mismanagement and corruption. Wildlife manages itself superbly in its own environment. Leave the animals alone and let them live their lives, educate their young and survive as nature intended. There are millions of people in the world violating space and we do not go out and hunt them as this would be murder! Surely what we are doing to wildlife is nothing short of "legalized" murder!

Read more Read less

IQ2

12 May 2016 - 21:55 PM

On 2016-05-12 17:55:46, Andrew wrote:Morally, I believe hunting for sport is wrong. However, sport hunting has, overall, done more to benefit ecosystems than it has hurt them. Given our current…

On 2016-05-12 17:55:46, Andrew wrote:
Morally, I believe hunting for sport is wrong. However, sport hunting has, overall, done more to benefit ecosystems than it has hurt them. Given our current willingness to invest in the environment, taking away hunting will only do harm. I think we are in a place where we must, unfortunately, support the motion.

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 May 2016 - 21:28 PM

If anyone saw David Attenborough on his 90 year birthday show just aired in UK, you will have seen someone revered around the world who truly is for the wild…

If anyone saw David Attenborough on his 90 year birthday show just aired in UK, you will have seen someone revered around the world who truly is for the wild animals. A Conservationist in every sense of the word. He factually states our species is over breeding the earth.We do not have breeding seasons like many animals, so constantly can reproduce. He states we have a responsibility towards every living creature and I personally care less whether people think the debate achieved the right outcome or not - the facts stand testimony to the decline in numbers of wild animals and that trophy hunting has played a significant part. Until a Universal Law of Animal Protection of our wild animals is in place, seemingly killing will continue and each one of us loses our birthright - to be able to enjoy other creatures God put on the earth.

Read more Read less

IQ2

11 May 2016 - 03:44 AM

On 2016-05-10 23:44:29, Patricia T wrote:
Disappointing. Hunting, especially in Africa, is a much broader issue that cannot be discussed without the direct participation of people who actually live in Africa. And even within Africa, each country is different, so one would have to look a each country, its laws, corruption levels, etc. Sadly, I don't think the audience was provided with sufficient information, such as the fact that Namibia, a country where hunting is legal but wildlife is managed by communities and not by the government directly, there is a much lower incidence of poaching and a much higher national pride in the country's natural resources.

Read more Read less

IQ2

10 May 2016 - 22:21 PM

On 2016-05-10 18:21:34, john wrote:What I found interesting in this debate is that those favoring hunting as a conservation tool provided solid data and case studies to support their argument…

On 2016-05-10 18:21:34, john wrote:
What I found interesting in this debate is that those favoring hunting as a conservation tool provided solid data and case studies to support their argument - indeed the success of Coutada 11 in Mozambique can be described as nothing but a conservation success story. The against hunting team neither provided a single case study to highlight a real (not anecdotal) "conservation success story" where the banning of hunting was the initiating factor in the conservation success nor did they really touch on, or seem to grasp some of the major issues affecting wildlife in Africa... I could see both of you really struggled to stick to the "conservation" question and keep your own personal views on hunters and hunting out of the debate; and I thank John for being quite strict with this. Adam, in particular, continued to harp on about how corrupt Tanzania and Zimbabwe are and how Trophy Hunting is the cause of the decline in lion populations in Africa - So I am curious to know why it is that since Kenya banned trophy hunting in 1977 this has happened... ...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/26/africas-most-iconic-predator-the-lion-is-declining-almost-everywhere/ "Laurence Frank, a lion conservation expert and associate research zoologist at the University of California – Berkeley who was not involved with the study, said the news is not that surprising to him. “The paper is yet more confirmation of what we’ve known for a long time,” said Frank, who has worked in wildlife conservation in East Africa, mostly Kenya, for decades. “There are very good aerial count data for Kenyan wildlife starting in 1977, and as of 10 years ago, those wildlife counts indicated a 70 percent decline between 1977 and, say, 2007.” Frank also noted that even in protected areas in the region, which tend to be rather small to begin with, lion populations have experienced declines, suggesting that better management techniques are needed. I noticed on their website that the Born Free Foundation do a lot of work in Kenya - so it surprises me that Adam didn't have a few really good case studies of successful conservation initiatives that his organisation has been involved in there? Success on a par with say Coutada 11 or the Bubaye Valley Conservancy in Zimbabwe where lion numbers have increased from 27 to over 500 since the mid 1990's... http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/25/culling-to-conserve-a-hard-truth-for-lion-conservation/ And despite his patronizing comments about Tanzania and Zimbabwe, isn't it strange that Tanzania and Zimbabwe have far more land set aside for wildlife than Kenya and Rwanda - who as Adam states "banned hunting"... Plus - who is Lawrence Frank anyways - I am sure you have your own "scientists" too... What really got to me though was the patronizing tone from both Wayne and Adam on how Africa should manage its wildlife. Wayne - just because "The US Fish and Wildlife" banned elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe and Tanzania still doesn't support your argument that hunting contributes nothing to conservation. And really at the crux of the matter lies the question is the "US Fish and Wildlife Service" really your best benchmark for conservation success in varying sovereign African nations?

Read more Read less

IQ2

10 May 2016 - 07:00 AM

On 2016-05-10 03:00:21, Patrick Snorezing wrote:No. Killing wildlife does not contribute to conservation. There are far better ways of dealing with overpopulation of any species in the world.

On 2016-05-10 03:00:21, Patrick Snorezing wrote:
No. Killing wildlife does not contribute to conservation. There are far better ways of dealing with overpopulation of any species in the world.

Read more Read less

IQ2

8 May 2016 - 09:47 AM

On 2016-05-08 05:47:53, Daniel wrote:The large undecided pre-debate vote seems contrived to me as this is such a polarizing topic, especially for someone who would go out of their way…

On 2016-05-08 05:47:53, Daniel wrote:
The large undecided pre-debate vote seems contrived to me as this is such a polarizing topic, especially for someone who would go out of their way to attend the event. I believe the audience was already decided against the motion and strategically went from undecided to against in order to advance their agenda as the results of these debates have become far-reaching.

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2016 - 22:28 PM

I find the outcome of this debate very confusing. First, the motion being debated, as I understand it, was simply that hunters help to conserve wildlife. The motion was not…

I find the outcome of this debate very confusing. First, the motion being debated, as I understand it, was simply that hunters help to conserve wildlife. The motion was not that hunters are the only people who conserve wildlife, but that they help. This was even commented on by the side arguing for the motion that said there should be other ground helping to conserve wildlife. That being said given the dollar amounts, studies by the WWF, state agencies and US Fish and Wildlife that were presented. In comparison it appeared that the side arguing against provided only emotional arguments and the argument that 2 species, elephants and lions, should not be hunted. I don't understand how the idea that 2 species shouldn't be hunted equates to hunters do not help to conserve wildlife. Given the data presented by the for the motion side I find that objectively speaking hunter's do in fact contribute to conservation. If someone had a different understanding of the science presented, not the moral/ethical debate the opposition made, I would like to hear more. Second, and this was the point when I assumed the debate was over was when the opposition actually made the argument trying to undermine science all together. The argument was that there were scientists that said smoking was good for you, and the scientists the government, WWF, state agencies, etc. are all involved in some elaborate conspiracy to promote hunting, and the only scientists that can be trusted are the ones employed by their personal private organization. This seems like the oil companies saying that the only scientists that understand climate change are the ones they employ who conveniently claim climate change doesn't exist. The side arguing against "hunters conserve wildlife" were making identical arguments the ones made against climate change. I just don't understand the rational for rejecting the scientific consensus in this case. Again the side against did seem to make a solid argument emotionally, however their assentation that hunters do not help wildlife conservation efforts, based on this debate, would seem to be categorically untrue.

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2016 - 17:54 PM

On 2016-05-07 13:54:09, Jeanne wrote:Anthony Licata's statement that there are 37 million hunters in the U.S. just didn't sound right to me, so I checked: According to the USFWS, there…

On 2016-05-07 13:54:09, Jeanne wrote:
Anthony Licata's statement that there are 37 million hunters in the U.S. just didn't sound right to me, so I checked: According to the USFWS, there are 13.7 million hunters in the U.S., NOT 37 million! BIG difference!!!

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2016 - 13:52 PM

to Don, many of these 'scientific facts' come from orgs or people who have an interest in hunting, USFWS, IUCN, WWF;;; many scientists are being paid or funded by hunting…

to Don, many of these 'scientific facts' come from orgs or people who have an interest in hunting, USFWS, IUCN, WWF;;; many scientists are being paid or funded by hunting organisations such as Panthera or SCI; Most of these so-called scientific reports are biased.or just plain corrupted. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985432

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2016 - 08:20 AM

On 2016-05-07 04:20:23, Steven Childs wrote:I'll have to agree with Don. The pro hunting side provided facts to support their position. Wayne Pacelle and the gentleman from Defenders of Wildlife…

On 2016-05-07 04:20:23, Steven Childs wrote:
I'll have to agree with Don. The pro hunting side provided facts to support their position. Wayne Pacelle and the gentleman from Defenders of Wildlife just kept spewing rhetoric. The frustrating part is how biologists who should be speaking up don't. I can't say I blame them. They have been intimidated and bullied by the uninformed. Anyone paying attention should think about why the hunting side says there is room for multiple types of conservation. The other side wants hunting to go away and could care less about the consequences.

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2016 - 07:02 AM

"Don", about them sharing overarching facts, pointed to broad based scientific consensus, and stuck primarily to addressing the motion..They "showed" no proof. What proof that is very visible is, the numbers themselves..Lions, leopards, elephants, cape buffalo, rhinos giraffes among a few numbers are plummeting to record lows. How does killing more of these endangered species save them? You're just dropping those dangerous numbers towards disaster...You're paying farmland owners money so they can keep their killing grounds. That is the only conservation you're contributing to... Polar bears are heading towards extinction and not just loss of habitat and global warming, they're throwing trophy hunting into it as well, and believe it or not, all 3 are the fault of the human beings. We just can't afford to kill anymore of them..How can you not see that. On the emotional side of it, sure, it's very emotional. Thousands of years, thousands of animals gone for the pleasure of men and women. Now you want to send these animals to join them all for the sake of ego and dormancy of a large beautiful, exotic and dangerous animal. Seems that hunters don't give a shit because they'll have a reminder of them on their walls and floors, "where ever and how much of the animal was stolen"... I have grown up knowing these animals and I don't want to see them go, I'm sorry if the debate let you down. No animal should have to lose its life for human pleasure and it's nothing less. I doubt very much that you would pay to kill an animal you couldn't take it home. "Dale", You've been the only hunter who was willing to lay down your guns. I know you probably purchased a lot of land for hunting profit and I feel for those like you who are at a loss. But you can do something profitable with your land...You can build non hunting safari lodges and parks on your land along with countless ideas. Studies have found that African countries profit more from tourists, photographers, journalists and researcher than trophy hunting. It's a start. Maybe I'm flying a bit over head but there has to something you can do with your land. Just an idea...I am totally against trophy hunting but I sincerely hope for you, there will be good things to come.

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2016 - 06:49 AM

On 2016-05-07 02:49:31, Kelly Carson wrote:Dale: why does the world owe you a living? We all lose our incomes for one reason or another. Plants shut down, companies down-size, products…

On 2016-05-07 02:49:31, Kelly Carson wrote:
Dale: why does the world owe you a living? We all lose our incomes for one reason or another. Plants shut down, companies down-size, products cease to sell. Those of us who survive use our ingenuity and/or re-train. Why would your municipal/regional/federal government use tax dollars to subsidize your particular dying business? "Friday, 06 May 2016 05:13 posted by Dale Okay People I am a hunter and own a safari company in Africa . I will stop hunting these creatures however can you all , seeing that you have the answers and put you money where your mouth is and fully fund the concessions I own , I need money to live , do anti poaching payment to landowners etc , which organization can I send my account details to? I truly look forward to hearing from you"

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2016 - 04:17 AM

These lies are the basis of their qualification as “charity organizations” which justify their 501 (c) “Non-profit” status. Preferentially reduced taxation and receiving of “donations” is one major mechanism for fund generation. This should be identified as fraudulent and addressed. The origins of “African corruption” are firmly rooted in Washington DC, Ottawa, London, Brussels and Beijing. Everything downstream of the CONFLICT OF INTEREST, is necessarily complicit. Traditional CONservation is dependent on funds and grants that are already tainted by hunter influence. This is why for example we see traditional CONservation organizations supporting hunting in Namibia and elsewhere.

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2016 - 04:04 AM

I could not believe how often praise was directed at USFWS for having such capable "scientists". The head of USFWS is a hunter as are all his cronies throughout the…

I could not believe how often praise was directed at USFWS for having such capable "scientists". The head of USFWS is a hunter as are all his cronies throughout the buildings. The level of corruption is at teh Safari Club International / Dallas Safari Club / USFWS level, and the corruptions trickles down from there. There needs to be systematic removal of hunters from conservation organizations.

Read more Read less

IQ2

7 May 2016 - 00:39 AM

On 2016-05-06 20:39:04, nimrod30 wrote:If it were not for the skin of hunted animals, Europeans would not have survived the Dark Ages. I do not support hunting for sport, however,…

On 2016-05-06 20:39:04, nimrod30 wrote:
If it were not for the skin of hunted animals, Europeans would not have survived the Dark Ages. I do not support hunting for sport, however, we as human beings are the apex predator. I would rather hunt an animal, than see a human being starve.

Read more Read less

IQ2

6 May 2016 - 19:47 PM

On 2016-05-06 15:47:30, Don wrote:As someone who listened to this debate purely out of curiosity and without being predisposed to a side, I must say that from a debate perspective,…

On 2016-05-06 15:47:30, Don wrote:
As someone who listened to this debate purely out of curiosity and without being predisposed to a side, I must say that from a debate perspective, the pro hunting side was far far more substantive. They shared overarching facts, pointed to broad based scientific consensus, and stuck primarily to addressing the motion. The against side utilized emotional appeals continuously, equivocated between the clearly defined sport hunting which was being discussed and illegal poaching, and strawmanned the heck out of the pro side. Adam Roberts was particularly guilty of such sophistry and primarily relied on rhetorical flourishes while sidestepping the real issues (such as the apparent positions of the major conservation groups on the motion).

Read more Read less

IQ2

6 May 2016 - 17:45 PM

On 2016-05-06 13:45:14, Peter Ross wrote:Hallelujah! No brainer! Of course killing wildlife doesn't conserve it. DUH!

On 2016-05-06 13:45:14, Peter Ross wrote:
Hallelujah! No brainer! Of course killing wildlife doesn't conserve it. DUH!

Read more Read less

IQ2

6 May 2016 - 13:13 PM

On 2016-05-06 09:13:21, Dale wrote:Okay People I am a hunter and own a safari company in Africa . I will stop hunting these creatures however can you all , seeing…

On 2016-05-06 09:13:21, Dale wrote:
Okay People I am a hunter and own a safari company in Africa . I will stop hunting these creatures however can you all , seeing that you have the answers and put you money where your mouth is and fully fund the concessions I own , I need money to live , do anti poaching payment to landowners etc , which organization can I send my account details to? I truly look forward to hearing from you

Read more Read less

IQ2

6 May 2016 - 04:27 AM

Right on the money...You don't have to kill the animal to contribute to conservation, just give them the money. Keep conservation beautiful without the blood shed. If you can't see…

Right on the money...You don't have to kill the animal to contribute to conservation, just give them the money. Keep conservation beautiful without the blood shed. If you can't see eye to eye on this then it's obvious to me that the main goal here is the Trophy you so yearned for.

Read more Read less

IQ2

6 May 2016 - 00:25 AM

On 2016-05-05 20:25:41, dotstaraj wrote:
To those posting links to humanewatch.org, can you please stop sharing content from a "Center for Consumer Freedom" website, an entity funded by the tobacco, alcohol, meat, and fast food industries? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom To those saying "hunting licenses, stamps, public draws, park passes, ammunition sales, fire arm sales, ALL contribute to habitat and species conservation", you need an education in over-simplification of the facts, and where that money is actually going, what it's actually funding, and percentage of it truly ends up going to conservation efforts at all. This 27 minute video from a vegan youtuber breaks it down, with legitimate sources and all. Before dismissing the video as vegan propaganda, it would do you well to actually watch it, if you are really concerned about conservation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0-0xDvIW6I If hunter's true concern was conservation, the actual bullet in the animal is unnecessary. The money paid for the hunt could simply be paid for shooting pictures of the animal, instead of shooting bullets at it. So yes, I reiterate the point that hunters do it for the pleasure and rush and thrill of killing an innocent animal, with conservation as a rationalization to do it.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 20:09 PM

On 2016-05-05 16:09:27, Karen Franzi wrote:
Reform state wildlife 'management' agencies and commissions to be managed by real conservationists who understand the value of ALL species to the community of life. Let them decide if a particular species in a particular zone should be open to limited hunting and stop allowing open season on wildlife that humans have determined to be "varmints". Anyone who thinks that animals such as coyotes are less worthy than 'game' animals is supremely ignorant in my estimation. All species are important, worthy of respect and a right to Life.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 19:59 PM

On 2016-05-05 15:59:21, A. Balogh wrote:In response to Peter Garvin, here's THE ANSWER; Instead of hunters voluntarily paying many thousands of dollars to murder the animals, let them pay to…

On 2016-05-05 15:59:21, A. Balogh wrote:
In response to Peter Garvin, here's THE ANSWER; Instead of hunters voluntarily paying many thousands of dollars to murder the animals, let them pay to voluntarily patrol the parks and habitat to protect the animals and habitat from poachers and others who encroach on it. Problem solved. If the hunters truly loved the wildlife and the wild places THAT is what they would do!

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 19:32 PM

On 2016-05-05 15:32:08, Jeff wrote:It's pretty obvious to me after reading many of the supporting articles that those "experts" against hunting rarely, if ever, use any real data from conservation…

On 2016-05-05 15:32:08, Jeff wrote:
It's pretty obvious to me after reading many of the supporting articles that those "experts" against hunting rarely, if ever, use any real data from conservation groups. They pull at heart strings and make emotional arguments but never cite any scientific data. The pro-hunting experts actually use data to back up their claims. This is typical of liberal and hippie elitists, they feel they know better than everyone else regardless of what the evidence shows or the real affected parties want. They consider themselves a victim of some fantasy crime.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 18:56 PM

On 2016-05-05 14:56:55, william huard wrote:
Let's be clear here-Pacelle and Roberts clearly had a more compelling argument. Pacelle summarized nicely when he made everyone aware of how the pro- hunting fake conservationists oppose banning lead ammo and the protection of predators from sport hunting.... Hunters are the true ANTIS- against every animal welfare piece of legislation like banning predator killing contests, hounding, or trapping with the use of bait...Right now- even with a 6 month hunting season- Montana Fish wildlife and Parks is considering increasing the quota of Yellowstone wolves available for sport hunting opportunity! People want wolves protected by large margins. Hunters are for the most part ecologically illiterate- and, you have no one to blame but yourselves as you allow the NRA, RMEF, and the canned hunters in Safari Club to lead you right off a cliff...

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 18:53 PM

I am very pleased at the outcome of this debate. Really should have been a landslide win. The fact that this is a debate at all is ridiculous and only…

I am very pleased at the outcome of this debate. Really should have been a landslide win. The fact that this is a debate at all is ridiculous and only due to the gun loving bully culture that prevails in the western world among the priveleged. Trophy hunting should have been banned decades ago. And to those trophy killers that say that hunting is the only thing bringing in money, I promise you that I will work for the rest of my life to help save animals, not only here, but in Africa as well, because African lions are my focal point and I am committed to saving them, protecting and maintaining habitat and mitigating human/lion conflict. My money goes where my mouth does. Hunting DOES NOT conserve wildlife, never did, never will. Killing is NOT conservation. Let's evolve now.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 17:28 PM

On 2016-05-05 13:28:26, Maria Clara wrote:Stop this cruelty!!

On 2016-05-05 13:28:26, Maria Clara wrote:
Stop this cruelty!!

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 16:25 PM

On 2016-05-05 12:25:47, Peter Garvin wrote:A debate like this definitely brings a lot of "experts" out in the open! Sadly most are seriously misinformed or driven purely by emotions which…

On 2016-05-05 12:25:47, Peter Garvin wrote:
A debate like this definitely brings a lot of "experts" out in the open! Sadly most are seriously misinformed or driven purely by emotions which never really deals with the problem. The big question is - if hunting areas are banned how do we ensure the survival of these areas? In Zimbabwe alone, there is over 10.5 million hectares of land set aside for wildlife conservation. Of this, almost 8 million hectares (75%), is used for hunting purposes. Conservation is not just about preserving the large animals but must include eveything, from the smallest plant and insect to the largest animal. If these areas are no longer used for hunting - what then? How do we provide the income to ensure continued conservation of these areas? Attempts have been made to initiate non-consumptive operations such as photographic safari camps in these areas but most have failed. So what's the answer??? A SOLUTION is required, not just emotional rhetoric.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 14:57 PM

On 2016-05-05 10:57:00, BRIAN GAISFORD wrote:This debate came about because of Cecil. A 100% illegal kill for fun. 13 other lion were killed in the same area all illegal kills…

On 2016-05-05 10:57:00, BRIAN GAISFORD wrote:
This debate came about because of Cecil. A 100% illegal kill for fun. 13 other lion were killed in the same area all illegal kills and all by US killers.I bet not one $ even saw Africa. How is this helping conservation. The issue of lion CANNED hunting is the most disgusting of all. 6000 are in small cages in S Africa and then released when the US killer come to town. There is no place in Africa where lion are hunted.They are killed over bait, call up audio speakers are used to call lion out of protected parks and shot in CANNED enclosures. Dogs are used to chase leopard into a corner or up a tree and shot. Is this hunting?

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 14:10 PM

On 2016-05-05 10:10:04, Gillian wrote:Hunters choose the best animal to kill, not the weak, the sick or the old like predators do. They massacre beyond a sustainable number, killing an…

On 2016-05-05 10:10:04, Gillian wrote:
Hunters choose the best animal to kill, not the weak, the sick or the old like predators do. They massacre beyond a sustainable number, killing an alpha wolf thereby leaving packs in disarray and often unable to raise pups. A very good example is Cecil, one of the two pride leaders who protect the pride. Also, part of a project which has devalued the data received and may well allow the cubs to be killed by new incoming males. Predators also have an affect on the environment How Wolves Change Rivers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q Finally, ALL wildife is being exterminated and dying. Hunters are just helping species like the Red Wolf, the Florida Panther etc to get there earlier rather than protecting them. This is from WWF Just to illustrate the degree of biodiversity loss we're facing, let’s take you through one scientific analysis... The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.* These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year. If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true - i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet** - then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year. But if the upper estimate of species numbers is true - that there are 100 million different species co-existing with us on our planet - then between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year. *Experts actually call this natural extinction rate the background extinction rate. This simply means the rate of species extinctions that would occur if we humans were not around. ** Between 1.4 and 1.8 million species have already been scientifically identified.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 11:44 AM

On 2016-05-05 07:44:58, Nigel M wrote:In reply to John C below, you conveniently forget to mention that the species you refer to were brought to the verge of extinction by…

On 2016-05-05 07:44:58, Nigel M wrote:
In reply to John C below, you conveniently forget to mention that the species you refer to were brought to the verge of extinction by hunters in the first place. For hunters to now claim they have saved them is akin to me deliberately shooting you then taking you to hospital, saving your life, and claiming I'm a hero for doing it.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 08:31 AM

On 2016-05-05 04:31:52, Alex Brown wrote:
Non-hunters foot most of the conservation bill in form of preserving the habitats. The puny license fees and Pittman-Robertson tax could barely pay for anything. Funny that hunters list a few species supposedly saved from extinction because of hunters' efforts, but conveniently leave out a whole lot of species that went or almost went extinct because of hunting (American crocodile, wolves, just to give couple of examples). We had to beg Canada for some wolves. Mother Nature doesn't need your help, hunters. She was doing just fine until you messed up.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 08:25 AM

On 2016-05-05 04:25:15, Laura wrote:Leave the wildlife alone. What have the sentient beings done to humans? Nothing! All they want is food and freedom just like humans.

On 2016-05-05 04:25:15, Laura wrote:
Leave the wildlife alone. What have the sentient beings done to humans? Nothing! All they want is food and freedom just like humans.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 07:38 AM

On 2016-05-05 03:38:38, Brent wrote:The ignorance of the non hunters is shocking, as evidenced in your comments. Habitat loss (you living in a city) is the number one killer of…

On 2016-05-05 03:38:38, Brent wrote:
The ignorance of the non hunters is shocking, as evidenced in your comments. Habitat loss (you living in a city) is the number one killer of animals and species. That's you NYC. To the lady that had to move her vacation, they post hunting dates for public land use. Honestly. I plan my Hunts a minimum of 6 months in advance. You can't be bothered? To the guy that thinks hunters just do it because it feels good with no mind to conservation, your position is simply foolish and extremely ignorant. Hunting licenses, stamps, public draws, park passes, ammunition sales, fire arm sales, ALL contribute to habitat and species conservation. I'm pretty sure latte sales do not. Simply put, habitat loss kills. If you live in what was once a natural habitat, you kill species.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 07:14 AM

On 2016-05-05 03:14:22, dotstaraj wrote:
In some many ways, a hunter's claim that he hunts for conservation sounds like a rapist saying he rapes for procreation. Both are equally ridiculous rationalizations for an inherently hedonistic act. Poachers and hunters both are a threat to true conservation. The difference is that in one the government gets the money from the kill to do with it whatever it pleases with that money, and in the other the poacher gets the money. At the end of the day, it's all about killing, or "allowing" to kill, for money. The so-called "conservation" hunters claim to support is actually just breeding carried out by governments just so hunters can continue to hunt, that is all that is being ensured here.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 06:28 AM

The fact of the matter is, most of the earth's dry-land surface is and should be needed for man to live on. And animals which aren't below us in the…

The fact of the matter is, most of the earth's dry-land surface is and should be needed for man to live on. And animals which aren't below us in the food chain don't need to exist -- especially the large predators which are dangerous to man. They ought not exist outside of cages, and certainly never in populated areas. If we don't let people hunt them, then sooner or later we'll need to send Animal Control (or illegal hunters) to exterminate them before they kill more humans.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 06:03 AM

On 2016-05-05 02:03:13, Mark Wader wrote:One side's argument is all about themselves, their sport, their history, their enjoyment of killing. The other is all about, well, NOT themselves at all.…

On 2016-05-05 02:03:13, Mark Wader wrote:
One side's argument is all about themselves, their sport, their history, their enjoyment of killing. The other is all about, well, NOT themselves at all. Kind of makes the latter's side look a whole lot more evolved as humans, doesn't it? Is a human who doesn't kill and/or eat other beings or exploit them a better human being than someone who does? Or is that just too taboo for us to accept yet. We may declare we have rights to still kill and harm animals, but we once had other rights now completely unimaginable today. We once divided humans by color and sex. Today we divide domestic animals (protected by laws, even felony) from wild ones who are killed and tortured for recreation. The day will come when we will see that as unimaginable and wrong as beating a black slave or keeping a woman from voting today is... Debate all you want. Declare it's not a matter of morals until you turn blue. The discussion is already happening and it IS a moral one.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 05:25 AM

On 2016-05-05 01:25:07, sally palmer wrote:It is utterly impossible to be killing elephants in such large quantities and be conserving them at the same time. I guess the only way…

On 2016-05-05 01:25:07, sally palmer wrote:
It is utterly impossible to be killing elephants in such large quantities and be conserving them at the same time. I guess the only way it will be proven that you can't do this is when the world's entire population of elephants in the wild vanishes as a result of hunter conservation. Really, trophy hunters sell this nonsense, but I know they don't buy it. They're laughing all the way to the bank, and toasting themselves beneath their hideous hunting trophies. In addition to driving them to extinction, it is well-known that animals have close ties, and show severe trauma from their loss. Never mind the horrendous nightmare of the hacking apart of these amazing beings while they are still alive and while others watch. It is frightening that anyone can engage in this insanely cruel behavior.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 05:11 AM

On 2016-05-05 01:11:06, Pete wrote:Hunting is hardly worthy of being considered a sport and hunters are not worthy of being called sportsmen.

On 2016-05-05 01:11:06, Pete wrote:
Hunting is hardly worthy of being considered a sport and hunters are not worthy of being called sportsmen.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 05:08 AM

On 2016-05-05 01:08:03, Maria wrote:No learn the REAL truth: http://www.whoattackshsus.org

On 2016-05-05 01:08:03, Maria wrote:
No learn the REAL truth: http://www.whoattackshsus.org

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 05:07 AM

On 2016-05-05 01:07:34, Donna Sutton wrote:I am not even going to watch this video.... Hunting is WRONG!!... I am not for it at all.. And nobody isn't going to try…

On 2016-05-05 01:07:34, Donna Sutton wrote:
I am not even going to watch this video.... Hunting is WRONG!!... I am not for it at all.. And nobody isn't going to try to change my mind or just to reason with me..We do not have no right to kill any animals... They have the right to be here, like you and I

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 04:37 AM

On 2016-05-05 00:37:05, Kaiser Sose wrote:This was my first time watching this show and I found this debate puzzling. The pro hunters shared science, facts, and figures while the opposition…

On 2016-05-05 00:37:05, Kaiser Sose wrote:
This was my first time watching this show and I found this debate puzzling. The pro hunters shared science, facts, and figures while the opposition shared only motion and rhetoric. However, the opposition won by a landslide. Good show but I question the motives of the audience.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 04:16 AM

On 2016-05-05 00:16:34, Denine wrote:What I'd like to know, what does it matter who or what or which group, etc supports or contributes to wildlife conservation? It is the job…

On 2016-05-05 00:16:34, Denine wrote:
What I'd like to know, what does it matter who or what or which group, etc supports or contributes to wildlife conservation? It is the job of every individual that we should all contribute, but those that give more, then we say thank you. But it should not make them anymore special that anyone else. The amount of money you spend shouldn't give you special privileges!

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 04:14 AM

On 2016-05-05 00:14:08, Dennis wrote:Learn more about HSUS http://www.humanewatch.org/hsus-and-co-defendants-pay-15-75-million-in-racketeering-lawsuit/

On 2016-05-05 00:14:08, Dennis wrote:
Learn more about HSUS http://www.humanewatch.org/hsus-and-co-defendants-pay-15-75-million-in-racketeering-lawsuit/

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 04:10 AM

On 2016-05-05 00:10:27, John C wrote:There are numbers and number of species that have been brought back from the edge of no return by the hunters. Addax, Scimitar horned oryx…

On 2016-05-05 00:10:27, John C wrote:
There are numbers and number of species that have been brought back from the edge of no return by the hunters. Addax, Scimitar horned oryx and many many more. Hunters spend excise taxes in the USA, and buy license. What have the anti hunters done for wildlife? NOTHING!

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 04:00 AM

On 2016-05-05 00:00:59, Holly Moloney-Shaw wrote:
Conservation is a joke. To say hunters "preserve" species is laughable. Hunters decimate animal populations as is evidenced by the pathetic few remaining elephants, rhinos, wolves, lions, tigers, etc., (too may to list here). The Florida black beat was hunted nearly to extinction. Another example: there are only about 50 red wolves left in the entire world. Where are these self-proclaimed superhero hunters? Hiding behind trees waiting to pick them off. It's not until animal advocates force the hand of the law that populations become protected again and their numbers begin to rise. Hunters have NOTHING to do with that. And the fact that the cycle perpetuates proves human intervention is never a good thing for the animals. Destroying their habitat is NOT a good excuse for killing them when they come into human contact because they have nowhere else to go. Nature does an excellent job of taking care of herself and those in her care. It is not our job to "fix" things--we only create unnatural chaos in the world.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 03:47 AM

On 2016-05-04 23:47:01, Anja Claus wrote:More discussion on the hunting debate. Does hunting make us human? http://www.humansandnature.org/does-hunting-make-us-human

On 2016-05-04 23:47:01, Anja Claus wrote:
More discussion on the hunting debate. Does hunting make us human? http://www.humansandnature.org/does-hunting-make-us-human

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 03:35 AM

On 2016-05-04 23:35:09, Lydia wrote:we have had to cut short and cancel vacations because 1) the hunting/shooting in nearby woodlands wouldn't let us rest 2) hiking was risky with hunting…

On 2016-05-04 23:35:09, Lydia wrote:
we have had to cut short and cancel vacations because 1) the hunting/shooting in nearby woodlands wouldn't let us rest 2) hiking was risky with hunting in the woods. It got so bad that we would call the Inns and homeowners at HomeAway and ask if hunting was audible from their location. In the winter, we found it impossible for anyone to guarantee us peace and quiet. This hurts not only vacationers, non-hunting travelers, but also the Inns, restaurants, shops, etc, where we could have vacationed. There is no way this can be "a workable situation", especially now that some States (Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina) offer hunting year round! Non-hunters and local economies are at a disadvantage; only the hunters benefit. We would gladly donate money towards land conservation if we can keep more hunters out and have a chance to enjoy the peace of nature again!

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 03:27 AM

On 2016-05-04 23:27:42, ds wrote:Hunters MUST be stopped - it is NOT conservation.

On 2016-05-04 23:27:42, ds wrote:
Hunters MUST be stopped - it is NOT conservation.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 02:57 AM

On 2016-05-04 22:57:06, Dennis wrote:Great explanation of Hunter vs. Poacher Catherine. Poachers are crimnals that steal from communities and destroy wildlife. Hunters pay millions to protect wildlife. Big difference.

On 2016-05-04 22:57:06, Dennis wrote:
Great explanation of Hunter vs. Poacher Catherine. Poachers are crimnals that steal from communities and destroy wildlife. Hunters pay millions to protect wildlife. Big difference.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 02:50 AM

A person who has never taken another creature's life in person does not know who s/he is or what s/he is capable of. Those who go to grocery stores and…

A person who has never taken another creature's life in person does not know who s/he is or what s/he is capable of. Those who go to grocery stores and reward commercial producers of meat and fish, but scorn others who harvest their own, are hypocrites and fools. They are the ones with no respect for the creatures they eat.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 02:49 AM

On 2016-05-04 22:49:17, mari smet wrote:First, I am AGAINST for all the reasons stated above; what's more, Second, I believe hunters LIKE to hunt because it "feels good", no more,…

On 2016-05-04 22:49:17, mari smet wrote:
First, I am AGAINST for all the reasons stated above; what's more, Second, I believe hunters LIKE to hunt because it "feels good", no more, no less -- this may come across as sophomoric, nonetheless, I believe it to be true -- It has nothing to do with conservation, etc. -- we all should enjoy life & partake in activities that bring us joy BUT, in this case, the LIVES of animals are at risk -- our eco-system is at risk -- animals are paying a huge price, with their lives, for our enjoyment -- what hunters NOW need to do is to get their "feel good" jollies some other way -- e.g., why not shoot FAKE animals, or the like? -- will that bring hunters some comfort?! -- Someone MUST be the voice of animals -- they have every right to live their lives -- if questions of population management, etc., arise, we will resolve issues in a non-lethal, humane manner where no one gets slaughtered nor murdered.

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 02:40 AM

On 2016-05-04 22:40:28, Adam Ward wrote:would you rather the state or federal government spend your money to cull, or in the anti's words "murder" animals whose populations we've disrupted, or…

On 2016-05-04 22:40:28, Adam Ward wrote:
would you rather the state or federal government spend your money to cull, or in the anti's words "murder" animals whose populations we've disrupted, or allow the people to buy one of a set number (quota) of hunting licenses to experience the tradition of harvesting whatever beautiful and delicious creature is being regulated and generate revenue for their conservation?

Read more Read less

IQ2

5 May 2016 - 02:19 AM

On 2016-05-04 22:19:00, Chris wrote:To lump "hunters" into one category is a gross misunderstanding of what hunting is. It is not debatable that there are cultures, right now, across the…

On 2016-05-04 22:19:00, Chris wrote:
To lump "hunters" into one category is a gross misunderstanding of what hunting is. It is not debatable that there are cultures, right now, across the world that require hunting for sustenance. There are also "trophy hunters" that hunt to flex their ego and fill their walls with mounts. It is my opinion that most hunters fall somewhere in the middle. I personally hunt, in my home state of Colorado, for a multitude of reasons. My wife and I decided that would change our lifestyles so that we could consume organic and non-GMO food. This is for the most part fruits and vegetables, but also includes our meats. It is also not debatable that there is not a more " free-range" meat than what I choose to put on my family dinner table. I actively choose mature animals seeing as how the overwhelming majority of Deer and Elk live to be less than 6 years old. This is due to lack of resources, predators, road kill, chronic wasting disease and yes, hunters. It is also not fair to lump all "hunters" into one group because of how many different ways there are to hunt. Guns, trapping, bows.....spears. I choose to bow hunt because I believe in honoring the animal you choose to harvest. I hunt on public land, fair chase only. I don't take shots over 75 yards and aim to kill. I have no interest in taking an animal from 400 yards away. that said, I respect any hunter who spends the time dialing in his scope to that degree. I hike mile after mile and nobody can say I don't work hard for my harvest. I also do not believe that I have an advantage over the animals I hunt. I can't hear or smell like they can. I'm not as fast nor am I as strong. I have a bow and arrow, I stalk and 20% of the time get a shot off. I short I hunt because it was a part of my up-bringing. I love animals just as much as the next guy. I also want to provide for my family and have no interest in hunting Cecil the Lion. This is my humble take on this debate.

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 23:48 PM

On 2016-05-04 19:48:02, Shelley Powers wrote:This debate is so black and white. There's a world of difference between hunting for white-tailed deer in Missouri, compared to hunting black rhino in…

On 2016-05-04 19:48:02, Shelley Powers wrote:
This debate is so black and white. There's a world of difference between hunting for white-tailed deer in Missouri, compared to hunting black rhino in Africa. I'm not necessarily against the deer hunting, but will always be against hunting endangered species such as rhinos. So when you lump all of this together, you really lose the nuance. I'm not sure how you can even have an effective debate, given the premise behind the two sides.

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 23:46 PM

On 2016-05-04 19:46:45, Denise Long wrote:Trophy hunting is not a sport, it is an abuse of power and to claim that it funds conservation is a disingenuous attempt to justify…

On 2016-05-04 19:46:45, Denise Long wrote:
Trophy hunting is not a sport, it is an abuse of power and to claim that it funds conservation is a disingenuous attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Perhaps those who currently pay to destroy the lives of these magnificent animals could expend their effort and finances in the pursuit of genuine conservation

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 22:59 PM

On 2016-05-04 18:59:16, Annoula Wylderich wrote:So, killing species helps protect them? Something very off with that line of thinking.

On 2016-05-04 18:59:16, Annoula Wylderich wrote:
So, killing species helps protect them? Something very off with that line of thinking.

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 22:34 PM

On 2016-05-04 18:34:57, Brigitte Gaschnitz wrote:Sorry, in what world we are living? Hunting was necessary thousands years ago to protect us or to survive. Hunting in our Century is killing…

On 2016-05-04 18:34:57, Brigitte Gaschnitz wrote:
Sorry, in what world we are living? Hunting was necessary thousands years ago to protect us or to survive. Hunting in our Century is killing for nothing, it's no sport, this is serialkilling! Hunting for conservation? What a joke!

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 21:45 PM

""Tuesday, 03 May 2016 14:42 posted by Helen Data clearly shows that hunters pay VERY LITTLE into conservation (from link below) and that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation…

""Tuesday, 03 May 2016 14:42 posted by Helen Data clearly shows that hunters pay VERY LITTLE into conservation (from link below) and that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is woefully outdated. http://wildlifeconservationstamp.org/the-north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation-and-who-pays-for-it/#prettyPhoto"" I wanted to respond to this quote after reading it. It was interesting however the "Data" can be shown to be misleading at best. First, the group sponsoring the paper is Nevadans for Responsible Wildlife Management. The website for this group is www.nrwm.org. I will encourage everyone to look into the website and the group, and then make your own decision as to the objectivity of this source in comparison to government agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife service, or the BLM. Second, I am providing the link to the paper that published this "Data" (it is a PDF). This "Study" was published by Mr. Mark E. Smith and Dr. Molde. Mr. Smith and Dr. Molde are a mechanical engineer and retired physician, and the founders of the NRWM group. I would like to point out a few flaws with the logic in this data. First, according to the archery trade association (ATA) the percentage of archers that hunt is just over 60%. According the 2011 US Census data (also provided), roughly 1/3 of anglers also hunt. This is important when we look at the Pittman-Robertson / Dingle-Johnson line the authors assume based on population that DJ funding has no hunters, and PR funds are primarily from non-hunters. For those that don't know PR funds are from 11% excise tax on long guns and ammunition (1937), and 11% on Archery equipment (1970's) and 10% on handguns (1970's). Licenses are not subject to PR, however make up the majority of the 25% funding the state must match for PR funds to be made available for use from the federal government. This state line is conveniently omitted in this study. DJ funds (1950's) are very similar to PR funds but target fishing related activities. Therefore, 14% seems quite small when you consider the funding sources that PR and DJ funds come from. Finally, if you look at their "Data Table" and again at the US Census data provided you will notice that they assume 4.6% of the population hunt. However, the census concluded that in 2011 just over 6% of the population hunted and that is down from a high of just over 10% in the 1950's. I have also included another rebuttal to the Smith/Molde paper. Hope everyone gets a chance to read the links, and is able to enjoy an intelligent debate on the subject http://www.nrwm.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Smith-Molde-Wildlife-Funding-spreadsheet-Rev-F2-19Jun15.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/fhw11-nat.pdf http://flatheadbeacon.com/2014/12/03/study-really-attack-hunters/

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 20:19 PM

On 2016-05-04 16:19:22, Jay wrote:
Hunting promotes conservation. This debate has long been a settled one. The scimitar oryx for example exists because of hunters. Elephants would have been long extinct except for the efforts trophy hunters, and anti poachers. Hunting is as much a part of the human condition as it is many of the animals we share the planet with.

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 19:20 PM

On 2016-05-04 15:20:59, manuela wolter wrote:To call hunting a sport is ridiculous, One has a gun,the other has nothing..!

On 2016-05-04 15:20:59, manuela wolter wrote:
To call hunting a sport is ridiculous, One has a gun,the other has nothing..!

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 18:34 PM

On 2016-05-04 14:34:52, Mel Culligan wrote:Hunting is wrong! Animals are not ours to kill! When all the beautiful creatures are dead, what next?

On 2016-05-04 14:34:52, Mel Culligan wrote:
Hunting is wrong! Animals are not ours to kill! When all the beautiful creatures are dead, what next?

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 13:54 PM

On 2016-05-04 09:54:29, Gerhard Damm wrote:
Throughout Europe landowners – communal, state or private – work hand in hand with hunters to preserve or restore habitats; to protect or create living space for wild creatures. Hunters and anglers led the revolution to save wildlife on the North American continent and remain today its most stalwart legion of support; they cooperate with wildlife managers and biologists from federal and state agencies. Hunters and anglers provide most of the wildlife management funding through an intricate excise tax system, hunting licenses and huge private donations channeled through hunting clubs. In southern Africa, private land owners, hunting associations tourism and trophy hunting are reliable conservation funding sources. In contrast, the no-hunting model – as practiced for example in Kenya and India, exhibits low performance, since in both countries large wildlife species are in decline. Statistical evidence proves that the no-hunting model is not self-sustaining. Tourism revenues cover only half of the wildlife management cost in these two countries and the balance has to be shouldered by the governments respectively the tax-payer or international donors. Yet Kenya's ivory burn wasted close to 200 million Dollars (cost of the party for the dignitaries included) - this is more than half of what Kenya receives in Humanitarian Aid from international donors every year. This waste of resources is beyond comprehension! Check the Kenya Wildlife Service Annual Report (salaries etc) and you'll be even more flabbergasted! The high value of many wild resources gives us - who subscribe to regulated and science based sustainable use - a broad range of tools for successful incentive-driven conservation. Science-based programs will make conservation in Africa and Asia – and over large parts of South and Central America – finally independent of the emotional approach and neo-colonial pressure from northern hemisphere protectionists and their conditional funding. Hunting – especially trophy hunting - produces a good financial return from a few hunted animals, it allows wildlife populations to be managed according to ecological rather than financial needs. Good conservation does not stagnate; it produces surpluses – and on finite lands surplus should be used for the good of the people who live with wildlife. Hunting programs are therefore a means to an end. Within these programs animals are harvested at a reasonable rate, not only maintaining trophy quality within healthy populations, but maintaining the populations to which these animals belong and most importantly ensuring that the land will be kept for wildlife. When conservation of animals becomes valuable to people living nearby, those animals are assured respect and their habitat will be protected. You may have heard it often – but let me point out a salient fact once again: Habitat loss and degradation are the primary drivers of declines in wildlife populations. The disappearance of natural habitat is the principal cause of biological diversity loss at every level — ecosystem, species and genes, all of them. Yet, demographic change of the human population is accelerating and corresponding demands for land for development are increasing fast. They are exacerbating tremendous pressure on wildlife. This is most noticeably in biodiversity-rich parts of the globe. The need for viable conservation incentives becomes more urgent than ever. Well-regulated sustainable hunting has played, and is playing now and will so in future, an important role in this conservation game – at local level in front of your house door, or in foreign lands which you visit (and where every photo tourist leaves a larger ecological foot print than any trophy hunter). Well managed trophy hunting takes place in many parts of the world can and does generate critically needed incentives and revenue for governments, private and community landowners to maintain and restore wild lands and wildlife and to carry out multi-layered conservation actions and anti-poaching interventions. It can return much needed income, jobs, and other important economic and social benefits to indigenous and local communities in places where these benefits are often scarce. In many parts of the world indigenous and local communities have freely chosen to use trophy hunting as a strategy for conservation of their wildlife and to improve sustainable livelihoods. Look to the Inuit in the Arctic, the community conservancy movement in Namibia, the village conservancies in Tajikistan and Pakistan, the recovery of the Spanish Ibex and the burgeoning ungulate populations in Europe and North America. There are many shining examples around the world. Think about it, inform yourself independently about the real and hard fact and talk to the people on the ground before you pass judgement!

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 07:24 AM

On 2016-05-04 03:24:21, Tess Husbands wrote:
Only wild, native species, scientifically, biodiversity and bio means life, are the rivets holding spaceship Earth, altogether. Unlike native predator biodiversity, human hunters pop out the rivets of spacecraft, Earth! Our native predators are ecologically interconnected with ungulates.

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 05:47 AM

On 2016-05-04 01:47:47, Jean Clelland-Morin wrote:We are Mindlessly Proliferating our Human species, Invading the Natural Habitat of others and Destroying all in our path.

On 2016-05-04 01:47:47, Jean Clelland-Morin wrote:
We are Mindlessly Proliferating our Human species, Invading the Natural Habitat of others and Destroying all in our path.

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 03:15 AM

On 2016-05-03 23:15:14, Kaiser Sose wrote:99% of these comments are obsolutely preposterous. I had to stop reading when one person claimed there is no need for hunting because it is…

On 2016-05-03 23:15:14, Kaiser Sose wrote:
99% of these comments are obsolutely preposterous. I had to stop reading when one person claimed there is no need for hunting because it is economically more sensible to buy your meat at the store. Where do you think meat comes from in the store? A meat tree? I kill about three deer a year and that is my family's red meat for the year. My deer lived a free and natural life. My deer were killed quickly and humanely. My hunting reminds me I am part of nature and not separate from it. Many of you seem to have forgotten this and it shows in our society's carelessness for nature. The meat you buy from a store is from an animal that was likely caged and pumped full of hormones. That animal likely lived in fear and was treated like a piece of meat it's whole life. You people all have blood on your hands but you don't realize it because your are brainwashed by your iPhones and lack of awareness. Nature is not a Disney movie. Keep stuffing your faces with cheeseburgers and wearing leather while you give grief to people who have a real relationship with nature.

Read more Read less

IQ2

4 May 2016 - 00:10 AM

Hunters conserving wildlife? is that like men beating their partners helps women love to stay in the kitchen? Is that like beating the dog helps it behave or poisoning the…

Hunters conserving wildlife? is that like men beating their partners helps women love to stay in the kitchen? Is that like beating the dog helps it behave or poisoning the river helps provide jobs to clean it up? WOW, humanity really can deceive itself if killing equals conservation, especially when the natural conservation always comes from nature herself in creating apex predators and prey to keep our ecosystems thriving. All humans do is delude ourselves that our meddling is necessary to improve on what nature made PERFECT. When the words of Plato, Pythagoras, Plutarch, Thoreau, Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, and other animal advocates are heard, perhaps the soul of man and beast can beat together in peace. When man hunt animals, they will hunt each other...and helpless women to! From beasts we scorn as soulless, In forest, field and den, The cry goes up to witness The soullessness of men. ~M. Frida Hartley We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form. ~William Ralph Inge, Outspoken Essays, 1922 A bloodless sportsman, I— I hunt for the thoughts that throng the woods, The dreams that haunt the sky. The woods were made for the hunters of dreams, The brooks for the fishers of song; To the hunters who hunt for the gunless game The streams and the woods belong... ~Sam Walter Foss, "The Bloodless Sportsman," c.1896 The hunters are like old tumors that never die, they choke moral evolution and lie about the need. Let the animals do what they were always doing before the hubris of man interfered.

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 23:27 PM

On 2016-05-03 19:27:18, K Boyd wrote:Hunting is not a sport. Hunting is killing for the pleasure of killing. Using conservation as an excuse for hunting is laughable. One day, in…

On 2016-05-03 19:27:18, K Boyd wrote:
Hunting is not a sport. Hunting is killing for the pleasure of killing. Using conservation as an excuse for hunting is laughable. One day, in the future, when we have evolved a wee bit more, we will look back on this and be horrified as to how we once were and how we treated our fellow inhabitants of this world.

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 22:42 PM

On 2016-05-03 18:42:37, Helen Tam-Semmens wrote:
Data clearly shows that hunters pay VERY LITTLE into conservation (from link below) and that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is woefully outdated. http://wildlifeconservationstamp.org/the-north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation-and-who-pays-for-it/#prettyPhoto

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 22:05 PM

On 2016-05-03 18:05:19, Carolyn Kiss wrote:I am confused about the word " HUNTER" "HUNTING" . What is the true defintion? I have read many reports by Hunters..and the most say…

On 2016-05-03 18:05:19, Carolyn Kiss wrote:
I am confused about the word " HUNTER" "HUNTING" . What is the true defintion? I have read many reports by Hunters..and the most say that " the only form of hunting is for survival". I therefore find it difficult to understand why the word HUNTER is allowed by a society that believes it is honourable to be given to the following - a person that catches animals in snares is a hunter? that killing a lion in a caged enclosure is hunting? that driving game along a route to be shot at the end is hunting? to hang bait from a tree and wait for the animal to come up and shoot it..is called hunting? to hit a baby seal over its head is called hunting?? A HUNTER should have an EXACT DEFINITION..and anyone who does not live up to this code should not be called a HUNTER...and this would include most of the people in the SCI and DSC. Conservation issues can be discussed with HUNTERS not sadistic killer of animals, such as a CANNED KILLER...I would not give that person the title of HUNTER. It is about time you separated your terminology, and made it known publicly that there is blatant difference between the HUNTER and the KILLER. It would seem to the public in general that there are very few TRUE HUNTERS left …just killers displaying gruesome trophies with lots of money and big pocket books. The HUNTING INDUSTRY is corrupt and needs a total reform from top to bottom. WWF and other big conservation agencies still believe in the premis of hunting to conserve....but they are still believing in the true HUNTER..who unfortunately is like an endangered species..very rare! A middle ground of cooperation can be reached when both sides can trust and understand the viewpoints of each other. For example: In the fight for conservation in Africa/ India etc ..the main killing of animals is done by the local farmers protecting their crops/cattle, and local people doing the poaching. These people do have to recognize that there is a reason to keep these wild animals alive. The way to do this is through Safari Tourism ..where the people are employed is the best way possible ..for men as rangers and drivers, for the women in hospitality. But if the land is so remote …and does not attract Tourism..there has to be an alternative. I know of one in a VERY remote area of Africa where there is no tourism, hunting owned and run by the LOCAL AFRICAN tribesman – not run by a white man who takes all the profit - has worked. It is a 21 day old fashioned hunt with the local tribesman and the guest has to be a true qualified hunter. There is also no hunting of endangered species.This does mean the African Tribe has not turned their land into farms..and does care for the animals on it. But this is very very rare...and needs to have strict governmental control...but is one case where hunting is helping conservation. ..Safari Tourism is the way forward- it brings in more money, more permanent jobs and keeps the animals alive.

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 18:28 PM

On 2016-05-03 14:28:38, JA Malone wrote:
Trophy hunters would like us to believe hunting both conserves wildlife and supports local communities. That we even debate the claim lends credibility where there is none. History shows us how many species we have hunted to extinction. The unbearable pressures all wildlife face now with habitat loss, conflict with humans, climate change, destabilization of ecosystems...all of it...are proving catastrophic. Blood killing for sport only ensures populations are further depleted. Unethical hunters and corrupt governments are a deadly combination. As for hunting refenues supporting communities, there is nothing to substantiate the claim. In fact audits show most revenues go into private pockets not public coffers. Properly managed ecotourism on the other hand is the backbone industry of many countries. Killing wildlife never has and will never save wildlife.

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 18:12 PM

On 2016-05-03 14:12:36, Kathleen wrote:"When one touches a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world." ~~~ John Muir

On 2016-05-03 14:12:36, Kathleen wrote:
"When one touches a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world." ~~~ John Muir

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 15:25 PM

On 2016-05-03 11:25:25, Marilyn Williams wrote:This is not a sport, one is a defenseless animal or bird, the other tries to show what a "big man" he is by killing…

On 2016-05-03 11:25:25, Marilyn Williams wrote:
This is not a sport, one is a defenseless animal or bird, the other tries to show what a "big man" he is by killing an animal of the forest.

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 15:24 PM

On 2016-05-03 11:24:38, Marilyn Williams wrote:This is not a sport, one is a defenseless animal or bird, the other tries to show what a "big man" he is by killing…

On 2016-05-03 11:24:38, Marilyn Williams wrote:
This is not a sport, one is a defenseless animal or bird, the other tries to show what a "big man" he is by killing an animal of the forest.

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 08:23 AM

On 2016-05-03 04:23:40, deb taylor wrote:Deer, elk hunters, if you don't speak out against the atrocity of trophy hunting, you are just as bad. You will continue to be included…

On 2016-05-03 04:23:40, deb taylor wrote:
Deer, elk hunters, if you don't speak out against the atrocity of trophy hunting, you are just as bad. You will continue to be included with hate being directed at you for baseless killing of predators like mountain lions, wolves, bears, coyotes. Learn and share the importance of apex predators. Learn and share about the growth of CWD, and plagues. Learn and share that hunting deer shouldn't be turned into a mass market business. Up to you hunters.

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 06:52 AM

On 2016-05-03 02:52:15, Sam Shapiro wrote:First there is a need to separate U.S. domestic hunting from world wide trophy hunting, they are to radically different to be lumped together. Most…

On 2016-05-03 02:52:15, Sam Shapiro wrote:
First there is a need to separate U.S. domestic hunting from world wide trophy hunting, they are to radically different to be lumped together. Most US hunters follow the "eat what you kill" ethos. So the animal is put to good use and it's death is more human then the much higher number of animals killed by motor vehicles. I live in central NY and our communities live with coexisting with wild life. The deer population is considerably higher then in city areas, more deer are killed by cars then hunters and the highest numbers of deer-car events occur in the suburbs of the small city here. Talk to those suburbanites and they'll rant about how they can't have a garden or landscaping because the deer devour them, that they can't drive between dusk and dawn without super vigilance as deer don't use crosswalks. You can't leave a pet or child out in your yard without carefully watching them, a number of dogs are killed or injured due to encounters with "bambi". And then there are the deer ticks that carry Limes disease. I conjecture that many of the anti hunting crowd live in urban areas with few deer or other wildlife, if they were to try to live the vegan no kill life and need to raise their own food to feed their family their view of coexistence would be radically altered, that is if they survived the winter. Trophy hunters and caned hunts are despised by most sportsman hunters. Do your research, in unbiased studies not PETA or NRA publications. Nature can be a cruel mistress and deals with over population with disease and starvation, both much meaner and slower then hunting.

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 06:01 AM

On 2016-05-03 02:01:33, Patrice wrote:Hunters are not saving the wildlife ! All wildlife maintains it self if the hunters would leave the wolves and bears alone and the couger ,…

On 2016-05-03 02:01:33, Patrice wrote:
Hunters are not saving the wildlife ! All wildlife maintains it self if the hunters would leave the wolves and bears alone and the couger , mt lions deer and elk would not be over populating , but the hunters wanted more elk and deer so they kill all the predators so now they complain about to many deer and elk

Read more Read less

IQ2

3 May 2016 - 04:00 AM

O.K. Trevor...What you are replying is that we need to kill animals every time our population explodes???? That's arrogant. People need to control their own population like China, they do…

O.K. Trevor...What you are replying is that we need to kill animals every time our population explodes???? That's arrogant. People need to control their own population like China, they do it. You can't keep wiping other species of animals out because you need so much room to develop. Humans need to work around this or stop over populating out of control. This is not just our world! We can not keep expanding into their habitat to accommodate ourselves.. This world is big enough for all of us. and there is plenty of room for all of us..problem is they want the land already preoccupied and because man is man, he feel's it's his right.. man has already destroyed 2 of Gods creations, "land and sea" now they want to eliminate his 5th creation? "animals" This world is in for a rude awakening. God cleansed this earth once he can do it again. People in Africa are welcome to populate, what they do not need is all this room they claim is needed for farming...and cropping. I've seen farms with so much property that wasn't even being used. So we eliminate them for us...I don't think so. They have every right to be here as we and this is their home.. you can't just keep expanding your home into theirs...

Read more Read less

IQ2

2 May 2016 - 22:24 PM

First, let's consider that in the early1900's, due to market hunting (hunting for profit) and subsistence hunting without regulations, many wildlife populations were at all-time lows and some were driven to extinction. Estimates of three species in specific at this time were: Elk - Less than 50,000 individuals White Tail Deer - Less than 500,000 individuals Wild Turkey - Approximately 1.5 Million (1973) In 1937 the Pittman Robertson Act (P-R) was signed. According to the US Fish and Wildlife service "over $2 billion in Federal excise taxes has been matched by more than $500 million in State funds (chiefly from hunting license fees) for wildlife restoration". Additional funds have been used for habitat protection, habitat restoration and hunter education reaching a total of approximately $10.1 Billion since program inception. This equates to "Some 4 million acres have been purchased outright since the program began, and nearly 40 million acres are managed for wildlife under agreements with other landowners". According to the World Wildlife Federation, "Habitat loss is probably the greatest threat to the variety of life on this planet today". The P-R funds are clearly being used to directly reduce the effect of urban sprawl and habitat loss. Additionally, there are examples of individual organizations like the National Wild Turkey Federation, through the "Save the Habitat. Save the Hunt." initiative has worked to "Conserve or enhance 4 million acres of critical upland habitat". All of this leads us to the current population estimates for the three species listed above: Elk - Over 1 Million Individuals White Tail Deer - Over 20 Million Individuals Wild Turkey - Approximately 6.2 Million Individuals While correlation is not causation there is evidence to support habitat restoration and protection can directly aid in the revitalization of wildlife populations. Second, it is important to point out that despite the fact that "Pittman-Robertson is financed wholly by firearms users and archery enthusiasts, its benefits cover a much larger number of people who never hunt but do enjoy such wildlife pastimes as bird watching, nature photography, painting and sketching, and a wide variety of other outdoor pursuits". According to the Fish and Wildlife Service "Recent estimates indicate about 70 percent of the people using these areas are not hunting, and in some localities the ratio may go as high as 95 percent". Additionally, "Numerous non-game species enjoy P-R benefits, too... Pittman-Robertson act does not restrict use of funds to game species, but instead allows their use for any species of wild bird or mammal". Finally, these observations are strictly objective, relaying information from different federal agencies and studies performed on the subject. None of this information begins to discuss the moral/ethical dilemma anti-hunters face when confronted with hunting. Also, this is the result of legislation in the United States, not other parts of the world. It would be unwise to assume that simply because a conservation method worked in one country the same method would be equally effective in another country. There are many different variables that must be considered. Hope everyone gets a chance to research this topic. This should be a fun debate.

Read more Read less

IQ2

2 May 2016 - 21:52 PM

I have noticed that the issue of sustainability has been presented many times as an argument against hunting in these comments. The concern I have with this is that it…

I have noticed that the issue of sustainability has been presented many times as an argument against hunting in these comments. The concern I have with this is that it would appear that this concern is not founded in fact. First, let's consider that in the early1900's, due to market hunting (hunting for profit) and subsistence hunting without regulations, many wildlife populations were at all-time lows and some were driven to extinction. Estimates of three species in specific at this time were: Elk - Less than 50,000 individuals White Tail Deer - Less than 500,000 individuals Wild Turkey - Approximately 1.5 Million (1973) In 1937 the Pittman Robertson Act (P-R) was signed. According to the US Fish and Wildlife service "over $2 billion in Federal excise taxes has been matched by more than $500 million in State funds (chiefly from hunting license fees) for wildlife restoration". Additional funds have been used for habitat protection, habitat restoration and hunter education reaching a total of approximately $10.1 Billion since program inception. This equates to "Some 4 million acres have been purchased outright since the program began, and nearly 40 million acres are managed for wildlife under agreements with other landowners". According to the World Wildlife Federation, "Habitat loss is probably the greatest threat to the variety of life on this planet today". The P-R funds are clearly being used to directly reduce the effect of urban sprawl and habitat loss. Additionally, there are examples of individual organizations like the National Wild Turkey Federation, through the "Save the Habitat. Save the Hunt." initiative has worked to "Conserve or enhance 4 million acres of critical upland habitat". All of this leads us to the current population estimates for the three species listed above: Elk - Over 1 Million Individuals White Tail Deer - Over 20 Million Individuals Wild Turkey - Approximately 6.2 Million Individuals While correlation is not causation there is evidence to support habitat restoration and protection can directly aid in the revitalization of wildlife populations. Second, it is important to point out that despite the fact that "Pittman-Robertson is financed wholly by firearms users and archery enthusiasts, its benefits cover a much larger number of people who never hunt but do enjoy such wildlife pastimes as bird watching, nature photography, painting and sketching, and a wide variety of other outdoor pursuits". According to the Fish and Wildlife Service "Recent estimates indicate about 70 percent of the people using these areas are not hunting, and in some localities the ratio may go as high as 95 percent". Additionally, "Numerous non-game species enjoy P-R benefits, too... Pittman-Robertson act does not restrict use of funds to game species, but instead allows their use for any species of wild bird or mammal". Finally, these observations are strictly objective, relaying information from different federal agencies and studies performed on the subject. None of this information begins to discuss the moral/ethical dilemma anti-hunters face when confronted with hunting. Also, this is the result of legislation in the United States, not other parts of the world. It would be unwise to assume that simply because a conservation method worked in one country the same method would be equally effective in another country. There are many different variables that must be considered. Hope everyone gets a chance to research this topic. This should be a fun debate.

Read more Read less

IQ2

2 May 2016 - 05:07 AM

On 2016-05-02 01:07:42, J. L. Wilson wrote:
The killing needs to stop. The conservation/management agencies were created to limit or stop the needless extermination of our animals. Hunters were killing whole species into oblivion for monetary gain or entertainment. If we stopped killing the predators, which the hunters like to call pests and varmints, and reintroduced some that have been killed out of many of their natural habitats, the species would take care of themselves regarding population control, as they did for millions of years before we came along to mess things up. Humans are the most destructive, hedonistic, selfish and irrational species to ever come along. Stop the blood sports. We do not need fur, bones or meat anymore. Let's get into the 21st Century. Other (some less developed) countries are decades ahead of us regarding these matters, yet Americans like to think they know everything and are better than everyone else. We don't and we aren't. We e also managed, in our quest to "improve" our country, to devolve the proficiency and the results produced by our entire education system. We are the laughing stock of most of the world.

Read more Read less

IQ2

1 May 2016 - 20:46 PM

On 2016-05-01 16:46:04, Trevor Filmer wrote:firstly we need to understand that we are not talking about the already existing Game Reserves - we are talking about the huge buffer areas…

On 2016-05-01 16:46:04, Trevor Filmer wrote:
firstly we need to understand that we are not talking about the already existing Game Reserves - we are talking about the huge buffer areas often surrounding the Reserves - the number of Africans will double from one billion to two billion people in the next 20 years and there must be somewhere for them to live, somewhere for their food to be grown and for their cattle to graze - if we are going to demand that Africa keeps certain places pristine for animals, the world is going to have to pay for it - the Africans are too poor - these areas are too remote for eco-tourism - it is a bitter pill for the anti-hunting animal rights activists to swallow, but paradoxically, it is the commercialized, rather than protected animals, that are the world’s least endangered - cattle, sheep, goats, pigs chickens are killed by the thousands daily, yet their numbers increase....think about it

Read more Read less

IQ2

1 May 2016 - 13:45 PM

On 2016-05-01 09:45:07, Adam wrote:I can't think of a civilized reason to exploit a sentient being.

On 2016-05-01 09:45:07, Adam wrote:
I can't think of a civilized reason to exploit a sentient being.

Read more Read less

IQ2

1 May 2016 - 05:26 AM

On 2016-05-01 01:26:47, Patricia Volk wrote:To call hunting a sport is ridiculous, One has a gun,the other has no weapon.

On 2016-05-01 01:26:47, Patricia Volk wrote:
To call hunting a sport is ridiculous, One has a gun,the other has no weapon.

Read more Read less

IQ2

1 May 2016 - 01:27 AM

On 2016-04-30 21:27:11, Maureen McGil wrote:" So they try to compensate for this sense of inferiority by shooting something much stronger and braver than they are." John Cleese on Hunters

On 2016-04-30 21:27:11, Maureen McGil wrote:
" So they try to compensate for this sense of inferiority by shooting something much stronger and braver than they are." John Cleese on Hunters

Read more Read less

IQ2

30 April 2016 - 15:54 PM

On 2016-04-30 11:54:31, Sailesh Rao wrote:When half the wildlife in the world was destroyed in the 40 year span between 1970 and 2010 and when that destruction is increasing at…

On 2016-04-30 11:54:31, Sailesh Rao wrote:
When half the wildlife in the world was destroyed in the 40 year span between 1970 and 2010 and when that destruction is increasing at an exponential rate, the supposedly most intelligent specimens among the most intelligent of all species will be debating whether to continue killing wildlife? Is this the extent of erudition in this community? Where is the wisdom? I'm so disappointed.

Read more Read less

IQ2

30 April 2016 - 06:51 AM

Andrew B do you mean this? European Parliament takes a stand against trophy... PUBLISHED 11:26 FEBRUARY 26, 2016huntinghttps://www.neweurope.eu/article/european-parliament-takes-a-stand-against-trophy-hunting/

Read more Read less

IQ2

30 April 2016 - 05:27 AM

You know..I read these posts from what I'm guessing are hunters who know it all. At least they think they do..Everything about this is money money money. It's getting old.…

You know..I read these posts from what I'm guessing are hunters who know it all. At least they think they do..Everything about this is money money money. It's getting old. I'm reading that wildlife must be "managed" economically and the locals communities must benefit from it? Without benefits wildlife will be poached out? Let me try to understand...If you, don't kill an animal and give them money then they "poachers" will kill an animal. Gees, talking about killing 2 birds with one stone. It sounds like both you and the poachers are doing the same thing, and that you believe that you, doing it is O.K.... Dude...you're all killing the animals...What do you think? Your bullet is different than theirs..It's O.K. for you to kill the animal and not them? You're no different...you're both killing and collecting what you want from that dead animal. It's sad but the way I see it animals have to die so people can have money...Why don't you just donate your money to the local communities so they can do what you think killing and animal will do. Animals seem to have to pay the price so the big guys can have fun. These animals are endangered species for Christ sake..We can't afford to lose anymore at this point. You going in and killing more is no different than the poachers...At this point you have to find another way..The only reason why you would give them money if you get to kill an animal?...Still sounds like you're in it for the head..You don't give a damn about poaching and local communities or even conservation, you're in it for the high, need to kill... You know what...hand that money over to the local communities so they can do what they need to do to fight off poachers. You doing this will help to an animal thrive. Can't do it can you.....

Read more Read less

IQ2

29 April 2016 - 23:05 PM

I have come back to read these comments over and over. Quite honestly many are absurd. I can't even imagine where some of these people get these "facts". They are…

I have come back to read these comments over and over. Quite honestly many are absurd. I can't even imagine where some of these people get these "facts". They are so far wrong it is laughable.

Read more Read less

IQ2

29 April 2016 - 19:56 PM

If we are talking about the US only, I agree with the motion. Worldwide however, wild game has been sorely abused by the "Big Game Hunters" whose sole purpose is…

If we are talking about the US only, I agree with the motion. Worldwide however, wild game has been sorely abused by the "Big Game Hunters" whose sole purpose is to decorate a wall. First thing I taught my kids was don't shoot it unless you plan on eating it. US conservation efforts have been very successful. In other places, its a joke.

Read more Read less

IQ2

29 April 2016 - 11:39 AM

On 2016-04-29 07:39:12, Soren lindstrom wrote:
Change the word "hunting" to "game management" Manage the wild life resources sensibly, and scientifically. In Africa the wildlife must sustain itself ecomocally, and local communities must benefit directly from them. Without any benefits, wildlife will be poached out in a very short time. Controlled game management ( hunting) will a). Produce valuable benefits to communities, b). Insure a presence in areas where wildlife occurs, to people who have a vested interest in their well being, and hence control poaching, c) create employment to local rural community members.

Read more Read less

IQ2

29 April 2016 - 11:23 AM

On 2016-04-29 07:23:28, Tamara wrote:The world is full of murderers - hunters are just another type who have been permitted to murder legally; or in the peaceful, secluded habitats where…

On 2016-04-29 07:23:28, Tamara wrote:
The world is full of murderers - hunters are just another type who have been permitted to murder legally; or in the peaceful, secluded habitats where animals believe they are safe, and the hunter knows his invasion will never be discovered. Politicians will not speak out for animals because they know full well that if hunters are not allowed to murder legally, they will turn their need to kill on society. They are no different than any other cold-blooded killer that possesses the need to snuff out life. Murder, of any kind, is either an immoral or amoral act that should be illegal across the board for any living being that is snuffed out, and had the life it was given taken away. Politicians and those in positions of power, who allow murder to occur without penalty or punishment, are immoral or amoral themselves. Immoral meaning they know what they are doing wrong; and amoral meaning they are apathetic, or do not comprehend the difference between right and wrong. Both instances lack conscience and the character to actually hold the positions of power they have been granted. A word to the wise who have no wish to harm other life of any kind . . . if you cohabitate with someone who hunts, you are stepping into bed with a character fully capable of recurring murder. You know what they are - their eyes reveal this, if you look closely. Their heart is cold, as are the hands you hold which also hold the weapon, and pull the trigger. These people are fully-incapable of love in its purest form. These people murder the purity that is nature.

Read more Read less

IQ2

29 April 2016 - 10:16 AM

Everyone - Ask yourselves the ultimate question - if animal extinction becomes fact, (as our species is spiralling out of contro) - what will then be hunted? At least UNESCO…

Everyone - Ask yourselves the ultimate question - if animal extinction becomes fact, (as our species is spiralling out of contro) - what will then be hunted? At least UNESCO now seems to be awakening to wild animal plight and the world is no longer sitting back to let "kill for money" be the accepted policy.

Read more Read less

IQ2

29 April 2016 - 09:36 AM

On 2016-04-29 05:36:46, Julie wrote:It's our inability to recognize that our present course cannot be sustained, and to continue behaving in a way that will lead to our demise, that…

On 2016-04-29 05:36:46, Julie wrote:
It's our inability to recognize that our present course cannot be sustained, and to continue behaving in a way that will lead to our demise, that is proof that we are no smarter than a box of rabbits. Look what we've done to the beautiful rock upon which we all fly through space, together but divided. We've converted so much habitat to suburb that we are now kicking everything off the planet without even trying. I would think that hunters would recognize we do have a poaching problem, they do contribute to conservation, but they also contribute to the loss of domestic and exotic wildlife the world over, and hang it up for awhile until we can stabilize their numbers and stop the current poaching crisis. There's no shame in saying I did hunt, but I don't anymore..maybe someday I will again, but now is not the time. We may end up needing those animals before it's all over, but they won't be there if we go along like we are. Many populations are kept under such tight check that they couldn't even sustain a disease outbreak. We always interfere and micromanage and we don't know what we're doing. We can't improve upon the natural system that was here to begin with. You know where wildlife is thriving? Chernobyl. Real men don't harm animals unless they absolutely must, and then they don't enjoy doing it. They don't shoot does. They don't kill predators. They don't kill anything that they don't intend to eat. That's how I was brought up. I don't know where all these canned hunt/killing contest fanatics have come from, but they really bother me with their current day hunting ethics. Nothing gets to live to be of any advanced age anymore...that's not cool.

Read more Read less

IQ2

28 April 2016 - 23:55 PM

On 2016-04-28 19:55:13, Keli wrote:I think this debate should include the likes of someone from the NRA, Sportsman Alliance, 10- LOCAL Humane Society branches, Feld, Inc in regards to the…

On 2016-04-28 19:55:13, Keli wrote:
I think this debate should include the likes of someone from the NRA, Sportsman Alliance, 10- LOCAL Humane Society branches, Feld, Inc in regards to the Elephants... Remember, HSUS was found guilty of "Racketeering" and had to pay $15.75 million dollars for wrongfully accusing Feld Entertainment of mistreating their Elephants along with another $9.25 million from the ASPCA... this was your donation dollars, remember that!!

Read more Read less

IQ2

28 April 2016 - 22:04 PM

On 2016-04-28 18:04:08, Lori Robins wrote:At $40 a permit to kill a mountain lion in New Mexico, and $50,000 to kill Cecil, the money is a small drop in the…

On 2016-04-28 18:04:08, Lori Robins wrote:
At $40 a permit to kill a mountain lion in New Mexico, and $50,000 to kill Cecil, the money is a small drop in the bucket compared to money from tourists to view and photograph wildlife. I completely oppose trophy hunting but know that their lobby is still powerful. If trophy hunting is to continue with a so called benefit to conservation than killing a lion or any other trophy animal needs to have a million dollar price tag, no less, governments and trophy hunting companies need to be highly regulated to stop corruption, and only the oldest not longer reproductively viable of the population should be game for hunts. IS any of that going to happen, doubtful, therefore all the arguments for trophy hunting are a joke and complete rubbish.

Read more Read less

IQ2

28 April 2016 - 20:22 PM

On 2016-04-28 16:22:44, K.L. Edwin wrote:"Yes I get my information from repeatable (reputable?) Websites (PETA and HSUS?) And I once saw an interview on television with a local (presumably some…

On 2016-04-28 16:22:44, K.L. Edwin wrote:
"Yes I get my information from repeatable (reputable?) Websites (PETA and HSUS?) And I once saw an interview on television with a local (presumably some African?)..." this is how the hoi polloi gets educated on a complex subject? I have been studying the animal rights lies since 1970, when I saw the incredibly biased show "say goodbye" on network television. I own a substantial personal library of hunting, conservation,, and wildlife biology books. I have spent decades researching this issue, and I've yet to be convinced by the turgid emotionalism of the anti hunting arguments. most are no better than religious fanaticism. I have taken several trips to African game countries to study bird life. Try talking to a groundskeeper in a fancy photo safari camp and learn the reality of having your garden invaded by elephant on a nightly basis. I don't believe in a philosophy espoused by affluent westerners who care more about animals than Zimbabweans. The ignorance and simple mindedness of the anti hunters has to be read to be believed, just look at these ridiculous comments.

Read more Read less

IQ2

28 April 2016 - 18:48 PM

Most of the hunting in North America is about protecting rancher and other animal exploiters who profit off of the suffering and killing of both domestic and wild animals. The…

Most of the hunting in North America is about protecting rancher and other animal exploiters who profit off of the suffering and killing of both domestic and wild animals. The idea that this can be called "conservation" makes about as much asense as calling ethnic cleansing a conservation effort. In the first case, we exterminate based on species. In the second, we exterminate based on race. Both are two variations on the same form of prejudice and oppression.

Read more Read less

IQ2

28 April 2016 - 09:37 AM

On 2016-04-28 05:37:34, Andrew Baldry wrote:EU representatives state - 'The majority of the Members of the European Parliament believe that a ban of trophy hunting is not a desirable way…

On 2016-04-28 05:37:34, Andrew Baldry wrote:
EU representatives state - 'The majority of the Members of the European Parliament believe that a ban of trophy hunting is not a desirable way forward for wildlife conservation. Instead, we fully acknowledge the important positive role of local communities and European hunters in this process.'

Read more Read less

IQ2

27 April 2016 - 23:13 PM

On 2016-04-27 19:13:38, Dalton wrote:Just last week, April the 18th to be exact, the European Union voted 80% in favour of suppressing a proposal to ban hunting. This suggests to…

On 2016-04-27 19:13:38, Dalton wrote:
Just last week, April the 18th to be exact, the European Union voted 80% in favour of suppressing a proposal to ban hunting. This suggests to me that hunting isn't going away any time soon. Kinda echoes what's happening in this poll at the moment! Go HUNTERS!

Read more Read less

IQ2

26 April 2016 - 21:26 PM

Jason Y, Don't need to discuss the facts because, I already know the about therm. Al your'e going to talk about is how it goes back into conservation and trickles…

Jason Y, Don't need to discuss the facts because, I already know the about therm. Al your'e going to talk about is how it goes back into conservation and trickles down to needy local. Corruption is big in Africa and anything you give goes into their pockets. Very little goes anywhere else. Like I said, if you want to help with conservation and needy locals, just give them the money.. No animal has to die and no animal population needs to be controlled, especially endangered species....I find it very irresponsible for hunter's to ignore the fact that they are being pushed into extinction and you proceed to hunt them anyway.. I really don't want to do this with you or anyone else, because all Trophy Hunter's try to justifies this vile sport is necessary. You are the next generation to kill off these animals and we need to stop it before it's too late. But what do you care? The real truth is that you love to kill animals and hang them on your wall so you and your friends can brag about it...Sad.... As far as confusing you with Poachers..I'm completely on track. It doesn't matter what you take from the animal the fact is you are killing endangered species and don't care..that makes you a Poacher.. If Poachers can come up with 10's of thousands of dollars to kill these animals, you don't think that wouldn't be O.K. withe the government? I believe it would be. What I don't get is how you think it conserves...You can't kill to conserve, you're taking the animal out of it's habitat. The numbers have obviously gone down with these species, yet, you still kill them. I have other posts under Save Africa, you can read the last one I posted and if you believe in God, you will understand that what you are doing is just wrong. As far as I'm concerned, I will continue to follow Born Free, The fish and Wild Life, the Humane Society and any other org. that have the real facts,,, Thank you..

Read more Read less

IQ2

25 April 2016 - 23:47 PM

Hello Sandy, I’m not sure what “debate with myself” you’re referring to but I’m glad we can agree that habitat loss and poaching are that main two problems facing animal…

Hello Sandy, I’m not sure what “debate with myself” you’re referring to but I’m glad we can agree that habitat loss and poaching are that main two problems facing animal conservation today. However, I disagree with you on regulated (or trophy if you prefer) hunting being the same as poaching and I’m not sure how anyone could confuse the two. If you’d like to discuss this in a sensible manner and on the facts, I’ll be happy to do so with you or anyone else. However, if you only want to vent on how you feel about hunting and bash hunters, I will not play along. It’s up to you. Thanks, Jason Y

Read more Read less

IQ2

25 April 2016 - 06:22 AM

God made everything that lives on the earth — including the animals. In the beginning, the Bible says, “God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:…

God made everything that lives on the earth — including the animals. In the beginning, the Bible says, “God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals….’ And it was so” (Genesis 1:24). And yes, the Bible commands us to take care of the animals under our care. One of the signs of a righteous man, the Bible says, is that he takes care of his animals (see Proverbs 12:10). Even the animal of an enemy was to be treated kindly: “If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him” (Exodus 23:4). One reason God commanded His people to rest one day out of seven was so their animals would be refreshed (see Exodus 23:12). In fact, the Bible says we must never treat any part of God’s creation with contempt. When we do, we are indirectly treating our Creator with contempt. Instead, God calls us to be stewards or trustees of His creation, and the Bible reminds us that we are responsible to Him for the way we treat it. We’ve often forgotten this — but it’s still true, and when we ignore it we not only hurt God’s creation but we also hurt ourselves. Most of all, however, God calls us to put Him first in our lives. He loves us, and our greatest calling is to respond to His love by opening our hearts and lives to His Son, Jesus Christ.

Read more Read less

IQ2

23 April 2016 - 07:30 AM

On 2016-04-23 03:30:39, Paula wrote:
Psychosexual Inadequacy & Wife-Beating (from There's Nothing Sporting About Hunting and Fishing) "OUT OF CONTROL Edward Abbey dealt swiftly with the psychological aspects of hunting when he wrote, "I was once a sportsman. But I. grew up." The inability to curb aggression and the belief that it is acceptable to kill for pleasure are a frightening phenomenon. Luckily, less than 6 percent of the U.S. population hunts, and, of them, I'd guess that about .00001 percent do so because they have no other way to feed their families, Columnist Carla Bennett believes she has found the answer to why some of this 6 percent hunt. She has unearthed many supporters of the theory that some hunters are trying to compensate for other problems in their lives. Ms. Bennett quotes Dr, Karl Menninger of the Menninger Clinic, who describes hunting as the product of "erotic sadistic motivation"; Dr. Joel R. Saper, a University of Michigan professor who feels hunting "may reflect a profound, yet subtle, psychosexual inadequacy"; and Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Margaret Brooke-Williams, who theorizes that "hunters are seeking reassurance of their masculinity." Interestingly, clinicians report that the incidence of wife-beating is always at its peak the day before hunting season opens. Reading hunting magazines, as Esquire contributor Joy Williams has, seems to substantiate the view that all is not well in the minds of at least some hunters. Much is made of the chase, the anticipation, and the conquest. Take this example from a popular outdoors periodical: The hunter has used a sex lure to draw a buck to within convenient shooting range. "The big buck raised its nose to the air, curled back its lips, and tested the scent of the doe's urine. I held my breath, fought back the shivers, and jerked off a shot. " Whatever lurks in the hunter's psyche, the effect of his all but irresistible habit on his victims is deadly. Hunters have rendered extinct, among others, the dodo, the great auk, the Florida black bear, Sherman's fox squirrel, the heath hen, the eastern elk, and the passenger pigeon. Hunters also wound countless animals. In fact, hunters call crippling "a by-product of our sport." According to the Texas Wildlife Commission, bow hunters, whose weapons pack 1300 pounds of pressure, expend an average of twenty-one arrows before shooting and keeping a deer. The bow hunters themselves report a 50 percent or higher rate of animals wounded and lost (not that all hunters look for or frail the animals they injure). This means animals stagger off to die of blood loss, starvation, thirst, and infection. Trigger-happy hunters also "harvest" nonhunters (one woman in Maine was killed in her own backyard by a hunter who said he thought her white gardening gloves was the fur on a whitetail deer's rump): pesky game wardens who object to the use of infrared night sights and off-season shooting; cows and horses grazing peacefully in fields; each other; and even themselves. In one notable case, a hunter committed inadvertent suicide when his weapon went off while he was bludgeoning a wounded deer to death with his rifle butt."

Read more Read less

IQ2

23 April 2016 - 07:29 AM

hunter2222 No, not everything was created by God. God created tje heavens and the earth and within that he created....the sea, land, light, darkness, animals, humans and the Sabbath day,…

hunter2222 No, not everything was created by God. God created tje heavens and the earth and within that he created....the sea, land, light, darkness, animals, humans and the Sabbath day, Humans created guns, crossbows and all weaponry, some just decided to use them irresponsibly... It saddens me that with all the scientific facts about the disappearance of endangered species, you still want to go out and hunt them. You call that responsible??? You're all a bunch of Poachers and the only reason it is permitted is because you can pay a lot of money to do so. If a Poacher paid that kind of money to kill an animal, it would also be permitted. Corrupted African countries don't care about their wildlife, they only care about the money they can profit from it. And studies have proven that all that money you claim goes back into conservation or trickles down to poor locals, doesn't. And yes, I get my information from repeatable websites and I saw an T.V. interview with a local who claims that they never see a dime.

Read more Read less

IQ2

23 April 2016 - 06:47 AM

On 2016-04-23 02:47:16, Anna Vitale wrote:Hunting is not a "sport" and those who think killing a defenseless and innocent animal is "sportsman-like" or "macho" need to examine their movtives for…

On 2016-04-23 02:47:16, Anna Vitale wrote:
Hunting is not a "sport" and those who think killing a defenseless and innocent animal is "sportsman-like" or "macho" need to examine their movtives for hunting.. Is pointing a high powered rifle with a scope or a high tech bow and arrow at an innocent animal a sign of skill or courage and bravery or is it just horrifically cruel, cowardly and unnecessary. What joy is there in killing an animal who's trying to make its way to food and shelter? Back in the day when there was no other choice one can (sort of) understand. Today, hunting is a cowardly activity.

Read more Read less

IQ2

23 April 2016 - 06:28 AM

Jason Y....Not to mess the debate you seem to be having with yourself, but I can't agree with you more on one and only one thing you are preaching. Habitat…

Jason Y....Not to mess the debate you seem to be having with yourself, but I can't agree with you more on one and only one thing you are preaching. Habitat and Poachers are the 2 leading problems regarding the disappearance of Wildlife..But what you fail to understand is that Trophy Hunting is" Poaching.... They take the horns and tusks and you take the head and the pelt. Please try to explain what the difference is. We Still have a dead animal. It doesn't matter what you take from the animal, both activities are causing the disappearance of wildlife. You're just a bunch of Poachers with a fat wallet......I don't give a shit about how it creates revenue and benefits locals....You still "DON"T NEED TO KILL AN ANIMAL to do this... Win win for everyone

Read more Read less

IQ2

22 April 2016 - 19:58 PM

Hello again Christa, 1) “There are several inaccuracies in the IUCN report for example the worth of tourism to Tanzanians GDP versus the worth of trophy hunting.” Response: I think…

Hello again Christa, 1) “There are several inaccuracies in the IUCN report for example the worth of tourism to Tanzanians GDP versus the worth of trophy hunting.” Response: I think you may have misread/misunderstood what the report is saying. This is revenue accrued to the Wildlife Division from hunting vs photographic tourism, not the overall worth of each. What other inaccuracies? 2) “Concerning Zimbabwe, trophy hunting has gotten so out of hand that there is no wildlife left, hence Cecil, he had to be lured out of a National Park, from his safe habitat.” Response: With all due respect, that’s just a ridiculous claim. Yes, Cecil came out of a National Park but that doesn’t mean there is no wildlife left. Is that just an assumption or do you have facts to support it? Now, if you had said that there is little to no wildlife left outside National Parks, hunting concessions and private conservancies, I would have to agree with you. However, this is true of all countries in Africa, not just Zim and it’s not because of hunting. Habitat loss and poaching are the two main reasons for the absence of wild animals. 3) “Conservancies such as Bubye are nothing more than canned hunting facilities, what is their worth to conservation?” Response: Why is it nothing more than a “canned” hunting facility? Is it because of the fence? If so, how big does a piece of property have to be before the fence becomes mute and a hunt is no longer “canned”? Are you also saying that because the animals are behind a fence, they have little to no value to conservation? Before you answer that, remember that there are several animal sanctuaries and National Parks like Kruger that are fenced also…do they have no value as well? Did they not start out with little to no native animals and restore a complete ecosystem (in spite of and paid for by hunting)? Again, how is this not conservation? 4) “Why is there no mention of Botswana in the article?” Response: This briefing paper was sent to the EU on the effects of potentially closing imports of hunting trophies. Hunting was effectively closed in Botswana two years ago, so why mention them? 5) “Why is there no mention of the fact that pro-trophy hunting countries such as Tanzania and Mozambique are a lot harder stricken by poaching than let's say Kenya.” Response: Again, this paper is about potentially closing trophy imports to the EU and Kenya is closed to hunting….no reason to mention them. If you want my opinion on why Tanzania and Moz are harder hit with poaching, they simply have more animals to poach and poachers go where the animals are. Kenya is not free from poaching though…just because you’re doing better, that doesn’t mean all is well. I wasn’t going to bring up Kenya but since you did, do you consider it an overall conservation success (since the close of hunting)? In my opinion, it’s an ecological disaster. 6) You say Namibia is doing well? Response: I never said that they were doing well. I said “In my opinion, they are leading the way when it comes to conservation (consumptive and non) and ensuring that the correct people profit from it.” By this I meant that they have given the communal peoples the right to make their own decisions on how they want to conserve/use the animals on their lands and there is now transparency to see where the money goes and how it’s used. Is $1.6m US a lot of money? Not by a long shot…. But, that is just the money made from the trophy fees for the animals shot, paid to each communal member. That figure doesn’t include all the money that goes back into the conservancy for operating costs, salaries paid to employees (who are local), compensation for wildlife conflicts, community level projects and infrastructure development. It also does not include the meat that they receive from hunting which they can eat or sell. There is still much work to be done but I still stand by what I said and think Namibia is on the right track. Any other questions for me? Thanks, Jason Y

Read more Read less

IQ2

22 April 2016 - 16:39 PM

On 2016-04-22 12:39:56, Debbie wrote:CONservation is a fraud!!! Please watch this video - https://youtu.be /y3zWau6zivY

On 2016-04-22 12:39:56, Debbie wrote:
CONservation is a fraud!!! Please watch this video - https://youtu.be /y3zWau6zivY

Read more Read less

IQ2

22 April 2016 - 08:55 AM

Could you people please stop trying to convince people that you do this for conservation....Studies have proven that this is not true.. Local people would benefit from this if it…

Could you people please stop trying to convince people that you do this for conservation....Studies have proven that this is not true.. Local people would benefit from this if it truly went to them. But you can't explain away how the status with their lifestyle has never changed from day 1, they remain destitute and exposed to dangerous wildlife. It doesn't take killing an animal to help them...Instead of paying 55,000 to kill a lion, why don't you just invest that money into building better schools. that money could also help build safer living quarters for them as well. That money could also run clean water pipes to all the locals that don't have clean water. If that money you claim is helping them then why are they still living the way they have been for centuries..If you donated that money directly into a foundation to put it right to the cause it would get to them. You pay all this money claiming you're helping poor locals when in reality nothing makes it down to them. So explain this away......why do you have to kill an animal to make these donations? I'll tell you....It's because you like to kill and you try to justify your selfless, unnecessary cruel actions with the big CONSERVATION WORD...Get over yourselves...

Read more Read less

IQ2

22 April 2016 - 06:33 AM

On 2016-04-22 02:33:54, David Whitworth wrote:
The only reason hunters " need to cull" animal populations is because our society is developing their natural habitat for house and businesses. We need to have adequate reserves of habitat for wild animal population. This needs to be done at the legislative level.

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 April 2016 - 18:20 PM

On 2016-04-21 14:20:49, Al Maki wrote:I hold a PhD in Wildlife Biology and am a life-long hunter. I have had the good fortune to have hunted on all continents and…

On 2016-04-21 14:20:49, Al Maki wrote:
I hold a PhD in Wildlife Biology and am a life-long hunter. I have had the good fortune to have hunted on all continents and similarly have conducted research programs in concert with wildlife agencies, governments and private entities. When one has spent that much time in the third world nations where much of our wildlife exists you begin to understand the unique relationship of hunting and conservation. Many on this blog string argue vehemently against any sort of hunting while not having spent any appreciable time outside of their concrete environments. Many don't understand that conservation is defined as the wise use of species, not pure preservation as several have tried to imply. We have to realize that there are nearly 7 billion of us on this globe and our actions have taken and fragmented wildlife habitat to an irreparable degree. Even the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem where I live for half of the year is fragmented and impacted by our activities to the point where we must aggressively manage wildlife to protect some semblance of balance, which includes the hunting of predators like wolves and grizzly bears. The argument that nature has done just fine by herself is ridiculous given the human impacts we are causing worldwide. Time and again the North Amercan Model of Conservation developed by President Theodore Roosevelt and other forward thinking conservationists over 120 years ago is by far the most successful model now with offshoots being managed in several other countries. It is based simply on hunters willing to pay for the management of their wildlife, accepting tightly regulated and science based seasons and limits on numbers of animals allowed to be taken. I realize the aguement is counter-intuitive and it is a hard hurdle for urbanites to comprehend, but the facts and vast body of wildlife science support the model. One only has to look at whitetail deer, antelope, elk, turkeys and several other N.American species to realize that hunters were the first true conservationists by accepting limitations, seasons and license fees to pay for sustainable use of wildlife. Each of those species was rescued from the brink of extinction by hunters efforts to the point where millions of these species now roam across habitat that was and is being conserved by hunters.

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 April 2016 - 05:57 AM

Kathy simonik Could you please reference your peer reviewed study findings? I would be interested how you went about your "studies"

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 April 2016 - 05:47 AM

hey anti's, all this nature takes care of itself. we should not interfere with nature. yeah you. you have a pet cat? maybe a pet dog? maybe a purebred? the…

hey anti's, all this nature takes care of itself. we should not interfere with nature. yeah you. you have a pet cat? maybe a pet dog? maybe a purebred? the WOLF, DINGO, and a few others are the ONLY natural dogs. ALL your domestic dogs were selectively bred. the genes un-naturally selected by humans. YOU. YOU interfered with natures process. not only that but in doing so YOU advanced and concentrated genetic faults that cause pain and suffering and early death. feel the hypocrisy?

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 April 2016 - 05:27 AM

Lorainne Really? grow up. The animal activists vegans are so ignorant it amazing. Farmers want the animals killed and they don't care if its sport. they don't care if you…

Lorainne Really? grow up. The animal activists vegans are so ignorant it amazing. Farmers want the animals killed and they don't care if its sport. they don't care if you eat the animal. They want the deer GONE. they are a hunters best friend. When I ask a farmer for permission to hunt they tell me "KILL EM ALL". and they are fueled and financed by the vegan. They grow the vegetables and grains you eat for money. Guess what. The deer, the ducks, the raccoons eat their profit. Guess what? Farmers get BLOCK PERMITS. they get to kill and leave to rot MANY DEER because of crop damage. Guess what? the bigger the demand for veggies the higher the price. Then that farmer bulldozes the woods that all the critters lived in so they can grow more. then the critters die because they have no place to live. Go out to the country where the deer and critters live and grow a garden to sustain yourself. You can't use chemicals cause that KILLS BUGS and denies them their food, YOU WILL DIE of starvation. Those critters will eat all your food without a thought about your well being. You people make all these judgments from your wood based home in the suburb about nature you only see on TV.........................

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 April 2016 - 04:55 AM

Theresa, could you be specific as to which population has been decimated by hunting, regulated hunting, NOT POACHING? they have been reduced by habitat desctruction. Many are at record levels…

Theresa, could you be specific as to which population has been decimated by hunting, regulated hunting, NOT POACHING? they have been reduced by habitat desctruction. Many are at record levels despite hunting. take for example the whitetail deer population in Mi. About 2 million deer. Before the white man and hunting done by them they were quite rare in Mi. also look at the water fowl populations the last 2 years. I'm sure you already knew they too are at record levels despite the most liberal harvest limits in decades. Scott, you are right in the case of deer hunting, we do try to take the biggest deer we can. the biggest MALE deer. And we harvest them AFTER the breeding season. The beautiful thing about male deer is that they are quite promiscuous. 1 male can breed many females. THAT is why it's conservation. Now not harvesting females is where the population gets screwed up. They do not regulate birth rates based on resources. they will deplete the vegetation until they all starve which is a slow pain filled death. Arlene 10) yes sustainable. reason 1 cause not everybody wants to hunt. 2 just because you go hunting doe not mean you allways are successful. 3 hunting is REGULATED so if the population is in decline the licenses to hunt are reduced. 9) you're right. stupid argument in defense of hunting. 8) teeth are interesting evolution right. Our teeth have strangely been formed to be efficient for both veggies AND meat. However, we do not have multiple chambered stomachs effective in processing grasses like many of the vegetarian animals 7) well its healthier meat no hormones antibiotics etc. its apparent now your a vegan. just FYI I'm 47, 85% of my meat foods are from hunting and I weigh 160lbs. same as in highschool. take no cholesterol or BP meds. 6) Now that I've stopped laughing.....Please show me data that hunting makes them breed more? Deer breed ONCE a year, in fall, usually November. They then drop the fawn in May or June when temp and foods are ideal. WOW still laughing.......this statement really diminishes your credibility and shows how little FACTS you really know. 5) Yep it's hunting season for sure. It's also BREEDING season. This causes the buck to travel much more in search of does. Have you ever seen a buck following a doe that is close to estrus? relentless. it looks like a game of tag. his persistence causes her to move more than normal. deer ALWAYS move more between dusk and dawn. It is also the time of year when it is dark early and humans are still out and about in cars. PS we can't hunt at night 4) There is no way you could understand however you comment does show your ability to lable without reason. why is a serial killer automatically a man? why do they automatically prey on women. http://www.the-line-up.com/9-female-serial-killers/ 3)you are right again. It's not "manly". I know several women hunters. quite accomplished and skilled. 2)Sorry laughing again....first they are usually brought along on a hunt to observe but only if they want to. Then if they choose to hunt they are taught about gun safety, hunting ethics the laws and respect for the environment. Scarred, no more than a shelterd kid that wasn't taught respect for individuals and their differences and aren't given an opportunity to choose for themselves. So I ask, were your children given an uninfluenced opportunity to decide if they liked meat or would like to hunt? PS God said to eat meat and told us which ones to eat and not to eat. Look it up

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 April 2016 - 03:16 AM

Sandy, isn't everything gods creation? the cotton that clothes you? the water you drink? the veggies you eat? the wood used to build your house? Yes, they are all god's…

Sandy, isn't everything gods creation? the cotton that clothes you? the water you drink? the veggies you eat? the wood used to build your house? Yes, they are all god's creation and were placed here for us to use responsibly. Leisa H, lets not be so dramatic. I am sure that was your goal and you are just hiding the facts you already knew. Otherwise you would just be showing how foolish you are by speaking without knowledge. the Yellowstone population was NOT KILLED off. NO hunting is allowed in Yellowstone PERIOD. Wolves primary target is ELK NOT BISON. Wolves have reduced the elk population by 1/2. Wolf population does not effect bison population as of yet..... here is a little info for you. http://www.yellowstonepark.com/gray-wolves-impact-elk/ here is a little more about how the wolf kills for SPORT. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/us/wyoming-wolf-pack-elk-slaughter/ Roman, it's not consciousness that is slowly awakening it's ignorance. Here's another little tidbit for the animal lovers many of whom have cats. http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=610:new-research-suggests-outdoor-cats-kill-more-wildlife-than-thought&catid=34:ONB+Articles&Itemid=54 those "pets" kill FAR more wildlife than hunters do.......... So lets keep this real and understand that EVERYONE enjoys wildlife. I enjoy watching them. I also enjoy hunting them. and I enjoy eating everything I take unlike the cats. Hunting is managed so that the number of animal harvested do not effect the sustainability of the animal. Usually total harvest is about 15% of total population. And lets be clear POACHING of endangered populations such as tiger and rhino IS NOT hunting and is condemned by the hunting community. I understand that you do not agree with hunting but do you really think YOU are effected by it? do you see animals being shot daily? weekly? What isn't regulated for the sustainability of animals is habitat. This effects sport and non-sport animals alike. Habitat is THE biggest influence on wildlife population. It is routinely plowed under for your new subdivision and the convenience of the nearby shopping mall. If you want to save animals start where it makes the biggest difference. HABITAT. Maybe buy a duck stamp. bet most of you animal lovers don't know anything about the duck stamp. READ and EDUCATE yourself. I buy several every year. I, a hunter contribute

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 April 2016 - 02:07 AM

Hunters always go for the best animals which is usually the alpha animal. By killing that animal the strong genes are lost. The genes that's needed for survival. The result…

Hunters always go for the best animals which is usually the alpha animal. By killing that animal the strong genes are lost. The genes that's needed for survival. The result is weaker species with less chances of survival. That is also damaging the tourist industry because all the best animals are shot leaving the weaker animals for photo tourists. That's unfair don't you think? I am from SOUTH AFRICA and I have heard about every hunting story... each one more gruesome than the previous one. And every story ends with the big man with his big gun winning a ferocious battle. SAD...

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 April 2016 - 01:15 AM

On 2016-04-20 21:15:56, Denise Burns wrote:Unless hunting is for that family's necessity for food, then there is nothing right about hunting an animal or bird. Humans think they have a…

On 2016-04-20 21:15:56, Denise Burns wrote:
Unless hunting is for that family's necessity for food, then there is nothing right about hunting an animal or bird. Humans think they have a right to just kill an animal and it's this arrogance that will cause the ultimate downfall of our existence.

Read more Read less

IQ2

21 April 2016 - 01:10 AM

Hi Jason, There are several inaccuracies in the IUCN report for example the worth of tourism to Tanzanians GDP versus the worth of trophy hunting. I am sure you can…

Hi Jason, There are several inaccuracies in the IUCN report for example the worth of tourism to Tanzanians GDP versus the worth of trophy hunting. I am sure you can do the math, based on that alone you can see that the article is completely biased and unbalanced Concerning Zimbabwe, trophy hunting has gotten so out of hand that there is no wildlife left, hence Cecil, he had to be lured out of a National Park, from his safe habitat. Cecil is just a symptom of what trophy hunting has done to the country. Conservancies such as Bubye are nothing more than canned hunting facilities, what is their worth to conservation? Why is there no mention of Botswana in the article? Why is there no mention of the fact that pro-trophy hunting countries such as Tanzania and Mozambique are a lot harder stricken by poaching than let's say Kenya. Kenya that at the present is doing very well concerning anti-poaching. You say Namibia is doing well? this is from LionAid 'Regarding Namibia, your IUCN paper refers only to the WWF paper by Naidoo called “Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia” In fact, there were 77 conservancies established by 2012, but 25 of them reported not generating any benefits from either hunting or tourism, meaning that 32,5% of Namibia’s conservancies generate nothing. Of the 52 remaining, 28 are hunting “conservancies” and 6 are photographic conservancies as registered. The remainder are in limbo. If you go to the trophy hunting income to Namibia during year 2013 (table 2, p. 8) I see that the total income is 1.6 million US$. That amount accumulates to 82 conservancies in 2016 and for a land area of 16 million hectares (30% of France!) and 184 000 people. So, income for a conservancy member in Namibia is less than 9 US$/person/yr. This sort of annual income will provide not much more than a single cup of cappucino in Europe, let alone an adequate annual income to a Namibian community member.'

Read more Read less

IQ2

20 April 2016 - 23:53 PM

On 2016-04-20 19:53:42, MarEugenia Pereira wrote:Do not Hunt Wild animals STOP THE HUNT!! Animals are being extinct YOU DON'T NEED TO HUNT FOR FOOD OT CLOTH STOP THE ABUSE!!!

On 2016-04-20 19:53:42, MarEugenia Pereira wrote:
Do not Hunt Wild animals STOP THE HUNT!! Animals are being extinct YOU DON'T NEED TO HUNT FOR FOOD OT CLOTH STOP THE ABUSE!!!

Read more Read less

IQ2

20 April 2016 - 23:13 PM

On 2016-04-20 19:13:09, dirthawker wrote:
my impression is that non hunters are a bit hypocritical. they use mined products, oil, wood, leather, plastics etc. translate that to anything they use was mined, pumped out of the ground or grown. even their bicycles are made out of aluminum, steel, magnesium, rubber and plastic. all from "evil" miners and oil companies. non hunters also take up space by simply existing in their apartment or home. space that was once valuable wildlife habitat. non hunters have other people grow their food for them on farms that need to be large. to feed the masses in the place they have chosen to live, that also takes away space that wild life used to live in. (habitat) then, the animal lover tries to take the moral high ground and says that a person that takes another animals life while hunting it is "bad, thoughtless, soul less, etc" while a bull dozer plows out another flat spot then paves over a place that a rabbit or deer used to live in, to place their Starbucks coffee house on. HMMMMM. we are all part of the world/ environment. fees from hunting are used to manage wildlife, for both viewing AND hunting. how much money do non hunters spend to manage wildlife or habitat? if they really cared they would buy a bunch of land (and pay taxes on it) and make it a safe haven for their animal friends. however, after a bit of time, no management at all will create its own problems. even the hard core bunny hugger will need to step in and do something to help the animals on the land they now own. maybe feed them artificially when the numbers of deer get too high or build a fence so the animals don't leave their eden and get run over by a vehicle or shot as they try to leave because the deer numbers are too high or food too little. just some thoughts. if an animal lover feels so bad about a buffalo being shot to feed a bunch of africans, how do you reconcile your having someone else kill a chicken or a fish FOR YOU so you can live your "low impact" life style?

Read more Read less

IQ2

20 April 2016 - 08:35 AM

On 2016-04-20 04:35:29, Shad Trapper wrote:
People who eat only veggies kill more sentient mammals and destroy the environment by letting someone else bulldoze millions of acres of natural habitat that has been there for hundred of thousands of years. There has been University studies recently proving this (even though this wasn't their intention) so all I can say is you are all sticking your head in the sand. Also watch the Nature show "What plants talk about" and you will see plants are a lot more human than you think. Again if you eat veggies you have blood on your hands, never forget that and don't be such high and mighty judges!

Read more Read less

IQ2

20 April 2016 - 05:35 AM

It annoys me that HSUS (a PETA front group which has no connection with any local humane society) is being given a forum here. Their true goal is to shut…

It annoys me that HSUS (a PETA front group which has no connection with any local humane society) is being given a forum here. Their true goal is to shut down the meat industry. (If they wanted to debate *that* idea I'd have no problem with it. The problem is their lack of honesty about their agenda, which is why they use front groups.)

Read more Read less

IQ2

20 April 2016 - 00:27 AM

On 2016-04-19 20:27:55, TB wrote:You're all a bunch of bleeding heart hypocrites. Most of you eat meat and think that hunting is something different. You're probably all the same people…

On 2016-04-19 20:27:55, TB wrote:
You're all a bunch of bleeding heart hypocrites. Most of you eat meat and think that hunting is something different. You're probably all the same people that want the government to take care of you.

Read more Read less

IQ2

19 April 2016 - 23:24 PM

While assertions have been made that those opposed to public hunting as lethal management are unfamiliar with wildlife and wildlands, I have not found this to be true in years…

While assertions have been made that those opposed to public hunting as lethal management are unfamiliar with wildlife and wildlands, I have not found this to be true in years of on-the-ground personal conversations in wildlands. There is thus a likelihood that those who only enter wildlands to eradicate wildlife either do not converse about their goals, or else that they only enter the remaining wildlands when seeking out that goal. I happen to have been born in extremely rural wildlands, and have never been successfully able to remain in urban areas, nor among those who merely use wildlife for targets. I remain personally careful when speaking to those who are employed in urban-type occupations, who seem to be the most avid lethal recreationists, as this present culture requires some interaction in human communities, and there is more than enough dislike, hate, and rage. I've constantly seen the bags of doe heads, the tattered and butchered skins of young bears, and MANY other direct relics of human lethal recreation, every year. These days, we are able to see video postings of the needless and cruel deaths of wild, self-willed animals, ones that are merely trying to hang on in the diminishing area humans have left available. Science shows clearly that without refugia completely absent human killing - almost all of which is done for perverse pleasure, unlike the original subsistence hunters of this continent - the native wildlife will not survive. Two notes may be of value: 1. Subsistence hunting cultures regarded the animals with whom they shared the continent as equals in rights and validity to themselves. The humans learned from, and recognized the moral and physical necessity of reverence and respect for the living species, and retained cultural practices (until the Euro gun culture invaded and attempted genocide upon nearly all indigenous species) that recognized this equality of community of life. 2. The ONLY response of the present Euro culture that now rules the continent to the massive killing done when not regulated, was to regulate solely for the retention of a minimal amount of the native species to exist for the use and pleasure of the humans of that culture. No rights nor respect, even of the individual lives of other animals than human exist in this culture, but only of some unquestioned right of humans to kill for pleasure, social status (this is the solipsistic and psychopathic intent of trophy hunters), or competitive urge. The insanity of the present technology used, attests incontrovertibly to this fact. ATV's to transport, silencers, night vision scopes, extreme long-distance projectile weapons, trail cameras, snow machines, these exclusive urban technologies are now used . There is no actual challenge (I learned tracking skills since the 1950s, and often have surprised deer within 15-20 feet, surprising even martens and fishers, interacting with coyotes and knowing bears and their offspring for years. I know whereof I speak), no real skills, no moral thought remaining in the gun culture. Hunting as presently done, with its attendant massive marketing of such things as electronic animal calls, the poaching and baiting that is almost entirely ubiquitous, the use of domestic dogs for sensory and motive assist to even find the living targets, these are all so immoral and absent the connection and recognition that another life is as valid as one's own, as to require that sport hunting, AND its excessive technologies, be banished from the face of Earth.

Read more Read less

IQ2

19 April 2016 - 17:43 PM

On 2016-04-19 13:43:56, Marco wrote:There are a Great MANY people in this world who are never considered in public debate and "public opinion" Because they live closer to nature. Have…

On 2016-04-19 13:43:56, Marco wrote:
There are a Great MANY people in this world who are never considered in public debate and "public opinion" Because they live closer to nature. Have you ever asked people who live closer to nature their opinion about sustainable use of a natural resource? I call it living closer to nature, but some would call it "poor" their opinion might be different than yours, but you will never know! Because they do not own an iPad, iPhone, computer, television, car or even a bicycle! So my question remains unanswered: "what is public opinion? the opinion of the majority of the world, or the opinion of the elite - elite in the sense of material mane made wealth!? So I live in Africa, and I have never ever ever heard ANY anti hunting philosophy or ideology from ANY native people of Africa! It seems clear to me that the further people are removed from nature (the more dependent they become of living in a mane made concrete jungle) the more Anti-Sustainable use of nature their thoughts become. I am a proud hunter, that marvel at the scene of Zebra and Wildebeest, Blesbok, Impala, Giraffe, Kudu, Nyala, Gemsbok, Waterbok, and many more, that I behold from my varanda every afternoon at sunset, none of these species were here when I bought this property 15 years ago as a failed cattle farm! Keep a clear mind! Grace to all!

Read more Read less

IQ2

19 April 2016 - 15:00 PM

On 2016-04-19 11:00:02, delamar landell maya wrote:I do not approve of killing wildlife.

On 2016-04-19 11:00:02, delamar landell maya wrote:
I do not approve of killing wildlife.

Read more Read less

IQ2

19 April 2016 - 12:35 PM

On 2016-04-19 08:35:13, Pierre Hundermark wrote:90 percent of people against hunting have never been in the outdoor environment. Or to Africa and actually seen what happens on the ground. I…

On 2016-04-19 08:35:13, Pierre Hundermark wrote:
90 percent of people against hunting have never been in the outdoor environment. Or to Africa and actually seen what happens on the ground. I am born and raised in Zimbabwe and am strongly for hunting through conservation. The very existence of more than 50 precent of wildlife in Zimbabwe is due to hunting. For instance, we get huge areas that have been given to indigenous people to resettle on with large amounts of wildlife. In the early eighties we realized that the animals had no value to them in these areas other than for meat. The indigenous people on this land are all subsistence farmers growing crops to feed their families. They started killing all the animals with no thought of the future. It was then decided that we would try educate the people to see the value in wildlife. Hence the areas were formed into CAMPFIRE areas. This stands for Communal Area Managment Program For Indigenous Resources Empowerment. Basically we educated the people to protect the wildlife to be hunted through strict quota settings and responsible off take. The money from selling these animals would be put back into the areas building schools,clinics and funding programs to help the local communities in future. The program has worked very well since the eighties. If this was never done there would not be a living creature left in these areas. Please people put your emotions aside for a second. Take a step back and actually take a close look at the benefits of hunting through conservation. Yes offcourse there is certain hunting Operators or outfitters who do not have conservation as their goal but we will pull together and weed out these people. But please again don't let your emotions put our african wildlife to extinction. P. Hundermark

Read more Read less

IQ2

19 April 2016 - 04:17 AM

Animals are Gods creatures too. I don't know how someone can look these beautiful animals and pull a trigger, ending their lives with no remorse. Seems to me they have…

Animals are Gods creatures too. I don't know how someone can look these beautiful animals and pull a trigger, ending their lives with no remorse. Seems to me they have lost their humanity. A life is not mans to take. The world belongs to them, we were just welcomed into it. Bad choice, I guess...And I thought God made no mistake. The killing of Cecil was the lords message that enough is enough... Love these guys... https://www.facebook.com/IncredibleNature1/videos/1160719160606314/ This is their world....STAY THE HELL AWAY!!!!!!!! https://youtu.be/iin_jd5LRhs

Read more Read less

IQ2

19 April 2016 - 00:35 AM

On 2016-04-18 20:35:21, Leisa H wrote:In 2006 they killed off the wolf population in Yellowstone because it was getting too big in numbers NOW they are killing down the Bison…

On 2016-04-18 20:35:21, Leisa H wrote:
In 2006 they killed off the wolf population in Yellowstone because it was getting too big in numbers NOW they are killing down the Bison because of the population growth. Why not let Mother Nature take care of it ? She was doing quite fine until the government thought they could do a better job. Hunting is not population control.

Read more Read less

IQ2

19 April 2016 - 00:14 AM

On 2016-04-18 20:14:36, Roman wrote:We are still not conscious enough, at a collective level, to recognize that we, human beings, animals and all creatures are equal. We are equal in…

On 2016-04-18 20:14:36, Roman wrote:
We are still not conscious enough, at a collective level, to recognize that we, human beings, animals and all creatures are equal. We are equal in the sense that there is ONE AND THE SAME consciousness in all of us. So, hunting for sport is actually harming ourselves. Regardless of the debate in 5-10 years hunting will be forbidden and in another 20-30 years our children will be looking back with surprise that there were times that hunting for sport was possible. There is no other way because consciousness is awakening slowly in each of us. The problem is that before this happens we will cause a lot of suffering to others, in this case to animals.

Read more Read less

IQ2

18 April 2016 - 13:27 PM

Surely we'd all agree that to get from birth to death in as least painful a way possible, either emotionally or physically has to be an (unvoiced) expectation of living?…

Surely we'd all agree that to get from birth to death in as least painful a way possible, either emotionally or physically has to be an (unvoiced) expectation of living? For every person, every animal, lives on the earth involuntarily. Not one living being asked to be here. Given the above, humans (misguidedly in my opinion), have arrogantly taken it upon themselves that we can administer or inflict any treatment we see fit upon other living creatures. If animals voted or had money or talked in a language we understood,it would be a different matter. It's that very reason that we OWE the animals a duty of care. We do not OWN anything - only our thoughts. It is this fact alone that should make us want to ensure their lives on the earth, is at least as painless as our own beginning and end. It is not by eradicating animals at our whim, just because we can. It is by cherishing and realising how fortunate we are to have animals SHARING the world with us. A Worldwide Animal Charter should be established with each person paying a tax from their salary towards maintaining the animal Kingdom, enforced by a governing body from each country. This way, worldwide, money would be available to enforce the status quo of Man living in harmony with Nature.

Read more Read less

IQ2

18 April 2016 - 12:44 PM

On 2016-04-18 08:44:19, Teresa Urduja wrote:Trophy hunting is not conservation because its a setback, and there are better ways to save these animals than by shooting them. Their numbers have…

On 2016-04-18 08:44:19, Teresa Urduja wrote:
Trophy hunting is not conservation because its a setback, and there are better ways to save these animals than by shooting them. Their numbers have dwindled significantly and should be left alone to thrive. They're worth far more alive than dead.

Read more Read less

IQ2

18 April 2016 - 01:21 AM

On 2016-04-17 21:21:09, SCOTT OJ wrote:When hunters whine about WILDLIFE eating the very animals that THEY want to Kill, I do not see how that is Conservation. And considering the…

On 2016-04-17 21:21:09, SCOTT OJ wrote:
When hunters whine about WILDLIFE eating the very animals that THEY want to Kill, I do not see how that is Conservation. And considering the FACT that hunters do NOT Kill the weak, old, injured, once again, how is THAT "Conservation"? Hunters Kill the Strong, the Beautiful, the HEALTHIEST, which leads to a very screwed up Population. Natural Selection requires the Strongest and Healthiest of a Species to breed and produce the future Generations. Soon hunters will be whining about the "quality" of the animals they are left with. Which will lead to more whining about Wildlife killing for Survival.

Read more Read less

IQ2

17 April 2016 - 16:23 PM

On 2016-04-17 12:23:21, Tina Gonnermann wrote:Mother nature has a remarkable way of tending to the environment and the animals that live on earth. There is no need for man to…

On 2016-04-17 12:23:21, Tina Gonnermann wrote:
Mother nature has a remarkable way of tending to the environment and the animals that live on earth. There is no need for man to micromanage the wildlife. The excuses of overpopulation and interference with domestic animals are just that...excuses. People need to learn how to share the earth with all the animals on it. Animals have the same right to life on earth as people do and to take that life before it's time is up leaves a great hole in nature. All of nature is connected in some way, each element relying on another for survival and when you take away a certain element, it weakens the natural process.

Read more Read less

IQ2

16 April 2016 - 23:32 PM

On 2016-04-16 19:32:06, rob wrote:When you visit places like New Zealand, where the introduction of various alien mammals like domestic cats, ferrets and deer has wreaked havoc on the native…

On 2016-04-16 19:32:06, rob wrote:
When you visit places like New Zealand, where the introduction of various alien mammals like domestic cats, ferrets and deer has wreaked havoc on the native flightless birds, then you do support hunting, and maybe airdropped poison too.

Read more Read less

IQ2

16 April 2016 - 21:20 PM

On 2016-04-16 17:20:26, Arlene Steinberg wrote:
Top 10 Retorts to Hunter Fallacies Hunters’ arguments and rationalizations for their sport are so repetitive and predictable that, to save valuable time and precious mental energy, it might help to have your responses printed out ahead of time like flash cards, and kept at the ready in your back pocket. Here, then, are the Top 10 Retorts to Hunter Fallacies you’re most likely to hear the next time you debate a sportsman. (I would apologize to David Letterman, but this isn’t meant to be a joke.) 10) Hunting is "sustainable.” In today’s world of 7 billion people? Never mind, that’s a joke if I’ve ever heard one. Do we really want to encourage 7 billion humans to go out and kill wildlife for food as if wild animal flesh is an unlimited resource? The only way hunting could be sustainable for humans these days is if we drastically reduced our population and killed off all the natural predators. Overhunting has proven time and again to be the direct cause of extinctions, from the passenger pigeon to the Eastern and the Miriams Elk. Now wolves in the Rockies and Great Lakes are being hunted and trapped to oblivion—for the second time. 9) Animals kill other animals, so we can too. That’s an example of what’s known as the naturalistic fallacy—the notion that any behavior that can be found in nature is morally justifiable. But wolves and other natural predators need to hunt to survive, humans don’t—for them it’s nothing more than a thrill kill. Human beings have moved beyond countless other behaviors such as cannibalism or infanticide, so why can’t some people tear themselves away from hunting? 8) Humans have teeth like carnivores Human beings have mostly flat teeth, designed primarily for chewing plant-based foods, as our primate cousins do. Our canines, or “fangs,” are teensy compared to those of gorillas, who are strict vegetarians and only show them to appear fierce. Also, our intestinal tract is long to allow for the slow digestion of high-fiber foods, while true carnivores have short intestines as needed to process meat and dispose of the resulting toxic wastes quickly. 7) Wild game meat is health food. All animal flesh is rife with cholesterol throughout, and the protein in animal flesh is acidic, causing bone calcium losses as it is metabolized. According to the American Dietetic Association, a diet high in animal products has been linked to obesity, diabetes, colon and other cancers, osteoporosis, kidney stones, gallstones, diverticular disease, hypertension and coronary artery disease. New studies have found that another culprit in causing heart disease may be a little-studied chemical that is burped out by bacteria in the intestines after people eat meat. 6) Hunting is needed to control animal populations. You’d really have to have no understanding of or faith in Mother Nature to make such a claim—she was doing a fine job of taking care of her own before Man came along and appointed himself “manager” and “game” keeper. No niche goes unfilled for long before some natural predator finds it and fixes a “problem”… if we allow them to. Besides, hunting animals like deer makes them breed more, resulting in more deer, not fewer. 5) If we don’t kill deer they’ll become a traffic hazard. Two words: Slow Down. More animals are hit by cars during hunting season than any other time of year, usually when fleeing from bloodthirsty sportsmen with guns. 4) Hunting teaches respect for wildlife and an appreciation for nature. Ha! That’s like a serial killer claiming his crimes foster a respect for women. Tracking down and shooting something does not equal respect. Try using a camera or binoculars if you really want to respect them. 3) Hunting is a “manly” sport. First of all, hunting isn’t even a sport—Sport is generally recognized as an activity based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity. Sports are usually governed by rules to ensure fair competition. A sport is played by two equally matched, or at least equally willing, sides. According to SportAccord, the second criteria determining if something is a sport: it be in no way harmful to any living creature. And anyway, real men respect animals (see above). 2) Hunting licenses pay for wildlife refuges. In truth, hunting licenses pay for hunter playgrounds, not true wildlife refuges. Take a look at how many “refuges” have been opened up to hunting; or just try to close an area to hunting for the sake of wildlife and hear the nimrods wail. If hunters hadn’t hijacked all the refuges, more bird watchers, hikers and others who truly appreciate nature would gladly pay for a pass to frequent those places. Furthermore, non-consumptive wildlife watchers contribute far more to local economies than do hunters. 1) Hunting keeps kids out of trouble. Sticking a gun in a child’s hand and telling him or her to shoot Bambi is likely to leave lasting psychological scars, whether it’s PTSD or a heart calloused for killing. Bonus fallacy) God put Animals here for us to use. Don’t flatter yourself.

Read more Read less

IQ2

16 April 2016 - 11:53 AM

On 2016-04-16 07:53:17, Lorraine wrote:Get real people, hunting is not about conservation, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Leave the wildlife wild and free where they belong. Hunting or should I…

On 2016-04-16 07:53:17, Lorraine wrote:
Get real people, hunting is not about conservation, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. Leave the wildlife wild and free where they belong. Hunting or should I say killing makes a few wealthy. If the hunters are so concerned about conservation PLEASE feel free to donate the cost of the killing fee to help all animals, villages and farmers who really need it. No, I didn't think so.

Read more Read less

IQ2

16 April 2016 - 09:18 AM

On 2016-04-16 05:18:48, suzanne wrote:
Taking a life cannot be considered conservation in my opinion. The animals in Africa thrived before the big white hunter and his/her guns arrived, local people may have managed to hunt for their food now and again however the playing field was a lot more level. The human race needs to find other means by which to care compassionately for all wildlife whether it be native or introduced. There are many examples of this happening as with the bee hives to scare elephants from crops and flashing light to deter predators in Kenya. Why does there need to be a death involved when the money spent on equipment and getting the hunters to the area etc could be spent on conservation educating the local people and putting things in place so others can enjoy the beauty of these animals. When we do harm to others that violence will always return to harm us, time to become conscious of your actions and their consequences.

Read more Read less

IQ2

16 April 2016 - 07:22 AM

On 2016-04-16 03:22:49, Glory wrote:The problem is MONEY. Hunting produces money and not the animal's protection. My concern is there are more criminals than animal lovers...

On 2016-04-16 03:22:49, Glory wrote:
The problem is MONEY. Hunting produces money and not the animal's protection. My concern is there are more criminals than animal lovers...

Read more Read less

IQ2

16 April 2016 - 03:25 AM

On 2016-04-15 23:25:37, Cyndae wrote:My family grew up hunting deer and fowl. We also fished. Everything that was caught or shot was done for food. Without the right to hunt…

On 2016-04-15 23:25:37, Cyndae wrote:
My family grew up hunting deer and fowl. We also fished. Everything that was caught or shot was done for food. Without the right to hunt and fish for food we would have had to beg for help with food. Not everyone hunts for sport. Factory farms are a lot more cruel to animals. They are tortured from birth to death. Don't eat tortured food, try hunting with a clean shot.

Read more Read less

IQ2

16 April 2016 - 02:28 AM

Hunters destroy natures order by killing all predators.It it not humans right to kill /destroy lots of animals . The strongest genes are often removed,and used as a trophy on…

Hunters destroy natures order by killing all predators.It it not humans right to kill /destroy lots of animals . The strongest genes are often removed,and used as a trophy on the wall. Where is the conservation in that? Besides it is an ethical disgusting habit that wolves are shot from helicopters, caught in snares. Lions etc are raised in captivity only to be petted and then shot. We have to realice that trophy hunting is a thrill killing game where members can brag and win prizes at SCI/DSC conventions. Notice they win prizes if they catch the biggest,most beautiful animal.Not the weakest/oldest.Also a proof that trophy hunters are lying when they claim to benefit conservation. Furthermore many advisers to politicians are pro hunters. Please only use non-hunters as conservationists/advisors .People who doesn´t recieve any money to speak others mind

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 23:53 PM

Hello Christa, I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking…but if you’re asking when we will eliminate greed and corruption in the countries you mentioned, I can’t. However, and I’m sure…

Hello Christa, I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking…but if you’re asking when we will eliminate greed and corruption in the countries you mentioned, I can’t. However, and I’m sure you already know this, greed and corruption exists everywhere in Africa and not just the hunting industry. From the same IUCN paper on the subject of photographic tourism: “Like trophy hunting, if not carefully implemented it can have serious environmental impacts and can return a very low level of benefit to local communities, with most value captured offshore or by in-country elites (Sandbrook and Adams, 2012).” I agree that if a hunt or photographic safari takes place on communal land, they should receive a majority portion of the profit after covering all expenses incurred by the outfitter or tour operator. These are the people that we expect to live with, tolerate, and help protect these animals and they should be paid for that service. How do we ensure this, I don’t know. I’m a little surprised you included Namibia in your list though. In my opinion, they are leading the way when it comes to conservation (consumptive and non) and ensuring that the correct people profit from it. We also need to keep in mind that there are a lot of outfitters that do things correctly and conservancies that have and continue to do great things for conservation. Bubye is the one highlighted in this paper but there are many, many more that could’ve been listed. Is what they’re doing not good conservation? If not, please explain why? If that wasn’t the question you were asking, let me know what it was and I’ll be happy to give you my opinion. Now a question for you…did you read the entire paper? What are your overall thoughts? Thanks, Jason Y

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 23:09 PM

On 2016-04-15 19:09:16, MariaCNJ wrote:We have heard it before but the "Sport" of hunting is not a sport if only one side is aware of the "game". For a few…

On 2016-04-15 19:09:16, MariaCNJ wrote:
We have heard it before but the "Sport" of hunting is not a sport if only one side is aware of the "game". For a few minutes of gratification an animal that has fought against nature to survive is killed. Why? Man's incredible Ego? Killing a life because we can? How incredible pathetic human beings are. Wiping out entire species because we can. Killing for ivory, fur...vanity. Animals kill for survival, only man kills for vanity and ego. Can I say it again, how pathetic we are.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 22:35 PM

On 2016-04-15 18:35:33, caren wrote:
Hunting of any kind is murder Lions Tigers Leopards Rhino Elephants is totally pointless they should be protected for the future generations otherwise we will have nothing left and telling the future generations that man hunted them to extinction is not an option These magnificent animals must be protected from hunters their protection should be highlighted to younger generations and to encourage them to get involved in the future generations of wildlife

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 19:42 PM

On 2016-04-15 15:42:49, freevue wrote:I am staggered that a majority favor the motion that hunters conserve wildlife. when they are killing it ! The first comments are nearly all against…

On 2016-04-15 15:42:49, freevue wrote:
I am staggered that a majority favor the motion that hunters conserve wildlife. when they are killing it ! The first comments are nearly all against the motion. Huge sums are paid to kill big game in Africa, where populations of lions etc are dwindling. Very little of these fees reaches those responsible for conservation on the ground or the local human population.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 18:54 PM

On 2016-04-15 14:54:05, Chris Rose wrote:Hunting in my opinion is poaching under another name. Results are the same, one dead animal. therefore I think that hunters should get the same…

On 2016-04-15 14:54:05, Chris Rose wrote:
Hunting in my opinion is poaching under another name. Results are the same, one dead animal. therefore I think that hunters should get the same jail sentence as a poacher and the "Safari Companies" the same sentence as the poaching syndicate bosses.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 16:41 PM

On 2016-04-15 12:41:58, Martin Parker wrote:I am well aware of all the arguments for and against, but I abhor hunting and all who take part in it. Of course populations…

On 2016-04-15 12:41:58, Martin Parker wrote:
I am well aware of all the arguments for and against, but I abhor hunting and all who take part in it. Of course populations of things like deer need to be kept in check, but what trophy hunter will be taking out a few deer here and there. They don't care about the size of the population, just the size of the deer they are murdering. Populations of prey animals used to be kept down by prey animals, but now we have killed all of them. Hunting seems to have given rise to the 'need' to hunt. Does this grate on anyone else? Reintroduction is the only way to return to equilibrium humanely, we need more predators. Reports and science say that they will not be a threat to humans or livestock. And even if they were - deal with it! Our ancestors managed and apparently we are move evolved.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 16:37 PM

Animal welfare means nothing to hunters, it is always a game to them. Of course the "game" is entirely weighted on the side of the hunter/ killers. There are far…

Animal welfare means nothing to hunters, it is always a game to them. Of course the "game" is entirely weighted on the side of the hunter/ killers. There are far too many farmed animals in places that were formally for wild creatures alone. It's time to protect lands and animals for future generations and of course the planet itself.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 16:36 PM

On 2016-04-15 12:36:56, Andrew Dicomites wrote:
Hmmm. So the pictures of persons I have seen with high powered rifles and military combat clothing, coupled with huge smiles, while standing proudly over a lion or other animal really does help with conservation efforts? These persons clearly have other motives for killing these wild animals. True conservation efforts are carried out by organisations such as Ewaso Lions, Lion Guardians and Niassa Lion Project which engage communities and have an objective of providing a solution which is long term and benefits communities, eco systems and endangered / at risk wildlife. I am sorry, but the selfish motives of hunters and the thrill they receive when liquidating the 20,000 or so remaining lions in the world will never be acceptable to myself. Also another quick point. By killing a male lion in a pride, this then creates the opportunity for other males to take over that pride. This normally results in the male lion that takes over the pride, killing any young cubs. So mature male lions are NOT the only animals being killed by a hunters action.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 16:10 PM

to Jason This is from the IUCN report and please tell me when this is going to happen in countries such as Zimbabwe, Nambia, South Africa and Tanzania where corruption…

to Jason This is from the IUCN report and please tell me when this is going to happen in countries such as Zimbabwe, Nambia, South Africa and Tanzania where corruption and greed rules 'RECOMMENDATIONS To avoid significant negative impacts on species populations, habitat conservation, poaching levels, and the rights and livelihoods of indigenous and local communities, IUCN calls on the European Parliament, Council and Commission to ensure that any decisions that could restrict or end trophy hunting programmes: i. are based on careful and sound analysis and understanding of the particular role that trophy hunting programmes are playing in relation to conservation efforts at all levels in source countries, including their contribution to livelihoods in specific affected communities; ii. are based on meaningful and equitable consultation with affected range state governments and indigenous peoples and local communities and do not undermine local approaches to conservation; iii. are taken only after exploration of other options to engage with relevant countries to change poor practice and promote improved standards of governance and management of hunting; iv. are taken only after identification and implementation of feasible, fully funded and sustainable alternatives to hunting that respect indigenous and local community rights and livelihoods and deliver equal or greater incentives for conservation over the long term. ' The only ones getting richer and better from trophy hunting are the outfitters and hunting agencies who are now fighting like crazy to keep their business going and greedy gouverment officials who get a part from the money from trophy hunting; Local communities get little to nothing; It's time to look at other ways to preserve wildlife than trophy hunting, those days have gone, too little wildlife left and too many greedy for the last remaining wild animals.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 16:06 PM

On 2016-04-15 12:06:40, Alexia wrote:If you like conservation so much maybe you should do the same with people. Sure earth is overpopulated by humans and so many animals have extincted…

On 2016-04-15 12:06:40, Alexia wrote:
If you like conservation so much maybe you should do the same with people. Sure earth is overpopulated by humans and so many animals have extincted and a lot more will be in the years to come. Let's face it, you hunt because you think it is a sport, you enjoy killing defenceless animals and for some reason you feel better with yourselves.

Read more Read less

IQ2

15 April 2016 - 15:41 PM

On 2016-04-15 11:41:08, Tracy Meredith wrote:I have to say that this poll is FIXED. Thousands upon thousands of people are against hunting of any sort, specifically trophy hunting. It's dreadful…

On 2016-04-15 11:41:08, Tracy Meredith wrote:
I have to say that this poll is FIXED. Thousands upon thousands of people are against hunting of any sort, specifically trophy hunting. It's dreadful and outdated. There is no way that 75% of people are for hunting, NO WAY. I can only say that this poll DOES NOT represent the majority of citizens around the world that are appalled that this is being allowed to take place. Why should a few hunters spoil the majesty and greatness of these beautiful creates for the remaining 95% of the population by blasting the brains out of anything that moves. And all in the name of conservation? They do it because they enjoy death and watching a beautiful creature fall to their knees, it's as simple as that. BAN IT ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Read more Read less

Choose a Topic

Recent Debates