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.

Your mom

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 2016-05-08 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.

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.

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!!!

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

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.

"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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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 00:10:27, 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!

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.

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 23:35:09, 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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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 18:34:57, 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!

""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/

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.

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 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 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!

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.

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 2016-05-03 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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/

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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!

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..

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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?

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.........................

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

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

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...

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.

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.'

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 19:13:09, 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?

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!

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.)

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 2016-04-15 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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On 2016-04-15 11:15:55, Lourdes Mannise wrote:
First of all, I completely agree with another person above who said that nature does not need our help and that is the absolute truth! We are the only animal on this planet who is destroying everything, the rest of the species know how to coexist because, nature, if humans weren't on her way, is perfect! Unfortunately,some people has this very peculiar "taste" for killing other animals and then display them death as trophies...Human intelligence includes compassion and respect for others...

On 2016-04-15 11:08:10, Denise Piper wrote:
I am an animal lover and understand that some times it is kinder to assist an animals passing if it is injured and there is no treatment or cure BUT I will never understand how hunters can honestly believe they are helping. It's just self gratification of killing a defenceless beautiful animal who is just going about its normal life. If the only the table could be turned!!!

On 2016-04-15 10:55:18, Janet R wrote:
It is true that 100 years ago, hunters were conservationists but it was for their own means, to assure they would be able to hunt something, for food or pleasure. Today, there are many conservation organizations and enlightened humans who are trying to ensure the survival of many species so hunters as conservationists is hot air. I am against hunting because I feel the ecosystem, if left alone by humans, would self-regulate. But, humans can't possibly leave anything alone, no, we know it all, we know everything. Wolves are good example. As a apex predator, they would regulate the ecosystem but can't because of human intervention. Why is our government killing them after reintroducing them? What a waste of money. All the state wildlife boards are stocked with hunters and not biologists yet these boards claim they are managing the wildlife. Yes, for hunters but not for the wildlife. One only has to look at the disgusting black bear hunt here in Florida last year to see just how bad these state wildlife boards really are. Killing cubs and lactating mothers, shameful. Because of ranchers calling the shots with our government so they can use our public lands for their needs, wildlife doesn't have a chance. Why are we rounding up our wild horses and burros so they can be sent to slaughter? Because someone is making money on it. Ranchers are compensated for livestock losses due to wolves so why kill the wolves? Hunting is big business and generates a lot of revenue for gun makers and hunting accessory manufacturers. Walk into Bass Pro Shops and see just how big hunting really is. With all the equipment available such as rifle scopes and binocs, it makes you wonder how in the world could a hunter possibly confuse a wolf with a coyote? Or, how can they kill a black bear cub? Yet they do and they just get a slap on the wrist for making the mistake. I should point out that I do not eat meat because I believe that cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc. have feelings and it stinks that they are enslaved in tiny quarters and are forced to give their life so an idiot human can have a cheeseburger at McDonalds. I can understand hunting for food but trophy hunting, no, that is just being a pig. It galls me that nothing happened to the dentist, Palmer, that lured, tormented, and killed Cecil. I'm sure many hunters commenting feel the same about that guy. There's not enough animals left in Africa for trophy hunting and wonder what those nations are going to do when they run out of animals. And, canned hunting is disgusting. I am very glad that I went to Africa and saw the big 5 before they are gone. I just wonder what kind person enjoys killing an innocent animal that is not attacking you. Those kind of people frighten me because they are not balanced individuals. I wonder what you will kill when all the animals are gone. I hunt with my camera and the animal is not harmed. Perhaps you hunters should leave your guns and dogs at home and just take your camera. You can mount the pictures on your wall just like a trophy. Try it, you might like it. And, there's plenty of expensive camera equipment to buy, to get the perfect picture.

On 2016-04-15 10:53:33, Penny Mason wrote:
Hunting does not equal Conservation; not even in its basic literal interpretation!! Hunting is killing - conservation is preservation!! Raising money from giving people the licence to kill (and maim, injure, inflict pain, torture, trauma, fear, panic, etc., etc) is blood money, and a tiresome argument to cover up some degenerate need to destroy life and satisfy blood lust. The money from hunting, ploughed back into that type of system, just promotes a vicious cycle. It does not have the animals' interests at heart, it promotes the "sport." It is impossible to stalk, hunt and kill something you love and value for itself, the hunter's pschye is about self - heartless and ruthless. True conservationists are giving, sacrificial, dedicated and selfless, with RESPECT for nature and working to restore, maintain, preserve what other people are systematically destroying - conservationists are the true heros and warriors, not the men hiding behind the trophy, gun and corpse of a massacred animal. Conservationists conserve wildlife HUNTERS kill wildlife.

On 2016-04-15 10:02:51, Luke Klein wrote:
Hunting is barbaric and evil. There are no good intentions, it's driven by a despicable blood lust. How can hunting have anything to do with conservation, the fact there's even a debate about it is illogical and laughable in the extreme.

I think since hunters are keeping animal populations in check they should have an open season on the human population since there are more humans on the planet than any other species on earth - and another 3 billion will be here in the next 15 years. The human population continues to push other species back further and further and therefore the animals have to be regulated with the thought there are too many of them if we don't regulate them through hunting. If we get a grip on the human population there will be more room for wildlife. I'm 68 years old and live out west in the U.S. As kid growing up I saw allot more wildlife than I see now and I now live at the base of the Sierra Nevada.

Here is another example of how Hunting has saved a species from the brink of extinction. https://sites.utexas.edu/wildlife/2014/11/25/hunting-saves-a-the-markhor/ If not for hunting the Markhor would be extinct in most areas. It is a wild goat living in the high mountains of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Tajikistan etc. Until 20 years ago there was no protection for these animals. Now healthy populations are maintained with revenue going to the community. This is direct funding of local community development by hunting! You cannot deny that hunting actually has helped save a species. A similar case can be argued for the black wildbeast in South Africa. The animal was almost extinct due to indiscrimate killing and habitat destruction. Once the animal got protection and game farming was started, it has become a common animal. Without hunting this species would be extinct.

On 2016-04-14 22:33:42, Margeaux wrote:
Nature has been taking care of herself for thousands of years. I think man can keep their nose out of it.

On 2016-04-14 18:31:46, Anya Bronk wrote:
The last thing these “hunters” have in mind is Conservation. They only use the term to justify their lust for killing. You simply don’t kill to conserve. If they really cared, they would be giving a lot more funding towards conservation, without pulling the trigger. http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/5-reasons-trophy-hunting-is-not-conservation/

On 2016-04-14 13:44:50, Tanya Kay wrote:
Don't patronize us With this BS. You hunters are decimating species & they're becoming extinct thanks to you!

On 2016-04-14 08:14:01, Dwayne wrote:
You democrats can sure whine when you're losing.

I am from New Zealand. I am a hunter. Here in NZ all deer and mammals larger than bats & rats are introduced and not native. So our environment has been altered by human intervention - , logging, farming and introduction of non-native species. Hunting helps regulate these species. After WW2 the deer numbers exploded from about 4 or 5 years of little hunting in NZ! In the 1970s live capture and deer farming was started. Without hunter, the animals like deer & tahr would be shot from helicopter or poisoned. They still do animal control using those methods as hunters cannot control all the surplus animals. Now look at other countries where native species are hunted. In many African countries photo safari tourism is main stream. But they are in main centres with good infrastructure and access. All the fringe areas are neglected as the govt departments do not have the resources to manage wildlife. In the last 30 years African population has exploded. Villages have grown and new ones have been planted in many remote areas. Tribal subsistence farming is a lottery with dependence on weather and nature. Crops are raided by game. The villagers poach game using wire traps, gin traps & crude firearms. Look at this - https://www.facebook.com/Zambeze-Delta-Anti-Poaching-1536540886602284/?pnref=story When such remote fringe areas are designated as hunting concessions and leased for hunting, the operators spend 4 or 4 years to restore wildlife. The above example is what they do to combat poaching & restore game. Look what happened in Botswana. A few years ago they banned trophy hunting of lions. The hunting operations shut down and stopped anti poaching work. The lions outside the national parks started attacking village cattle. With no hunting concession to compensate the villagers' loss, While trophy hunters only hunt mature male lions, the villagers started poisoning the entire pride of lions. They killed males, females, cubs - the whole lot. Now there are very few lions outside national parks in Botswana! Look at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiyQvm9d4tM

On 2016-04-14 04:55:03, Nancy P wrote:
Hunting is never about conservation. We have no need for animal products. What we do need is to understand our place on this planet, and that is to act as caretakers not just takers. Those who claim any benefit for hunting are only justifying their own desire to kill.

On 2016-04-13 18:20:14, Jason Y wrote:
Correction….I meant IUCN Just ran across this newly released paper from IUCN and thought you guys might be interested. It’s a good read and pretty much supports what I said in my earlier post. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_informingdecisionsontrophyhuntingv1.pdf Enjoy, Jason Y

On 2016-04-13 17:24:44, Michael Nijs wrote:
Hunters are not conservationists, they're exploitators. Check this out. abcnews.go.com/WN/sex-tourism/story?id=10288468

On 2016-04-13 17:17:28, Cedric L wrote:
Hunters are NOT conservationists. They don't care for the environment only cares for profit. If you check their forums they deny climate change, anti-environment, vote for GOP which GOP support drilling, fracking, Deauthorize critical habitat for endangered species which is a bill to allow hunting, farming and logging on endangered species habitat. Translated... Poaching. Climate change threatenes wildlife and humanity. They kill animals for enjoyment. They never, EVER help non huntable place. They never EVER helped species with their pocket money. Never helped without killing. They never recovered species they previously endangered. Tiger were once on the big five and today still endangered. Never helped them. They only care for something to exist to be exploited or let it go extinct. Also they verse the bible and saying god put animals for us. That is totally UNscientific. I document their forums and them and No I am not a PETA member. Reason they kill is to gain attention and because of a tradition. mainly because of money, Capitalism is destroying the environment and us. Just because is a tradition doesn't mean is right They make billions and don't give a cent to hot spots and habitats facing crisis where hunting is illegal. Also they support exterminating wolves and they hate animals. They spread pseudoscience. Anyone with a brain knows hunters are NOT conservationists or you mind saying letting your water run, heat turned to the max, all light on 24/7 are water and energy conservation.

On 2016-04-13 11:45:01, Moona Bal wrote:
Did anyone ever hear of any species being restored to nature thanks to hunting or culling of other species? Do anyone know about African countries economy prospering because of organized hunting safaris? Thanks goodness, NO! There is no single scientific evidence supporting that hunting helped in the conservation of species. It is evident that African countries with their very limited resources are even poorer specially in rural areas. They are still without any sustainable long term tourism projects that will respect the habitat, wildlife and REALLY help the conservation of species and the whole ecosystem. Recently, Namibia agreed to hunting very rare and unique species of Desert Elephants. I don't understand how killing such endangered magnificent creatures will help conservation! Is taking photos of some African villagers while they eating the killed elephant meat a scientific conservation method? These ridiculous shows can no longer fool anyone. Unfortunately, there is a bored rich elite that enjoy these hunting trips and are always willing to pay for their awful hobby which is 'killing for fun' and the lucrative hunting business is the only party to benefit from it without any consideration for conservation with the consent of some corrupt local authorities which are supposed to protect wildlife but they are contributing to its destruction. Hunting and trophy hunting reflects clearly egoism and greed and has nothing to do with conservation. https://matthewminarchek.wordpress.com/blog-posts/

On 2016-04-13 08:09:56, Rumana Sengupta wrote:
I support that hunting by human being is against the motion as Human being hunts for his pleasure not to keep himself alive. Hunting by animals always maintain the balance in nature. So no need to kill animals to make this balance. Human being already did so many things to keep the balance in nature...for which we are now facing global warming issue and other threats from nature. So please invest time to plant trees...not in killing innocent animals. Human beings are the most fierce creature on earth. Man population is also increases...then what you will do, kill people to keep the balance?

Trophy hunting is poaching. A tusk, a horn, a head, a pelt....what's the difference? We still have a dead animal. Hunters all hang around the same clubs which most likely chants: we are conservationist, we provide economical values, we kill the old and the sick, we help feed poor villagers, we love animals, we are animal lovers, we save them from starvation. I could go on and on. It has been proven that your money does not go to conservation and it can't be more obvious that these animals are sinking fast. Stop your preaching. We've heard it all.... And fort those who keep talking about hamburgers, we are not eating African animals.... Hunters are nothing more than poachers, they just have money so the government looks the other way....this fight will never be over.... It was Cecil's time so God welcomed him into his arms with a worldwide message: Stop this madness! His sixth commandment is "thou shalt not kill" and please don't say "he's referring to man" cause I don't see that written beside the commandment.

On 2016-04-13 02:05:49, John wrote:
To all of you who think fishermen & hunters don't do anything for conservation of wildlife, think long and hard before opening up your mouths and spewing out your ignorance. We hunters and fishermen have & always will continue to support and contribute mass amounts of $$$ to the conservation of wildlife, the rehabilitation & protection of wetlands all across North America & that includes Canada, Mexico & Central/South America. The money we pay for hunting license's, hunting tags, hunting stamps, fees to hunt on wildlife refuges goes back into the redevelopment & or preservation of the wildlife habitats. It was hunters and fishermen who have created some of the largest wildlife conservation groups in the world. Groups like: Ducks Unlimited California Waterfowl Association Pheasants Forever North American Fishermen Delta Waterfowl Association B Zone Blacktail California Deer Association This is just a very small list of conservation groups that were created by hunters & fishermen to preserve, rehabilitate & conservation for wildlife. Ducks Unlimited alone is responsible for saving & or the redevelopment millions of wetland acreage for wildlife. So before opening your mouths and spewing your ignorant insults towards us hunters & fishermen, you best do your homework and truly understand what it is we do (fishermen & hunters) for not only the wildlife but also for their habitats. And in our conservation & preservation of these habitats, all wildlife benefits from our efforts. So until you donate $$$ or your time to a group like above then I suggest you shut your mouths. Sincerely A hunter & fisherman since birth… 1965

On 2016-04-12 22:34:00, Helena wrote:
All hunters kill. For trophy for poaching or meat. The trophy hunters are the vilest and so are the poachers.

On 2016-04-12 21:25:30, Kathy simonik wrote:
Hunters use the excuse that they conserve wildlife, just to cover what they really feel. In my studies, I found a consistent theme. Hunters love to inflict pain and eventually death. They are wired differently and cannot feel what they do is wrong. Hunters will kill until all animals are gone. Our beautiful Wildlife deserve so much better. Animals need not be hunted to Extinction. Extinction is not fixable. Wildlife is in our world for its beauty and ecological reasons. Wildlife must be protected at all costs. Hunters do not tell the truth. They should never be trusted. Thank you.

On 2016-04-12 21:06:53, Liz wrote:
Hunting to decrease animal population? HUMANS ARE BREEDING MORE LIKE ROACHES YET you want to decrease animal pops? Ridiculous! Just cuz an innocent being cant speak up for themselves, hunters think its their right to kill too many. Ridiculous! What if an animal killed a person? Instant kill, no? Animals have their own families- would you like to be torn apart from yours?

On 2016-04-12 20:20:12, Monika wrote:
Once upon a time there was an enchanted forest where there were lions, tigers, bears, and bunnies. They all lived peacefully, sang songs and danced all day and ate tofu for dinner. Then one tragic day, along came this incredibly evil, hairless animal that walked on two legs and everything changed. This is the world the anti-hunters live in; somehow man is not, and has never been a part of nature. Good luck, and keep thinking that! These pretentious and quixotic individuals are now also slamming farmers and ranchers, the very people that feed the masses. Apparently in their world, the “Food Fairy” comes once a week to fill their refrigerators! Hunters hunt because they are “hunters”, no other reason, plain and simple.

Please read the following: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_informingdecisionsontrophyhuntingv1.pdf

On 2016-04-12 08:40:31, Marilyn Graziano wrote:
Trophy hunting is senseless. Mother Naturehas her way of dealing with numbers of wild life it's called "Natural Selection" Humans do not have to interfere

On 2016-04-12 07:46:10, Dean Neniska wrote:
Hunting is conservation! What a laugh! Do you really think nature needs our help? If it does, it is only to recover from our destructive habits! And for food? please-that rhetoric is like an old record, trying to play in the mp3 age. No one needs meat. It's a cruel sadistic practice to hunt. You think it's part of your history? It should be only that. There is enough plant food for everybody-if we stop killing things. Can we do that? Or is it blood lust? Don't kid yourself.

On 2016-04-12 01:09:03, vicki Berry wrote:
Trophy Hunters are NOT killing our beautiful animals for conservation ! You kill for the thrill of it and you then take parts of the animal and ship them home !!! The laws need to change ! We need to protect our beautiful animals for future generations before it`s too late !!

On 2016-04-11 05:02:36, Dominique wrote:
Conservation efforts by hunters is in reality a petty amount to represent saving another animal long enough to murder it. They use this rhetoric to feed an illusion that they "contribute". In the US, our own Fish and Wildlife agencies murder 2.7 million animals a year for the special interest of hunters and ranchers. The public pays for most of this by subsidized funds for these hunters with the publics tax dollars called the "Share Program", using these subsidized public funds to provide the "private interests" of hunters. The small fees hunters pay, amount to very little of the actual budget. The public has spoken out that they do not want their Wildlife managed by fake science and antiquated lethal methods, but they seem to have no voice. The facts are, that the public wants non-lethal methods to manage their Wildlife, so they can enjoy "Wildlife Watching", which actually generates over ten times the revenue than hunting actually does. Besides the revenue lies, hutning is murdering feeling animals that deserve to live their lives with their families in the Wild free from harm, this is beyond a moral, ethical and value system in society structure to allow sadist killers to inflict cruelty, torture and death on the vulnerable and innocent.

You hunter's keep saying "Conservation", "economical value", "population control". What population control? Don't you think you over did it? There is no more population to control, you people are not contributing to conservation, you're destroying it just like our ancestors in the past..Those animals didn't purchase a one way ticket off planet earth, those before you gave them a one way ticket to extinction, and you are following right down the same path of destruction. If conservation is so important to you, why can't you just donate your money to it? Build parks and more attractions for tourists, Donate to researchers. and help with aiding sick animals. Help those who are destitute by running clean water pipes where needed, build enclosures for people to reassure their safety from dangerous wildlife, Donate to bus children back and forth to school so their parents will know they are safe. There is so much more you people could do for these people and their country that wouldn't involve killing animals These people don't need money, they don't have the lifestyle like we do, they need to feel safe and that their food sources and cattle are protected. You can do so much more for conservation and for these people without killing animals, But I guess we all know that "it's the killing and the head" that's really important to you..Stop using conservation and population control to justify your habit.

On 2016-04-11 01:45:09, Ray wrote:
I'm the type person that doesn't get upset very often and can get along with almost anyone but reading all the anti hunter comments makes me sick to my stomach!! Most people have no clue or knowledge at all. One thing that makes me so mad is seeing people put hunters/conservationists in the same sentence with with poachers!! This is just wrong!! I have hunted my whole life and spend most of my money feeding and creating better habitat for wildlife. I may hunt a whole hunting season just killing enough food for my family. The rest of the season I'm just enjoying the hunt, watching wildlife not killing everything I see. This is the same for almost every hunter I know. I know most of you think that every hunter goes out with the intention of killing every animal they see but you are just flat out WRONG! You also wouldn't know that back in the 60-70s there weren't as many deer and since then hunting/conservation has dramatically increased and there are more deer than ever in most areas. Also back in the 60-70s there were almost no turkeys anywhere and no hunters. Now there's turkeys everywhere! You can thank hunters-conservationists and programs like the nwtf(national wild turkey federation) for that. There were turkeys released in a lot of different areas with strict hunting regulations until the population improved. One thing I do have in common with the anti hunter is being against poachers. You need to know the difference!!! The worst thing for wildlife is development. People see a small section of woods and think they need to wipe it out and build a sub division. I promise this does way more damage than any hunter ever will. And these people that think animals are more important than humans and suggest people should go out and shoot each other are just IDIOTS. People like this are the reason this country is in the mess it's in! So before you start attacking good decent people for doing something they love and a way of life that has provided for families for thousands of years, you need to know TRUTH and not what peta and the anti hunting groups tell you. I hate to come across so rude but I'm SICK of hearing this crap! One last thing, for the people who say get rid of hunting and just preserve the habitat for wildlife, this definitely won't work either. You would be able to drive to town without hitting a deer with your car. Then, you'll be killing these "innocent" little animals! What are you gonna do then, walk? Lol Then, over population would happen which do want because no farm could grow anything for you vegetarians and over population would lead to out of control diseases in animals which would have a way worse effect than hunters! Just think it through, study on it a little and try to understand instead of attacking an issue that you have no clue about.

On 2016-04-11 01:23:11, Bswift wrote:
I grew up in a rural area there was a lot of wildlife here 40 years ago. We have lost much of it. They hunt a lot here and even with decimated wildlife populations, like our deer populations, hunters still want to kill the few animals we have left. If hunting is supposed to help wildlife it sure hasn’t done much for the wildlife of Eastern Canada. Hunting for conservation as ridiculous as saying the murder of large segments of people will increase the human population. It makes no sense what so ever. You can’t conserve anything by killing it and many of the dollar spend on trophy hunting never makes into conservation efforts. Hunting is not conservation it’s exploitation. WWF report from a few years ago stated that hunting was one of leading causes of wildlife depletion. Makes sense as trophy hunters kill some of the most genetically viable animals. As I have said I’ve seen hunting here for many years here and it has done nothing for conservation, at all it has caused is a serious reduction in our wildlife. Last year a hunter killed a wolf, it was one of the only wolves seen here for 20 years...He was so proud he kill a rare animal that was just trying to survive. Don’t listen to the lies, we don’t need trophy hunters.

On 2016-04-10 20:57:47, Dalton wrote:
Let me open this comment by stating that I am just an impartial observer who has been employed in the mediation/arbitration business for many years. I am not a hunter but I do eat meat. I realize that animals are sentient beings, but they live in a world full of predators and have adapted to live in that world. Homo Sapiens is a predator and is also by structure an omnivore. Maybe in 20,000 years (if the species survives that long and evolution is an extremely slow process) we will be herbivorous, but right now, like all omnivores we consume both plant and animal protein. That being said, my experience in negotiations has me favoring the “hunters'” side. There are so many anti-hunting comments that resort to pejorative slinging and name calling that I, and most readers tend to dismiss them as having no substance. This is what happens when you lose your cool; you lose your advantage. One rational comment such as the last by “Jason Y” will negate the hundreds that try to play on emotion. Please remember that. By the way, the internet is not a reliable source of scientific information and data. Like all media, it is a “for profit” business, and unless you know exactly which sources are scientific and impartial, the content is suspect and CANNOT be used to bolster your position. The internet, for the most part is a garbage dump that provides “mindless entertainment” for the masses.

On 2016-04-10 11:24:18, bydand wrote:
Ever had a hamburger? Ever enjoyed a steak dinner? Did you think all those cows commited suicide ?????

On 2016-04-09 23:27:09, Maria Zsuzsanna Fortes wrote:
Our real aim should be to know and love the animal world and respect nature!!! This is the real man action! Hunting is not a conservation, this is more than clear. Animal population reduced drastically. If hunting would be conservation this could never happened. The Earth was fine and conserved without hunters. The actual hunting practices are profoundly unethical and their real objective is to kill for pleasure and have parts of the animal as decorative objects. I wish hunters could understand what they are doing! All hunting should be forbidden!!!! So few wild life left on Earth ...

Leonardo da Vinci, (1452 - 1519) stated "Nothing will be left. Nothing in the air, nothing under the earth, nothing in the waters. All will be hunted down, all exterminated. " From da Vinci's Notes (he was himself a Vegetarian) Chilling prophesy regarding the hunted animal kingdom. Mankind, incapable of creating an animal, is capable of destroying it instead with our developed weaponry. What an indictment on our species, that we are systematically and inoxerably, bringing animal extinction about - especially in our lifetime. Only future generations will judge what we are allowing to happen today to animals. Considering the date and time da Vinci said the above and William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616) date and time in making reference to "man's inhumanity to man." Looks like the slope we are on is slippery indeed.

On 2016-04-09 14:10:29, Dax Hayden wrote:
I grew up in Northwest Kansas and my family at the time was in the cattle business. My Grandpa, Dad and Uncle worked very hard to make everything they worked on better.. Whether that was the field they were grazing or the horses and cattle they owned. They also loved to hunt and understood that habitat was critical to wild game populations. During very tough times in agriculture I saw them leave critical habitat that could have been grazed. This was the first time I understood the balance required for successful landowners. Since those days I have grown to have a much more in depth understanding of why landowners are the best stewards of wildlife. Folks, these "are the good old days" with respect to well managed fish and wildlife populations! Landowners, hunters and fishermen have sustained many species and assisted in them thriving in excellent habitat! If you build it they will come is the absolute rule. Managers of land they love understand this the best. State and federal conservation programs are also important in many areas. But overall and in general all of these folks understand that there is more wildlife now than 100 years ago in many areas and regions. My Grandfather strung the first telephone wire from Walden, Colorado to Fort Collins, Colorado on horseback. I used to ask him as a boy about the fishing on the Cache La Poudre River. He explained to me that there were some trout but it was not as it is now. Managers and landowners have "made a difference". Many of the rivers in the west are teaming with more trout than ever. Does this mean we should quit managing and fishing?! I work with the best and most knowledgable landowners everyday in our business. They teach me something about stewardship each time we talk. I appreciate concern for wildlife from non-hunters. When I tell them that I love to hunt and that I "raise" more game exponentially that I take hunting they get a funny look on their face and say, really? How!? I simply explain habitat and the effects of improving it and hunting regulations... Example; improving a lagoon for nesting habitat may raise 100 pheasants. Limits are 4 per day in Kansas and I may take 4 limits in a season. One small example but one of our best landowners has 100's of lagoons improved for nesting. Activists who claim they love wildlife need to understand the devastation to all species if hunting is disallowed. If they "really" do love wildlife then they should support managed hunting.

On 2016-04-09 09:57:40, John Baldwin wrote:
Hunting makes the trophy a commodity and an investment if you provide it, and just like rearing beef herds the "farming" of prize animals will mean an active interest in what is going on and how to do it better providing it is done with transparency. Not being aware of what is going on in the natural environment spells death and extinction if we expect natural selection and breeding to take place in a now uncontrolled world. There was more poaching in the Zambezi valley when the hunting program was slowed down during the '60's and 70's warfare activities. Nobody was on the ground to report the sightings of poacher decimation, and it was rife. Fishermen reported unusual activity when boating and on leaving the valley to the Marangora national parks checkpoint. It is the Hunters associations that will see and advise and report the underhanded dealings in government to protect their own viable interests.

On 2016-04-09 04:12:59, Jacqueline Schmidt wrote:
Hunters have long said that hunting helps with conservation. This is a misconception. For instance, let’s look at the big game* hunts in Africa and four of the primary arguments that hunters have regarding conservation: 1. Hunters say that the money coming from hunting permits and such benefits the local communities. However, only a paltry three percent of the approximate $200 million of what hunters spend each year on the continent ends up going to the local communities, and what they give to conservation endeavors is trivial. There is also corruption involved that upholds hunting which, itself, is unsustainable. According to The Dodo, a huge majority of the hunting fees “ . . . ends up lining the pockets of middlemen, large companies and local governments”. Additionally, Niali McCarthy of Statista: The Statistics Portal shares with us a chart from Economists at Large illustrating how very little local communities actually receive from trophy hunting money: (Chart will not copy over, but you can view it here: https://www.statista.com/chart/3688/trophy-hunting-and-local-communities/) 2. Hunters state that their actions assist with wild animal populaces. But, experts tell us that these populations are maintained naturally and have been done so for all of time. For instance, the sick, dying, and weakest are taken out through death or prey. We do not need legal hunting, poaching, whereas big game hunters will usually select the largest and strongest of the herd to take, leaving the weaker genes to carry on the herd. Examples include killing those with shorter horns or with smaller manes. According to the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), this is called “reverse evolution”. Furthermore, killing a member of a family oftentimes will leave the rest of the family endangered. For instance, if the male lion of the pride is killed, a new male could very well come in and kill all of the cubs that were just born—an entire generation! A League Against Cruel Sports concurs by stating that “Experts agree that for every one adult male lion that is shot, up to 12 cubs can die.” As well, back in October of 2015, a German hunter killed one of Zimbabwe’s largest bull elephants, which set off another big debate. Rachael Bale of National Geographic quotes Vicki Fishlock, who is the resident scientist at Amboseli Trust for Elephants, which is a research and conservation foundation located in Kenya as stating “[The old bulls] are so much more than ‘a breeder’—by the time these animals reach this size, they have been parts of social networks for five or six decades and have accumulated social and ecological experience that younger animals learn from”. Bale goes on to say that specialists state that this elephant was approximately 50 years old at the time of death. Mid 40s to around 50 years old for males is the best age for breeding, and research shows that female elephants would actually rather mate with the more mature, larger males like the one that was killed. Plus, as Bale maintains, “ . . . research shows that younger male elephants can become aggressive when older bulls aren’t around, much in the way juvenile delinquency in our own cultures has been attributed to the absence of fathers, said Caitlin E. O’Connell, a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine and an elephant expert”. 3. Hunters maintain that they need to hunt to protect local people. However, it is people encroaching on the animals’ territory, not the other way around. According to The Dodo, the elephant populace in Africa has been lowered from several million from the turn of the century to approximately 500,000 at the writing of the article. But as The Dodo maintains, we must learn to live with the animals, not without them. In looking at “A Dozen Ways to Stop an Elephant written by Kimberly Moynahan, we find some ways to stop elephants from encroaching on the locals’ territory: 1) Hiring guards to keep the elephants away (further information is given in each article explaining what this entails); 2) Putting up a fence with beehives which will get disturbed when the elephants attempt to make their way through; 3) Loud noise; 4) Bright lights; 5) Smoke or fire, burning elephant dung or other effective material; 6) It may be feasible to utilize pheromones sometime in the future; 7) The capsaicin from red hot chili peppers are also used to repel elephants; 8) Elephant geo-fencing which is something along the lines of invisible dog fences; 9) Fences which are electric; 10) Moats, walls, ditches, as well as other blockades; 11) Alternate crops which would lure the elephants over to these new found foods and distract them from the farmlands. 12) Training and conditioning: As Moynahan points out, “ . . . crop-raiding behavior is learned and is passed down through generations[,] . . . so if elephants can teach each other, perhaps there is a way humans can modify elephant behavior. Wouldn’t it work just as well to use a punishment (capsaicin spray) combined with a novel sound, such as a specific whistle or siren, to teach elephants to avoid the sound of the whistle? With consistent use across elephant communities, it’s conceivable that all elephants could learn (and then pass along the lesson) that the whistle is to be avoided at all costs”. 4. Hunters also say that their actions bring in money to the continent. In spite of this, the income amounts to less than two percent, and it is possible that the rest of Africa’s revenue from tourism could be drastically diminished if hunting continued to exhaust the wildlife population. Let’s return for a moment to the beginning where I mentioned that hunters spend approximately $200 million on the continent each year for a comparison. Starting in January of 2014 in the country of Botswana, alone, nearly all hunting was prohibited, and it was compared with the revenue produced from photo tourism. In the first year alone, approximately $344 million was produced from non-lethal tourism. It was concluded that photo tourism utilizes animals better, puts many more locals to work, and the photo tourism season lasts longer than the hunting season—they continue all year long, whereas the hunting safaris only last six months maximum. For one thing, with hunting, once the animal is shot it is gone forever. With photo tourism, an animal can be photo-shot many, many times. To illustrate this further, A League Against Cruel Sports shares this hypothetical comparison chart from Africa Geographic. This shows two average-sized concession selling safaris for hunters and one for safaris for photos. As A League Against Cruel Sports states, “this showed that photographic safaris generate more than three times the total revenue than hunting safaris and pay more than 12 times as much in staff salaries”. HUNTING SAFARI vs. PHOTOGRAPHIC SAFARI (Chart will not copy over, but you can view it here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-trophy-hunting-now/the-myth-of-trophy-hunting-as-conservation/113648248684575/) These are only four of the arguments that hunters have brought to the table; there are many more. Because of time, I have not been able to name them all. But surely, I have been able to address these arguments and their futility. * Africa’s “Big Five” – African elephant, African lion, Cape buffalo, leopard, and rhinoceros   Sources: https://www.thedodo.com/does-hunting-help-conservation-1389284014.html http://news.discovery.com/animals/trophy-hunting-is-there-any-benefi-for-conservation-150730.htm https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-trophy-hunting-now/the-myth-of-trophy-hunting-as-conservation/113648248684575/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151017-zimbabwe-elephant-tusker-trophy-hunting-poaching-conservation-africa-ivory-trade/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20151118news-trophyhunting&utm_campaign=Content&sf15445787=1 https://www.statista.com/chart/3688/trophy-hunting-and-local-communities/ http://kimberlymoynahan.com/2011/04/a-dozen-ways-to-stop-an-elephant/

On 2016-04-09 03:05:49, Julie wrote:
While I appreciate the comments of hunters like Jason Y who can clearly express their point of view without insults, and who do bring up some very good points, in the end when it's all said and done, I cannot look at hunting as conservation and here's why. We have all the animals numbers down into easily countable numbers while our own population has no natural cull anymore and we are slowly swallowing up the whole world for ourselves, driving everything else off the planet. There are 1.8 million hunters in the U.S. alone. There is no population of animals that can possibly be expected to provide all of those a trophy on a yearly basis, and many hunters take way more than one trophy a year. And as Dat Noyd pointed out, in a rather insulting manner, habitat loss is the result of the human population problem. And as our population continues to grow, there simply won't be enough animals to sustain trophy, especially when you still have so much poaching. And last but not least, I remember being told when I was young that animals are not the same as us, their feelings and emotions are not as developed, and they don't experience fear and grief the way we do, but I think it's be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that that's not the case. They may express it in different ways than we do, but they do have those emotions, which means that hunting and killing something in front of its family causes emotion devastation for whole families of animals, and just like it's not okay to do that to people, it shouldn't be okay to do that to animals either. I think hunting animals is one of a few activities that divides us, and it keeps us from evolving into the kind of beings we're going to have to be to get through the upcoming challenges that this planet is about to start facing. It keeps us just a little barbaric and vicious, feeding that warrior mentality, which may have served us well in the past, but I don't think it's serving anyone anymore. And nobody ever mentions the damage that it does to those of us who are against hunting. That's why we come out with our fangs and claws showing. It really does cause us so much distress to see pictures of a guy standing in front of dozens of coyotes that he's killed. Which reminds me of another point. The code of honor has slipped among many hunters to the point where some of their activities are just so horrible, that I'd think the hunters who do have an honor code would be insisting that they stop. Nobody needs to be killing rhinos or elephants or giraffes or big cats...predators in general shouldn't be hunted, period. Nobody is eating them, or at least they shouldn't because it's not even safe. Where I come from, doe were not shot, and if you didn't plan to eat it, you didn't kill it. Now hunting has degenerated into killing contests, canned hunting, endangered species hunts, hunting drives, and those are definitely some of the most offensive and just downright painful to watch sort of activities that we cannot condone.

You keep saying that killing is conservation? I really wish someone would define this for my understanding.... Everywhere I look on the internet, I see people posing with a dead animal with a shit eating grin on their faces. It sadly it looks like they enjoyed what they just did. Brought tears to my eyes, don't know about anyone else. How is killing hundreds of animals like this contributing to conservation? Looks to me like you're destroying it... Conservation to me is about the beauty of nature, what so beautiful about that dead animal?? I guess I'll just have to stare at the trees? Or are you about to tear those down too?? I read somewhere that the lion population has plummeted to records low over just a few decades..I also read that Trophy Hunting is responsible for about 65% of that, poaching next then habitat loss. O.K., let's discuss habitat. You also claim that hunting helps keep population down. good job, where did all those lions go? From what I here, giraffes are creeping up to threatened, explain that please? I watched a video of a couple of hunters chasing down a poor giraffe running for it's life. All I could hear other than the propellers, was a couple of idiots laughing at the giraffe and how the Adrenalin hits just when you pull the trigger. The giraffe died and they high fives and celebrated. Wow..I saw a picture of a women posing with a dead polar bear, wow what did you call that? population control? ya.. Trophy Hunter's keep saying that they contribute to conservation and create revenue for local people? If that is true than why did a villager they interviewed on the news say that they never see a dime..Why do they still live exposed to wildlife and remain destitute if you've been helping? Why do most of the villages not have clean drinking water? And what's up with "canned" hunting. You buy your victim young and go back later to shoot it in an enclosure? Really? I was reading an article about this, They talk about how most hunters pick out their victims when they are just cubs or adolescent then go back when they're older and hunt them down "in an enclosed area"? I also read that most of these caged animals are drugged and directed toward the hunter for a quick shot. you can see it here... http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/captive_hunts/ Now that's conservation, keep them locked up and out.. This article will also differ from what you preach. http://www.humanesociety.org/news/magazines/2016/01-02/trophy-hunting-devastation.html The way I see it, is it never changes. people have been killing off species since day one. Now you want to continue..Lions, elephants, Rhinos, giraffes.. My childhood favorite, you'll have to excuse me for thinking you're all a bunch of asses. How obvious is it that these animals are disappearing from this world. You like to hunt, so you can't see past the barrel of your guns. There's no more population to control. You have to understand this...No animal is overpopulated...It's the human race that is overpopulated. As we populate, we tear down forests, jungles wooded areas and Rain forests just so we can keep expanding into their habitat, so they have no where else to go so, shoot them? The last thing nature needs is to have any help from the very species that wiped out thousands of other species. What conservation needs is for you to stay off land and allow "nature to find a way" and it will...Why don't you take up gambling or smoking, at least when shit hits the fan, you'll only hurt yourself..I hope at this debate that all the "Real" experts will be there, those who know for a fact that you're nothing but a loaded cannon.

On 2016-04-08 23:47:00, nina clausen wrote:
stop abuse and barbaric killing of wildlife animals, they feel pain as you and me.. God has created the humans and the animals and their is no one who has the right to kill just for fun

Jason Y (7 April 2016) says “Is hunting conservation? Yes, regulated hunting based on scientific data is most certainly conservation.” But most hunting is poorly regulated and lacks any scientific basis whatsoever, particularly in Africa. In African range countries governments set hunting quotas based on information supplied by hunting operators’ (biased) views of target availability. How is that scientific? There is often little to no recent, supporting overall target population data to ensure hunting quotas are sustainable. How is that scientific? Some range countries still do not apply restrictions, such as age limit for male lion targets for example to try to minimise the hunting impact. How is that scientific?.......……… Unfortunately, hunters seem to want to believe (and want everyone else to believe) the self-delusion that all hunting is based on good sound science and independently regulated, when clearly hunting quotas are based on nothing to do with science or independent regulation. With the hunting trophy import restrictions now insisting on scientific proof on a case-by-case base, the hunters’ delusion is clearly not widely shared anymore by anyone outside the hunting cartel's deluded bubble.

Trophy hunting is all about having the best, rarest, more beautiful trophy. Hunters are not interested in the old, weak specimen, hence they are contributing to the decline of the species, taking the best specimen out of the genepool. Trophy hunting is weakening the species instead of the opposite

Hunting is NOT conservation and any digging into biological and scientific reporting shows this clearly. I will cite some examples because a lot of killers on this comment thread say that we cannot back up our words. Those who kill for sport and the thrill of the kill do NOT and never have "conserved" wildlife. Whatever contribution they may make is miniscule compared to the costs of running the regulatory agencies and it is proven that NON-hunters and fees from NON-hunting activities make up the bulk of who is contributing to wildlife habitat and true conservation. But the thrill and sport killing industry loves to promote itself even if the facts do not support the claims. The thrill and sport killing industry is making a loud noise now because of the backlash, worldwide AGAINST trophy hunting after the shameful murder of Cecil the lion. That ugly crime shone a bright light on the disgusting shady ways that the killers do business in Africa and elsewhere in order to get their bloodlust met. http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/conservation-hunting-cecil-lion https://www.facebook.com/notes/stop-trophy-hunting-now/the-myth-of-trophy-hunting-as-conservation/113648248684575/ https://www.statista.com/chart/3688/trophy-hunting-and-local-communities/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-hunting/ https://www.thedodo.com/does-hunting-help-conservation-1389284014.html

On 2016-04-08 00:12:58, John wrote:
It's simply incredible how little anti hunting folks understand about conservation. As a wildlife biologist who has worked in Africa for many years I have come across the ill informed who just plainly put don't like hunting or hunters. It is complete fantasy to think photo safaris will help or any other forms of " non hunting " activities will help save wildlife. Again simply put you cannot generate enough funds or people to fund anti poaching patrols, or feed the starving people who depend on the employment and food hunting dollars generate. Emotion has NO place in wildlife conservation, scientific facts made by the professionals are the only way to to it. So my advise to those anti hunting folks who know or understand nothing about what it takes to save wildlife....

On 2016-04-07 20:40:27, SnowLeopard Lass wrote:
Hunting is WRONG - STOP killing animals !!!

My two cents…. Is hunting conservation? Yes, regulated hunting based on scientific data is most certainly conservation. You may disagree with the act of hunting and the killing of individual animals but you can’t deny the benefits to the species as a whole when done properly. As many people (Pro and Anti-Hunting) have stated here already, currently, the most important problem facing conservation today is protection of wild lands for these animals to survive and thrive. Hunting is currently the best at doing this when you look at the vast tracks of lands that are dedicated to it. I would say the second most important aspect is the protection of the animals from illegal poaching. On hunting concessions, this is paid for 100% by hunting. It has been pointed out in earlier posts that hunting is not a credible deterrent to poaching and they cited elephant population decreases in Tanzania and Mozambique as proof. I would agree with that to a degree but argue that this is completely different form of poaching that no one has a good answer for. For proof of this, just look at the number of rhino poached in Kruger Park in the last few years and they have (arguably) one of the best anti-poaching units in the world. No, anti-hunting units on hunting concessions cannot stop this form of poaching but it is very good at slowing or stopping sustenance and bush meat poaching which are still huge threats to all wildlife. Now, with that being said, hunting is not the only form of conservation or even the best in some cases. Eco-tourism is another great way to protect wild areas and animals but it has its limits and problems, just as hunting does. It has been suggested that eco-tourism is a lot more profitable than hunting and that hunting concessions should be converted to this. That would work in some or even a lot of cases but not all. I hate to throw out arbitrary numbers, but let’s just say that 50% can be converted to eco, what do we do with the balance to keep it wild and protected? Does someone have a better answer than hunting? If so, please share it! Another question I have is, if we did convert that much land to eco, is there enough tourist to support it? I really don’t know and I don’t think anyone does?? It has also been suggested that eco gives a lot more back to the local community’s than hunting does. I personally think that this is hard to quantify and you could skew the numbers however you want, to support your case, no matter which side you’re on. One point that those opposed to hunting as a conservation tool always bring up is how corrupt government officials and outfitters steal the majority of the money paid by hunters and very little gets back to the local communities and conservation. This makes me laugh every time I see it because they only seem to steal hunting dollars and not eco dollars. Lol, come on guys…I’m not saying that there aren’t crooked officials that steal some of the money but with eco being as lucrative as it is, do you honestly think they don’t do the same there?? Anyway, if you haven’t already figured it out, I am a hunter. You can call me a murder, sociopath, evil, egomaniac, vile or whatever other colorful term that makes you happy, but I know that I’m none of those things and neither are the majority of the rest of the hunting world. We hunt, yes, but in this case I feel that the end result justifies the means. I also support eco-tourism and every trip to Africa, I do both and hunters can be both. In conclusion, I know that many on here will not share my views and that’s fine, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I know this is an emotional subject for all (for many reasons), but please, try to temper some of that emotion with logic and see that both forms of conservation can work but they would work so much better together. We need to stop the fighting and name calling on both sides and combine our efforts to fight the real enemy here. I would like to leave you with one request. No matter your views either way, please put your money where your mouth is. Wildlife all over the world needs our help now! If you can’t afford to travel to these foreign lands directly, please donate the money to a reputable charity that supports wildlife in the manner you approve of. Be careful though, do your research and make sure the money is going to the right place. There are several here in the US that claims they are here to help but very little of that money makes it to the places that need it. Thank you for your time. Jason

On 2016-04-07 17:46:00, Soraya Lenn wrote:
It is so shocking that people still believe in the imaginary "advantages" of hunting/ trophy hunting in species conservation after the extinction of so many species in many parts of the world, especially in African and Asian countries during the colonial era. The overexploitation of all natural resources including wildlife and the destruction of habitat led to a natural disaster that many countries are still struggling to overcome. A clear and well-known recent example of how hunting and exterminating species has obviously destroyed the food chain and the ecosystem balance is found in Yellowstone Natural Park, US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz- It is a horrible crime against mother nature to remove species or wipe them out for fun, cultural prejudice or economic profit. Hunters must reconsider their practices and understand that we are no longer living in the middle ages! This planet ecosystem has become so weak and needs protection and restoration more than never. When hunters post their photos, in social media, smiling with blood in their hands and holding the dead bodies of animals, they don't do it to promote conservation of course! Any balanced person will never think about conservations issues after watching such photos or videos. They are just enjoying killing innocent creatures. It is the killing thrill that push them to act in this way! Sure, some lucrative hunting industry is always there glad to cover up the hunters crimes against nature and call it "conservation" whenever they are able to pay for the "trophies". http://www.examiner.com/article/wolf-killers-admit-it-s-all-about-the-sadistic-sexual-thrill

On 2016-04-07 16:00:02, Carol Cummins wrote:
Trophy hunting advocates present the industry as large, citing figures such as $200m in annual revenue. But in the context of national economies, the industry is tiny, contributing at best a fraction of a percent of GDP. Nature based tourism does play a significant role in national development, but trophy hunting is insignificant. Across the investigated countries, trophy hunting revenue was only 1.8% of tourism revenues. So let's not believe all the trophy hunting rhetoric and propaganda that African economies need funds from trophy hunting to combat POACHING when clearly this is not the case. >> http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Ecolarge-2013-200m-question.pdf Lies in conservation: The truth about big-game hunting and African nature reserves >> http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987401/lies_in_conservation_the_truth_about_biggame_hunting_and_african_nature_reserves.html Lion Aid report: Photographic tourism can deliver 1000 times more profit for wildlife areas. Other African governments should carefully consider following Botswana’s example and note the much greater returns from wildlife land under photographic safaris than the pittance they now receive from hunting concessions. >> http://www.lionaid.org/news/2016/02/another-excuse-for-trophy-hunting-bites-the-dust.htm This report demonstrates that trophy hunting in Africa has nothing to do with conservation but everything to do with bragging rights, killing contests and photographs to boost the egos of the hunter. SCI members club’s record book, a three-volume compendium of thousands of pages listing names of who killed what animal, where and when. The list spans more than 1,100 species, some of which have since become extinct. Meticulous scores and rankings are recorded for the biggest tusks, horns, antlers, skulls and bodies, with photographs of grinning men and women posing with their high powered rifles or archery gear next to dead animals. This report reveals the ultimate hunting CON in conservation. >> http://www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/trophy-madness-report.pdf Recent studies have shown that areas in which trophy hunting has been permitted by government authorities, lion populations have severely declined even in the absence of other threats. >> http://lionalert.org/page/trophy-hunting Trophy hunting: Killing animals to save them is not conservation. It does not make sense morally, economically, biologically, or from a conservation-incentive point of view. It is a philosophy that has no place in modern conservation. >> http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/opinions/trophy-hunting-not-conservation-flocken/ American Trophy' Hunters Kill Endangered, Threatened Animals Abroad Almost Daily 1.2 million animals, including endangered and threatened wildlife, were killed abroad by American hunters and sent to the U.S. as trophies over the last 15 years. Compare the loss of 1.2 million animals to the insignificant revenues from trophy hunting. >> http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/US-Hunters-Trophy-Hunting-Endangered-Threatened-Animals-347267462.html Hard Numbers Reveal Scale of America’s Trophy-Hunting Habit. A new analysis finds American hunters import more than 126,000 animal trophies a year. This is not conservation, it's the mass destruction of Africa wildlife. The only difference between trophy hunting and poaching is a licence! >> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/160206-American-trophy-hunting-wildlife-conservation/ Hunting disrupts natural selection because hunters do not select the weakest animals as nature does. Wildlife management alters the proportion of males to females because hunters want the TROPHY so the strongest of the species are killed. Hunters argue that without hunting, herd animals become over populated when often hunted herds have a greater percentage increase in population the following season. They will argue that they cull deer populations, for instance, to preserve plant life, or that they need to cull predators to preserve prey species but the facts remain that hunting is more likely to contribute to imbalances to the ecosystem. Hunters will say that over populated deer leads to further cases of Lyme disease when in fact the ticks carrying the disease is because of rodents rather than herd animals. Hunters kill many endangered and threatened animals. Trapping does not discriminate between endangered animals, domestic pets or even children caught in them. Top Scientists: A proposal to increase the killing of wolves and coyotes in Northern Ontario as a misguided attempt to help reducing moose populations has failed. It is exciting to see that science, in conjunction with an informed public, can result in more responsible and compassionate wildlife management policy. >> https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTI2OTQz&statusId=MTkzMzk2&language=en Despite the public trust doctrine, most state wildlife agencies primarily make wildlife management decisions based on the needs and wants of hunters, trappers, and fishers - often (if not always) ignoring the interests of the vast majority of citizens who do not partake in these activities. Decisions are made by state wildlife commissions or boards appointed by governors and dominated by hunters, trappers, fishers, and ranchers. This severely hinders fair or objective consideration of the interests of other citizens. >> https://awionline.org/content/lethal-vs-non-lethal-control Hunting is not the solution for conservation. Apex predators are the key to creating stability among the species they prey on and maintaining the health of plants and animals right down the food chain. Hunting only interferes with nature. The trophy hunting industry, particularity in Africa is a propaganda machine and there is no justification for the excuse for "population control" when many of the animals being hunted are endangered and sometimes critically endangered. The excuse of feeding the poor African babies with lion, elephant and rhino meat is just shameful propaganda to justify their blood thirsty leisure activity. All trophy hunters are doing is wiping out the future for ECO tourism and ultimately the huge revenues gained from that. Preserving biodiversity, healthy Ecosystems and wild places, not just in Africa and the USA , but everywhere on the planet, is not just about preserving animals but is also essential for human survival, in the long term. The perfect example of how we need NATURE as opposed to hunting to conserve wildlife. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q&app=desktop Thank you IQ2US for hosting this debate

I am tired of seeing ‘pro-hunting’ supporters saying that there is no negative, independent scientific evidence that concludes hunting has ever had a negative impact in any circumstance - the ‘pro-hunters’ want to delude us all that hunting (no matter where, or why) is somehow righteous, moral and only advantageous. Hunting covers a complex array of activities, but clearly not all hunting activities carry equal merit (either moral, and/or any species benefits) , or indeed any merit at all. For example, ’canned’ animals, bred in poor conditions purely be drugged, wheeled out and executed by paying hunters for ‘sport/fun’ – yet hunting associations and some hunters still want to support this as ‘conservation?’ In regards to Africa, there is plenty of scientific evidence that excessive hunting quotas are based on desired income, not conservation. As an example, read “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Two Lion Subspecies,” RIN 1018–BA29, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 10 December 2015 - http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/pdf/20151217_fR_lion.pdf. There is a mass of evidence contained within against hunting having a positive impact: “Lindsey et al. (2012, p. 21) warn that future efforts to control hunting of captive-bred lions could potentially increase the demand for wild lion trophies and result in excessive harvests.” “Hunt quotas not set to target areas where human lion conflict is occurring – Namibia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe may have been influenced by human–lion conflict, with higher quotas being allocated to locations with reportedly higher levels of human–lion conflict” - (Lindsey et al. 2013b, p. 4). “Thus, sport hunting quotas may sometimes reflect pressures to control carnivores (such as lions) rather than to conserve them” - “Sport Hunting, Predator Control and Conservation of Large Carnivores,” Packer C. et al., 2009, PLoS ONE 4(G):e5941 The same applies to a recent “Review of Panthera leo from the United Republic of Tanzania and from Zambia,” UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Technical Report, August 2015 - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/reports/Review%20of%20Panthera%20leo%20from%20Tanzania%20and%20Zambia.pdf “Trophy Hunting was reported to have contributed to population declines outside of (and within some) protected areas of Tanzania (Lindsey et al., 2013) and was considered by Packer et al., 2011 to pose the greatest threat to the populations in Trophy Hunting areas.” “It was noted that male lion depletion in the Zambian Kafue, South Luangwa and Lower Zambezi were due to the mortality of lions from Trophy Hunting and wire snares, with hunters using bait along park boarders (Becker et al., 2013).” “Zambia currently has no minimum age of “offtake” known to be stipulated in its hunting laws and guidelines. So the hunting and killing of male lions of any age will have a potentially devastating effect on individual pride and sub-population stability.” There is a little scientific based evidence to support culls and hunting quotas across swathes of hunting activity, when it comes to black bears, wolves, etc. The quotas are set by hunting authorities run by and for hunters with little evidence of independent science: For example, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game report into the ‘Idaho Elk Management Plan (2014 – 2024)’ -http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/planElk.pdf What’s clear from a review of this plan, is that elk hunting is an estimated “$175m USD” industry, where ‘planning’ is dedicated to satisfying hunters’ demands as far as possible it would seem. “Rocky Mountain elk are Idaho’s premier big game animal. Idaho’s diversity of big game species is a hunter’s dream” – Idaho Department of Fish and Game boasts in its clearly biased pro-hunting ‘Executive Summary.’ Of course, any predator that might take elk numbers (rather than hunters killing the elk instead) is a threat to the industry income, the wolf being cited as a major culprit. When hunters were asked how important various reasons were for them to hunting elk, the top 6 reasons cited in the plan were “just being outdoors,” “seeing elk in a natural setting,” “being close to nature,” “viewing scenery,” “being with friends,” and “doing something with my family.” Of course, one can do all those things without killing elk (or any other animals for that matter), with arrows and bullets - the delusion and self-deceit is palpable. So please 'pro-hunters,' stop deluding yourselves that everything that humans do in the name of hunting is justified, scientifically backed ‘conservation’ and “just being outdoors….etc.” Most hunting activities contribute little to ‘conservation’ and never will.

On 2016-04-07 15:45:40, Maria-Rita Christoph wrote:
Please stop the Trophyhunting now, please.

On 2016-04-07 14:15:00, Seamus Ohaeda wrote:
Banning Hunting in Kenya has been so successful that Kenya has less than 30% of its animals left including elephants since they have banned hunting.

On 2016-04-07 13:34:11, Leon Kachelhoffer wrote:
Anti Hunters and Animal Rights organisations do not want any form of benefit to be derived from managing wildlife/conservation. They sit many thousands of miles away and thumb on keyboards without any consideration to the damaging effects there lobbying has on the people that share the land with the wildlife or the stakeholders responsible for the conservation of wildlife and habitat. If you finally manage to have it banned welcome the end of the wildlife. Wildlife needs to accrue tangible benefits to the host nations and their people no benefits then the land is farmed and defrosted, simple as that. The current situation in Zimbabwe is a prime example. Most of the resource protection is funded by hunters dollars remove them you remove the means to conserve the wildlife. Look up Bubye Valley Conservancy - its a successful working model based on responsible and sustainable hunting but you won't see or hear about it in the press.

On 2016-04-07 11:45:52, DGW wrote:
Why are all the comments about Africa? Debate is Hunters Conserve Wildlife. The most hunted big game animal in the world is the North American Whitetail deer. Is there a whitetail shortage in the U.S.? Where did the funds use to restore the whitetail to the status of now OVERPOPULATED throughout most of it's range come from? Hunters license fees. Where are the PETA $$s for wildlife restoration in the U.S? How much has the U.S.U.S. contributed? Who has done more for the wild turkey? PETA or the National WIld Turkey Federation? Did the U.S.H.S. pay the bill to restore Elk to the east coast or was it the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation? Lot of fun to spout off at the mouth about how hunters are murders and how a poor African ought to go to the store to buy food. Why don't you put some money where your mouth is an donate the cost of a hunt to some of the anti-poaching organizations operating in Africa. Better yet--next time the Namibia Government auctions a Black Rhino for conservation why doesn't PETA or the U.S.H.S. buy the rhino and relocate it? Probably because they prefer spending the donated dollars on salaries and perks.

On 2016-04-07 06:32:08, megan Gardner wrote:
How is killing 'saving?' This does not make one bit of sense. Once an animal is senselessly killed, it NO LONGER EXISTS! Which bit do the hunters not understand?? Killing an animal is NOT a sport, if it was it would be an Olympic event. The time for hunting is OVER. Well and truely.

On 2016-04-07 06:30:02, Antonio Rute wrote:
If kill animals means conservation, then just governments from the countries must to kill what it suposed necessary, and the park's workers are the one who should fire the animals. Because this way, any sadic interest will interfere with the decision to kill or not.

Are you kidding? Control population? with the numbers of lions plummeting to record lows, how can anyone really see it as controlling... I've seen some of these hunts... they shoot from their cars and through cages. Animals are literally drugged to become disorientated and are driven into the hunter's direction for an easy shot. These aren't hunters. And their purpose is sick. If there is any justice to be done here, they will see right through them, reading articles from people who work closely with animals and can tell quite a story about this. People who watch and take notes. This is not a sport, it's a cat and mouse game and these animals need to repopulate before it's too late. The next 50 years are very critical for these animals along with other wildlife.

On 2016-04-06 23:25:54, Cammy Brinkerhoff wrote:
At Dat Noyd: "female education"? ---- Did you REALLY just say that?!!! ---- OH, because it's NOT the MAN'S fault that a woman gets pregnant, it's all the woman's fault, huh? Sexism is alive and well in this world today, buddy, and you just proved it. Shame on you for wording it that way! Yes, wildlife's biggest problem is human encroachment, and yes, birth control would be the answer to many of the world's problems, but don't you DARE put it all on women. Most hunters, murderers, war mongers and trappers are MEN. Men do most of the killing. I am a TRUE conservationist, I HAVE been to Africa, I work in the field and I know what I am talking about. I am AGAINST HUNTING. It is NOT conservation. You get your head out of the clouds, Dat Noyd, it's not Hemmingway's Colonialism white man's dream world anymore. Trophy hunting should have been banned decades ago, and YES, we need to control human population by providing birth control to both sexes and education for ALL.

Trophy hunting as conservation is absolutely a disaster. Mostly the older animals are killed,and hunters forget these are the stronges with the best survival genes. Furthermore they cannot protect their offspring (lions) ,which are killed by new males. We see no proof that hunter money fall into the correct hands. Often money are placed in the hands of corrupt officials/politicians. Then there is the ethical factor with canned hunting,where lions are bred with the purpose of being petted,and afterwards shot. Then there is the picture display i find it deeply unethical to witness grinning hunters "bragging" to their facebookfans beside the dead animals.Where is the sport in that? Dallas safari club used a convicted poacher,Aaron Neilson as speaker at their recent convention in january. Why is this accepted? Suggestion, stop killing the animals,but spend the money on photosafari instead. If you want to shoot,then shoot at non living objects,while you enjoy a safari.It is not neccesary to experience the thrill/kick of killing if you believe in real /trueconservation. let nature make the choise which animal is the strongest

On 2016-04-06 22:03:10, Kel wrote:
Hunting is cruel and wrong hunting should be banned

On 2016-04-06 21:30:44, Vincent wrote:
It is interesting that the anti-hunters can read minds. They profess to know exactly who is voting in this poll; they know exactly what is on every hunters mind; they know what motivates every hunter. It is odd that they cannot provide any sound or logical arguments to back their inflammatory accusations. Every link or argument provided in these comments can be traced back to a partisan special-interest anti-hunting group. Why can't they even find ONE bona-fide wildlife biologist to support their claims? The answer: there aren't any! (They probably also think that meat grows on trees, so no animal was harmed to make their hamburgers).

On 2016-04-06 21:29:52, Dat Noyd wrote:
All of this misdirected hysteria, rage, and hatred over hunting is a distraction from the real issue - human overpopulation crowding out wildlife from the earth. I wish all these uninformed little twitterbots screaming about "Cecil" were just as passionate about promoting birth control and female education. Unless humanity gets serious about controlling our numbers there is no hope for the survival of wildlife and wild areas. The ignorance and vitriol of the antis is staggering as seen in these comments. How many of them have actually visited Africa and seen the conditions on the ground there? There aren't too many "Cecil huggers" in the areas where people have to live with and clash with dangerous wildlife on a daily basis. Get your head out of the clouds and face reality. Life will never be a Disney fantasy.

On 2016-04-06 20:08:45, Brigitte Gaschnitz wrote:
Sorry, but trophy hunting is not conservation, it's simply killing, stop this please NOW!!

On 2016-04-06 19:50:12, Annette Whillier wrote:
I cannot honestly believe that you think you are in any way conserving wildlife. By killing off the biggest, healthiest animals, how is that conserving wildlife? Take elephants for instance, it is the Matriarch that holds all the knowledge of where to find water and food in shortages. it is years of experience and knowledge that protects animals in years of extreme drought. Killing off these older, wise animals, prevents the young animals from thriving during these tough times. Give me a break, you only kill, because you enjoy the hunt, not for conservation purposes at all.

On 2016-04-06 14:05:07, John Pender wrote:
If hunters are so convinced that they practice conservation, then why is it that they only ever kill the biggest and the best?, Never the sickest and the lamest, as natural predators do, this way the strongest always survive, and thus, ensure the continuation of the species. Hunters just kill for bragging rights.

On 2016-04-06 13:16:34, Lev Bozdere wrote:
I'm against all forms of hunting because; Hunting is an act of ​indiscriminate ​killing of ​animals that are sentient ​beings​, and sentient beings feel, think, they suffer pain and grief and are able to experience happiness​, they have families and social hierarchical structures,​ they migrate, the breed,​ they feed and they have families to feed and cubs to care for, they try to survive in an ever more dangerous world as their habitats are being taken away from them faster than ever before. The rainforests are being chopped down, the lands converted to mining sites, cattle farms or large scale crop productions ​and industrial factory farms, most importantly they are being hunted to extinction. ​​Hunting for conservation is a false dichotomy, it does not have economical benefit and it only allows corruption to increase. It is an invention by hunters supporters to give them a reason or something moral to say when they are trying to justify the unjustifiable. Hunting does not support local communities neither because hunting in Africa or elsewhere has never been about killing for sport or fun, for local tribal communities for thousands of years hunting has been about survival and taking only what is needed from nature and to protect themselves as well as the wildlife and also learning to live side by side with them. What we see today is that hunting organisations have mainly Africa corrupted governments to parcel of lands and given them to private firms to use the wildlife as a commodity to attract more hunters, the money is made by these private hunting game reserves/parks/lodges. This uncontrolled level of corruption has allowed indiscriminate killing of wildlife through projects like 'Panthera' and 'Campfire' and what you'll find is that wildlife populations in these so called managed lands have been decimated by hunters and have also allowed poachers to do the same, not only have they totally collapsed the entire ecosystem in these so called managed lands but they targeted the few protected animals in national parks or national reserves as shown by the killing of Cecil by Dr Walter Palmer. This is just 1 example, there are hundreds of thousands of animals being lured out of the last protected national parks to be hunted by unscrupulous criminals. We must ban all forms of hunting and allow the wildlife to repopulate, we must give the wildlife rights so that their migration corridors are kept open to increase genetic biodiversity. We cannot continue to allow those who have psychological and sociopathic conditions who wish to hunt for pleasure to continue as there's an app unlimited supply of wildlife! Those who have a desire to end the life of an endangered species should seek medical assistance they should not inflict further damage to an already fragile​ world.

On 2016-04-06 12:31:19, Ellie wrote:
Killing only leads to extinction; numbers of wildlife go down daily. Hunters only want to preserve their fun bloodsport and will do anything for it like rigging this poll; all other polls on this subject show that the majortiy of people are against trophyhunting and that they don't believe this lie of hunters that they are preserving wildlife

On 2016-04-06 12:06:13, Uberto Monaldo wrote:
The delicate balance of ecosystems ensures their survival if they are left unaltered. Natural predators help maintain this balance by killing only the sickest and weakest individuals. Hunters, however, kill any animal whose head they would like to hang over the fireplace including large, healthy animals who are needed to keep the population strong. Elephant hunting have increased the number of tuskless animals in Africa and in Canada hunting has caused bighorn sheep’s horn size to fall by 25 percent in the last 40 years. Nature magazine reports that “the effect on the populations’ genetics is probably deeper.” Even when unusual natural occurrences cause overpopulation, natural processes work to stabilize the group. Starvation and disease can be tragic, but they are nature’s ways of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive and maintain the strength of the rest of their herd or group. Shooting an animal because he or she might starve or get sick is arbitrary and destructive. Besides, hunters rarely target the weakest/starvest/sickest animal. They are interested in the value of the trophies not in the conservation. They target the largest and strongest animal. This also lead to another issue which is the death of much more individuals due to the killing of the lead member. For social animals, killing the alpha males (usually the leader of the group) will left his family and group without guiding and therefore will lead to their death as well even if they are not supposed to. Besides, hunting in the name of "conservation" is summoned as an excuse every time the hunters wish to hunt and organizations want to profit from their bloodthirst. The last Florida black bear hunt has been a pointless genocide caused only by organizations that wanted to construct houses on the bear's fields and hunters that wanted to sling their precious guns and unleash their insecurities on some defenseless animal. Another problem with hunting involves the introduction of exotic “game” animals who, if they’re able to escape and thrive, pose a threat to native wildlife and established ecosystems. Many animals endure prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by hunters. A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters. Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot again. Just 10 percent manage to escape, but “starvation is a likely fate” for them, according to one veterinarian. A South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go “unretrieved” every year. A British study of deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who’d been killed by hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying. Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families. For animals such as wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted animals suffer—caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and other commotion that hunters create—also severely compromises their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter. To conclude: althought it was a crucial part of humans’ survival 100,000 years ago, hunting is now nothing more than a violent form of recreation that the vast majority of hunters do not need for subsistence. Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the world, including the Tasmanian tiger and the great auk. This can't possibly be conservation.

It's the same old ridiculous lies that the hunting bunch is trying to spin, only now they are getting uppity & louder because of the huge worldwide recent backlash against trophy hunting. This is a last gasp dying effort by these killers to justify their bloodlust for what they call a "sport". It's the same arguments over and over again. Time to EVOLVE. If you REALLY cared about conservation you would be funding the hell out of it, not just paying lip service so you can kill, kill, kill. And NO, I do NOT eat meat, so don't even try to bring that up. That's a tired argument too. Try golf or tennis or... something more constructive and helpful to the world.

On 2016-04-06 07:49:28, Maria-Rita Christoph wrote:
Stop the hunting of wild Animals now, please, please

On 2016-04-06 07:40:24, Marc Geldenhuys wrote:
The fact remains that the hunting industries are no defferent than your cattle farming or chicken farming industries. I Say yes to the humain hunting of animals and these amazing creatures should be given a dignifying death. So fines can be put up if you injure or miss a shot. If you look after wildlife like dogs and cats work. These animals have a hard life so being in top shape and of the bes stock is vital... hunting mearly replaces the predator that gives life to the bush anc stops overgrasing and desease.

On 2016-04-06 06:44:25, Mike Parton wrote:
Last year I sold one bushbuck, 2 impala and 1 kudu. This year I bought 20 impala, 3 giraffe, 2 gemsbuck, 5 kudu, 11 eland, 8 wildebeest and 6 zebra. Do the math.

I am SO sick of hearing hunters defend themselves with this bald-faced and blatant lie. Hunting and conservation should not be said in the same sentence. Hunters and trappers are blood thirsty killers and get a sick thrill out of hurting and murdering animals. You just need to take a look at the photos of them gloating over the dead bodies. So many photos and pages on facebook of hundreds of these cretins acting like the very worst that humanity has to offer. Conservationists do not behave like this. Trophy hunting never did a thing to help African wildlife survive. The serious and rapid decline in numbers of African animals is shocking. You people arguing that hunters are "conservationists" are wrong. DEAD WRONG. Take Safari Club International for example, a rich club of thug killers that hold killing contests that reward those who murder the biggest, the most and the best. HOW, exactly, does this help the threatened and endangered animals that they are after? Aaron Neilson, that knob, killed 15 lions and bragged about it on social media! Conservationists do not act like that. You still think hunters are conservationists? Read this article: http://www.alternet.org/environment/bigger-story-behind-killing-cecil-lion-media-overlooked

I am anti trophy hunting. One does not save an animal by killing it. More money is made on photo safaries versus hunting safaris. Cecil the lion is prime example. Once he was killed, many tourists stopped going because he was the reason for their photo safaris. Once an animal is gone, it is gone. It is a lie that the hunting money goes into conservation. It goes into the hands of the corrupt governments and the organizers of the hunt. If anyone really cares about conservation, they would just donate the money to groups that really care about conservation not by killing an animal. Also, they would not be smiling over the dead animal for a picture.

On 2016-04-05 22:38:31, SK wrote:
Trophy hunting has absolutely no conservation value… 98% of all lion hunting in SA is captive bred, bottle fed and hand reared…. only 3% of all hunting revenue goes into the community as per the EcoLarge findings. Not to mention that Selous is 90% run by hunting concessions and yet they have lost virtually all their elephants in the last few years! http://www.ecolarge.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Ecolarge-2013-200m-question-FINAL-lowres.pdf

On 2016-04-05 22:03:19, Tamara wrote:
Considering that you will take the life of another is murder. Murder is illegal and amoral; therefore, if one kills anything innocent and free, or an official of the government that allows this to take place, both are completely amoral, and should be punished by law. It is starting to happen everywhere and once amoralist killers realize there will be a punishment for their crime, they will have to find something else to do with their time. The unfortunate realization by the government officials is probably that if they put a stop to hunters, the government officials, or anyone else around may be the hunters' next target. Murderers gonna' need their killin' fix eh?!

On 2016-04-05 21:12:20, Courtney wrote:
Kill to conserve? Talk about an oxymoron, no doubt the phrase was created by a hunter.

On 2016-04-05 21:09:38, Sophie wrote:
5 Reasons Trophy Hunting is not Conservation by Alexis Croswell 1. Trophy hunting can hurt the overall population of a species Though hunting groups often claim that a small amount of controlled trophy hunting does not harm populations, the opposite appears to be true. In the case of African lions, “Approximately 600 lions are killed every year on trophy hunts, including lions in populations that are already declining from other threats…The adult male lion is the most sought-after trophy by wealthy foreign hunters. And when an adult male lion is killed, the destabilization of that lion’s pride can lead to more lion deaths as outside males compete to take over the pride,” reports Jeff Flocken for National Geographic. The recent Michigan wolf hunt has been filled with controversy - wolves were recently removed from the endangered species list, and soon after, hunted for trophies. The Toledo Blade reports, “People who understand conservation were appalled [about the hunt]. Michigan Technological University Professor John Vucetich, a conservation biologist, said, ‘There is no scientific evidence wolves need to be hunted.’ He added: ‘It’s not common sense to spend decades bringing the wolf back from the brink of extinction, only to begin killing the animal.’” It seems that there would be less destructive ways to conserve a species, specifically, one that doesn’t involve putting a price on their head. 2. Does it really bring in money to help the animals and local communities? A study on the economic benefit behind lion hunting in Africa concluded, “The suggestion that trophy hunting plays a significant role in African economic development is misguided…Revenues constitute only a fraction of a percent of GDP and almost none of that ever reaches rural communities.” Dr. Naomi Rose agrees as stated on the HSUS blog, “Regarding the statement that trophy hunters do a lot for conservation, it’s true that some portion of some hunters’ fees goes to conservation in some countries, but it’s rarely the major source of conservation funding. Usually middlemen—commercial outfitters—take the lion’s share of sport hunting proceeds and local communities and conservation and management agencies get the dregs.” 3. Trophy hunting is elitist Since trophy hunting for “big game” usually takes place in more remote locations in which people need to fly into, or charter transportation, it’s not really an activity that’s open to anyone. Not that having it open to more people would make it any better, but trophy hunting tends to be richer people going out for the thrill of the chase – under the guise of conservation. For example, the Trump brothers came under fire after photographs of them with animals they had killed in Africa surfaced. Mother Nature News reported that there are many other ways the brothers could have helped the people of Zimbabwe, rather than hunting and killing animals. True conservation activities should involve the local community in a way that is sustainable, and trophy hunting does not accomplish this ideal. 4. Trophy hunting can be linked to poaching If trophy hunting were to ever hope to be known as “conservation,” there would have to be extremely close monitoring by scientific and state bodies regarding the health and legality of the hunt. While a certain amount of regulation does take place, it is not enough to prevent the possibility of trophy hunts being used as cover for poaching. According to a report “The Myth of Trophy Hunting” by Save African Animals, “Opening up even a limited legal trade creates a smokescreen for poachers which is almost impossible to police. Prior to 1986, when the whaling moratorium was introduced, legal quotas were widely used as cover for poaching, driving some species near to extinction. The same is happening with trophy hunting of endangered species.” The hunting of animals for trophies, especially large game animals, can lead to a slippery slope in which the animals are the victims. The report also includes more information on the many issues behind trophy hunting. 5. Financial incentives can hurt the population of a species Monitoring the population of a species takes a lot of resources for conservation groups and governments. It is possible that misinformation can lead to incorrect reporting of numbers to encourage hunting, or the financial benefits of continued hunting lead groups to inflate their reported numbers. Dr. Naomi Rose, a marine mammal biologist, explains “…Sport hunters’ fees put economic pressure on managers to inflate hunting quotas beyond sustainable levels…Despite what science and common sense said, the quotas were increased and the [population of] bears declined.” The infamous Canadian seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals per year, and the seals are used for their fur and other body parts. Sea Shepherd reports that, “There is no scientific justification for these quotas as the seal counting techniques used amount to little more than guesswork. Further, Canadian author and naturalist…Farley Mowat, estimates that for every seal landed, another is shot and lost under the ice, not to be included in the count. According to the Canadian government, the hunt will not harm seal populations, however, the facts dispute their unfounded claim.”

On 2016-04-05 19:35:24, Elisa Leflore wrote:
This percentage is not how the public majority views hunting as conservation. Most people do not hunt nor support it as a viable way to conserve wildlife. Mostly hunters are voting in this, if this were mainstream the numbers would be very different. Most people understand that to conserve something is not to kill it but to make more room for it and be more accepting so that nature can live as though it was intended to. I understand everything needs checks and balance but to say that you have to kill something to save it is ridiculous.

On 2016-04-05 18:58:26, Maru wrote:
Since hunters care so much about their money going to saving endangered species how come Sudan's gofund me page (the last white rhino) has a meager 15,000 euros raised in 8 months by 414 people? There are so far 115,088 votes in favor of hunting (which by reading the comments here means in favor of conserving wildlife. Yet only 414 people have donated money to fund stem cell research that could stop the northern white rhino of going extinct. This is an example of the scam of hunting. They don't care about funding or looking for real solutions to save wildlife. Because hunters have no idea how extinction works and how if at all possible it could be stopped. Hunting will do nothing to save species unless the money from hunting gets used to do more than feed the locals etc.. That money should be going into Sudans fund to finance the stem cell research that would stop the northern white rhino from going extinct. But only 15000 euros to finance a program that costs millions. Why are hunters not funding this program? If any hunters want to save a species from really going into extinction start funding the programs that really can make a difference. Hunting is not going to bring the northern white rhino back but stem cell research. https://www.gofundme.com/makearhino ** Reproduction and stem cell researchers meet in Vienna to develop a rescue plan for the northern white rhino ** International scientists met in Austria in early December 2015 for a conference on Conservation by Cellular Technologies. The last three northern white rhinos in the world, who live on Ol Pejeta, are completely incapable of natural reproduction. Experts have concluded that the subspecies can only be saved by using cellular techniques. The conference was supported by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin (IZW), San Diego Zoo Global (USA), Tiergarten Schönbrunn (Austria) and ZOO Dvůr Králové (Czech Republic). One of the participants in the meeting, the Japanese stem cell scientist Katsuhiko Hayashi (Kyushu University), has already grown mice out of simple skin cells. The plan devised in Vienna is to use natural gametes from the remaining three rhinos, as well as samples collected from dead individuals, and multiply them. Scientists will also use induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which are taken from somatic cells, for example in the skin. They hope that as research continues to progress, it might be possible to specifically mature the iPS cells into neurons, heart muscle cells or even gametes. In-vitro fertilised gametes can then be introduced into surrogate mothers and a fertile northern white rhinos will be produced. The process will require the latest findings in stem cell research to be adjusted and applied to rhinos, and will be the first use of the technology in wildlife conservation. DNA of a dozen northern white rhinos has been preserved in genetic banks in Berlin and San Diego, and will be used in this project. The first studies have already begun, and the complete rescue and research plan will be published as a status report next year. Our GoFundMe campaign aims to raise funds to assist in the research necessary to save the species. Please continue to support this campaign by spreading the word and sharing with your loved ones.arch can be used to ensure that Sudan is not the last of his kind.

In slaughterhouses in South Africa we have many inspectors. People who see that the slaughtering is done in the best possible way. FACT! (Although I hate that) Let me tell you personal experiences with hunting. 1) I have personally heard hunters taking bets on who would be able to shoot the drinking baby kudu right from under its mother. 2) I have personally heard (in a coffee shop) hunters telling new people to the "sport" that if you shoot an animal and you hear a gurgling sound, don't waste another bullet. Bullets are expensive, the gurgling means it was a lungshot, the animal will die in any case within 30 minutes. 3) I have personally heard and seen hunters running down animals with their big 4x4. They love doing that with "springbokke". (I don't know the English name now)..... MY POINT: There are NO INSPECTORS, NO RULES!! These animals are left at the mercy of big man, bragging HUNTERS (many times under the influence of alcohol)

On 2016-04-05 14:59:40, Ron Johnson wrote:
if you think that trophy hunting in any way contributes to conservation, then you are deluded. Trophy hunters kill for fun, there is no conservation or honour in this.

On 2016-04-05 11:52:43, Julien Crowther wrote:
Hunting is not conservation and hunters don't conserve wildlife, they kill it. Money from hunting mainly goes to the hunting safari outfitters and very little finds its way into conservation or local communities but or course that it the myth they would like you to believe. Animals in Africa are on the brink due to many factors but hunting is one of them - poaching is another. Wild lions are few and far between and elephant numbers have dramatically reduced. Since the illegal killing of Cecil the lion last summer people around the world have woken up to the fact that hunting does nothing for conservation or communities and should be phased out as soon as possible in favour of photographic tourism which brings in far more money to African countries.

On 2016-04-05 10:56:54, Alex Horvath wrote:
Stop this madness now

On 2016-04-05 09:59:46, Donalea Patman wrote:
It's time to get real about how little hunting really contributes to conservation. Read Ecolarge by Roderick Campbell where he shares the truth behind just how much is contributed to Africa's GDP. http://www.ecolarge.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Ecolarge-2013-200m-question-FINAL-lowres.pdf Not only that, it's fast becoming known as the shameful and cruel industry that it truly is, the hunting myth being exposed and the general public outraged. If hunting truly was the grand master of conservation as claimed by many who partake in the fun kills, do you really think we'd have so many species racing extinction? Having to factory farm animals just to keep the blood lust going...shame on those that participate. It's time to evolve and there's no place for it in our civilised world. As you've seen with Walter Palmer, the world has had enough. Govt's around the world are now banning trophy imports and there's a ground swell of support.

On 2016-04-05 08:22:27, Jane wrote:
KENYA: Having read a number of the comments on here and in particular about Kenya and the decline in wildlife 'due to' banned hunting back in the 70's, I felt compelled to write in and address the naivety on this matter. My family lived in Kenya for 35 years, and I was born and raised there, so you could say we have fair knowledge of the country. We all know too, wildlife throughout the African continent is presently under enormous strain by large international criminal syndicates poaching endangered and threatened species putting them on the fast road to extinction. Kenya is no exception, together with illegal bush meat trafficking, a burgeoning population encroaching on land space, more grazing livestock and therefore greater treats of human/wildlife conflict etc, etc., it is easy to quickly ascertain the real reasons why wildlife has suffered. CONSERVATION: A senior policy advisor for the Born Free Foundation UK recently stated the revenue brought into Kenya alone from wildlife photo safaris is $1 billion dollars compared to a few hundred million dollars taken by ALL the combined African countries that allow hunting. So, as hunters can not hunt in Kenya and yet they state their dollars for hunting are vital to conservation and as a consequence Kenya has suffered, would seem to be a bogus one. Kenya - Travel & Tourism Total Contribution to GDP - Travel & Tourism Total Contribution to GDP - % share 12.0 (% share) in 2015 The share of Travel & Tourism spending or employment in the equivalent economy-wide concept in the published national income accounts or labour market statistics. Furthermore according to Forbes: 'Among the major countries projected to experience significantly strong Travel and Tourism GDP growth will be India, China, Thailand, Indonesia, Peru and KENYA. When a rhino, elephant, lion etc is slaughtered by a hunter that animal is gone forever. Alive though the value of that animal is far greater, not only regarding the photo tourism it brings in during its lifetime, but the livelihoods of the many locals employed to support that whole network infrastructure of photo safaris. "Conservation" by hunting is an archaic and selfish concept that hides behind conservation to justify its existence. Very little revenue from hunts actually ends up supporting wildlife initiatives, sources agree only 3-5% paid for a hunt is returned to conservation. Roderick Campbell of Economists at Large questions the value of trophy hunting to other than gun shops and hunting outfitters, pointing to a report by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization that found only 3 percent of hunting revenue went to communities living in the area. "Local communities are key stakeholders for conservation initiatives," he writes, "yet they receive minimal benefits from trophy hunting." In some areas, the limited trickle-down from trophy hunting could, in fact, be fuelling support for poachers, who pay shooters and bearers in cash. HUNTER: 'The Badge of Cowardice: (as written by a hunter) “A real hunter kills for survival, never for sport. Taking an animal’s life is a sacred thing”, Norm Blaker, an 82 year old hunter who has hunted throughout the United States and Canada with hunting legends Fred Bear and Kiko Tovar, firmly says. “Killing is no sport” he adds with finality. 'I became aware of the scourge called trophy hunting while working with conservation and anti-poaching units in northern Zululand. While we focused on African Wild Dogs and Black Rhino, nine lions were also under our protection. During my time in South Africa, I heard stories of trophy hunts, watched videos of them and witnessed parts of hunts unfold first hand. My initial sympathy for trophy hunters (as I hunt whitetail deer once a year for consumption) faded as their selfishness, ignorance and recklessness became clear. My experience working with lions in the wild, position as a hunter, university study in biology and employment at a conservation genetics laboratory revealed the damnable, dangerous and destructive nature of trophy hunting. Hunters' claims that they support the conservation of a species through paid destruction of an animal are unfounded and ludicrous. Coupled with the cowardice of trophy hunters are the unethical practices they use'. OUR CHOICE: Humans are in the process of bringing about the Earth's sixth extinction of life forms. From an African population of more than a million lions in the mid-19th century, there are maybe 20,000 left in the wild. Around 36,000 elephants are falling to rifle bullets each year and over 1,000 rhinos were poached in the species' heartland of Kruger Park last year. In the face of such declines, can we really afford to kill, for personal pleasure, even one of this planet's wild creatures?

On 2016-04-05 08:04:00, Andrew Baldry wrote:
Should we not rather direct our comments to the people of Namibia and challenge other African landlords who have decided to invest in and encourage the hunting activity? Shall we not applaud South Africans for the dramatic resuscitation of their wildlife estate? Shall we not acknowledge hard men who have bought wildlife back from brink of extinction in Mozambique and Uganda? Can we not accept that African Governments realize the benefits of hunting in the conservation of land and the management of their wildlife resource under a legal and sustainable format? Kenya is imploding because there is no sustainable land use plan and the communities that strangle the protected Parks deem wild animals as worthless. Valueless. Here there is an opportunity for the non-hunting fraternity and the so-called wildlife charities to get involved and make a difference. But they do not and not because of want of trying but because those vast tracts of land have now been lost and the landlords have reclaimed them for their livestock and crops. Hunting is not the be all and end all in wild Africa but it currently protects land, water and its associated ecosystems. The same opportunities are available for all but few can match the hunting incomes and the social benefits that are attributed to attached communities. Let us rather bring these communities to the table and they are in a better position to explain why they support hunting and why they have dedicated much of their land to this activity? If they were presented with a more profitable solution or alternative then they would have surely taken it? Hunting for the most is traditional in Africa but it requires regulation, it requires research and a scientific approach. Hunting is not the be all and end all but it helps and until we find alternatives that can protect the Africa’s wildlife heritage then hunting has its place. If it is proven not to conserve then let us adapted the activity as a conservation tool and one that adequately provides for or enhances the landlords. I developed a hunting estate that is owned by a community as it is was their want and they dictate a benefit of 25% of gross income, meat, employment etc. They are the investors as it is their land. These same lands were barren, encroached and depleted of their natural resources and now they can boast a flourishing wildlife estate. A natural resource asset that they recognize and protect. The model cannot possibly provide for everyone but simply proves wildlife as a sustainable and profitable business. It is their choice. I can offer this opportunity to anyone on this site to take over the project and provide for this community - to remove or phase out hunting and introduce non-consumptive activities of your choice. Activities that equals the investments or betters communal incomes that provide for the management of land, wildlife and most importantly enhances the lifestyle of the very people who will dictate the future of wild Africa. This is not a challenge but simply an opportunity to prove a tangible alternative.

On 2016-04-05 07:02:51, Sam Goede wrote:
Why do areas that are owned by professional hunting operations boast the most wildlife? Why do these same areas boast the best run and best equipped anti-poaching outfits?!? They are funded by hunting! To give African Wildlife the best possible chance of surviving Africa we all need to promote and endorse controlled hunting. I am by no means saying we must all glorify killing an animal for sport, it's not for everyone, but try not let the shooting of an animal cloud your judgement, animals are shot on controlled quotas so that the natural population increase is not affected. You need to look past the killing of one animal and see the benefits for the herd. If we can't do this you will all be coming to Africa to see cows and goats on what once hosted elephant, buffalo and lion.

On 2016-04-05 06:32:50, Jaco Wolmarans wrote:
I am killing to feed my family, not for the fun of it or for trophy,

I am totally against trophy hunting. Plain and simple, it is morally wrong. Trophy hunters do not care about conservation. If they did, instead of paying all of that money to kill these beautiful creatures, they would instead donate that money to organizations that truly help conservation. It is deplorable that they pose with their kill with all smiles. That is not the look of helping the animal population, that is the look of enjoyment of the kill. It is incorrect when they state that the money goes to the people of that country and to conservation. Majority of the money goes to the corrupt governments. I have also read many reports that photo safaris bring more money into those country than trophy hunting safaris. That is a proven fact.

On 2016-04-05 02:55:07, Connie klemisch wrote:
This is a frightening message to send and it doesn't make sense! How does killing a life help saving a life???? Trophy hunting and any type of animal abuse must end , NOW!!! There are no more excuses and there will be no more animals, either! This benefits a small handful of greedy self-serving people!! Make no mistake, and do not fall for this, or even consider it! It is so sad and depressing to know that human beings are so callous and shameless and that we are of the same species. We are all related to all of life on this planet, and we have not been given any rights to exploit other life forms! It is because they don't speak for themselves, and for that reason they are able to be taken advantage of

On 2016-04-05 00:44:50, Kim W wrote:
I am sorry but hunting is not Conservation!! These animals were not put n this earth for a select few to go out and slaughter. More money is made from Ecotourism!! Wildlife is worth much more alive, and if we lose our precious animals then humanity is lost!! nature needs all her animals and her habitats. We keep building , and animals get pushed farther and farther out. ranchers think they have the right to kill a wolf or bear because they took some livestock, well governments compensate you for that, who compensates the wolf or bear for his loss of life!!!!! We must start to live beside the animals not shove them aside or kill them because you decide they are not worthy. This planet is for both humans and animals.

On 2016-04-05 00:10:26, Denine wrote:
How dare these hunters say 'they are conservationists'? What makes these arrogant hunters think they're better than mother nature herself? Nature has the perfect answer, if these killers would just stay out of the equation. Then we have trappers & snare hunters who don't even hunt humanely. When they put those traps down, they don't even know what type of animal will be caught, nor do they care. Then, if they don't check the trap or snare every hour, that means the animal sits in pain & fright for however long it is before someone comes back... it's totally inhumane and it's completely barbaric! Are we still cavemen that need to use these completely antiquated tools!? Next and the worst... we have canned hunting! I can't believe it's even called hunting because there is no 'hunt' involved, there is no 'challenge' in it either. It's disgusting! These poor animals are bred & raised just to be killed. They are practically placed before the so-called 'hunter' for him to fire on the animal. For God's Sake, how can anyone get any more un-compassionate than that? To raise an animal knowing that someone will kill it once it's grown. That takes a severely unbalanced human to be that callous & unfeeling. The laws we have that allow these types of killings to go on are old laws and really need to be done away with. We are supposed to be enlightened human-beings now in the 21st century; then why do we still have laws on the books from when it was necessary to hunt to live? We are no longer people that have to rely on 'hunting' for our food. And when it's not done for food, it's just inhumane and barbaric. America has always prided herself on the fact that we lead the world in everything and the other countries follow our example; but on this and other matters that all have to do with abuse to wildlife (exotic & domestic), America is behind the times. We are the ones the rest of the world calls, uncivilized & inhumane specifically because of our laws with regard to animals (wildlife, exotic & domestic). So many other countries have banned these practices while we still behave like it's the 1800's and earlier. I don't know where humans started believing that we have the right to treat other species in the manner that we currently do. We don't have the right! For all the reasons I've mentioned above and many, many more. These animals all breathe air, need sustenance to survive and bleed just as humans do. We are nothing more than just another type of species and just because we consider ourselves top of the food chain, still does not give us the right to treat other species the way we do. What happen to humans? I'm ashamed to be one.

On 2016-04-04 22:38:25, ds wrote:
Hunting has been PROVEN to not, in any way, be conservation. And for those of you who will try to say you hunt for food that too is not true because by the time you buy the 4 wheeler, the land or lease property, buy the guns and ammo, etc. etc. you could have purchased a year or more of meat for your family. There is no reason, other than being lost/stranded somewhere and having to try and survive until someone finds you, to hunt an animal. Animals should be respected because they were put on the earth to live with us. We are the animals and the only species who hunts for the thrill of it. The animals don't - they hunt to eat and to protect themselves. I wish they would start turning on all you hunters out there. There is a whole movement to stop Trophy/Canned hunting which is becoming very successful, the airlines in the US, France and some other countries now will not fly any part of an animal killed as a trophy on their planes. Once we eliminate Trophy/Canned Hunting we will take on the killing of all innocent animals for any reason.

On 2016-04-04 22:16:52, Clive Richardson wrote:
One has to define hunting. " real" hunters for community life values have nothing what so ever to do with " assassins " for pleasure, who are by no means hunters. Assassins possess a limited skill set some what akin to shooting cans at a fairground in order to win a stuffed teddy. This has nowt to do with skills applied to ensure community health. This value has been removed, often forcefully, from traditional hunting communities. Why, because the economy of toilet paper surrenders a model that is similar to oil, gold, diamonds and gemstone recovery. Yes, it is pound for pound one of the most lucrative. However; SEEDS analysis discloses that indigenous communities and wildlife gain scant reward from assassinations of wildlife. The gains, especially in SSA and the republic of South Africa are to off-shore incomes. As with a great deal of pro poverty reduction and so called " responsible" tourism policies targeting wildlife assassination were carefully crafted in Cape Town by predominately white government executives seeking to ensure that even under rainbow nation administration this vile enterprise would shelter neatly underneath a guise of conservation with responsible tourism development. So lucrative that brown bag incentives would be available. Some DPAM Tourism and Economic development specialists did not swallow the fakery in the 1980's or now. The theft of wildlife resources is one thing. The type of International oil development that is currently advocating the removal of Gorillas in Rwanda is quite something more than this. Soon we will have 200 Gorilla " Silverback" families as refugees!. Only one African sanctuary area might be appropriate. The obese numpties that arrive to assassinate wildlife are unwelcome visitors. This extends to all least developed regions of the world. Killing wildlife has been a horrid example of mans lack of humanity, it's addiction to toilet paper currency, of course a prime vehicle for corruption. 350,000 USD paid to assassinate an endangered creature is immaterial, the example set is as repugnant as it has always been. The means to secure abject poverty for a kings pleasure. Unfortunately there be no kings but those wearing rags for cloths throughout all Africa as day by day Wildlife is in the way, people too!. Stop it! Learn to hunt for real, enjoy the skill set, kill nothing. This can be muted as conservation.

On 2016-04-04 21:30:10, Debbie Channing wrote:
Millions of non native pheasants are released into our countryside every year for one reason..to be shot..In turn all of our native wildlife including birds of prey that are a threat to their 'game' are also shot, trapped, poisoned dug out and killed. Farmers are also driving our wildlife from their natural habitat by clearing hedgerows trees etc and shooting it all. Elmo Thuds are also out every day and every night shooting everything. Pikeys are out every night lamping with their dogs killing everything that moves. Kids use wildlife as target practice. Not much need to conserve wildlife that old excuse is bollocks! Considering animals are perfect in every way. I for one appreciate the beauty and perfection of our amazing wildlife.

I see many comments here saying that anti-hunters in America or other developed countries don't understand AFRICA. You are speaking as if AFRICA is this dark, mysterious place! I am from Africa and it is neither dark nor mysterious. Your claims that you are feeding the starving population are lies. Very little to nothing goes back to the poor communities. In fact the poor communities are angered by seeing the rich Americans coming here to throw around their money and killing our African animals. The same animals that they (the poor and starving) are not allowed to touch because they don't pay in $$$. These same people DON'T see any benefits of this killing. The few scraps of meat that sometimes finds its way to them is not even enough to feed 2 families one meal. I say scraps of meat because, face it: all the proper cuts are sold to butcheries so more rich people can buy the biltong. So what does the poor communities do with this unfairness? They do the same as the rich trophy hunters. They kill... to feed their families. BUT in their case the killing is illegal. Poaching! How is that for fairness?

On 2016-04-04 19:00:29, Tei wrote:
Conservation? Is that the excuse people are using to kill animals?

On 2016-04-04 18:14:05, Didier Alvarez Hernandez wrote:
We know what that IAF main for the animal right in the world, but each member of IAF know what the animal main in the nature. We are sure, that all animal has the porpouse in the wild life, but all men in the world have to know, wich is our porpuse the planet.

On 2016-04-04 18:13:22, Devin Miller wrote:
This myth is being busted over and over again in today's world. Hunters are like wind up toys that just keep repeating the same old sort over and over. They do not conserve wildlife. It's a story your grandfather told you. It's over. Time to move on. We simply must speak out loudly and firmly about the degraded and vile bloodlust that Hunting has become. They may still be a few ethical hunters out there but they are rare. It's time to reign them in and let conserving wildlife fall into the hands on animal rights groups, environmental groups, advocacy for positive change groups and get the hunters and ranchers to back off. If hunters conserve wildlife why did Buffalos almost go extinct, why did wolves almost go extinct, why are there so few of both? Why are elephants, lions, leopards, giraffes, rhinos, and more currently nearing extinction. Clearly hunters conservation is simply not working! http://www.nrwm.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Smith-Molde-Wildlife-Funding-spreadsheet-Rev-F2-19Jun15.pdf This study, among others shows that hunters contribute 3-4% of the overall cost of conservation in the U.S. Wake-up guys....we already did. Keep up.

On 2016-04-04 18:02:43, Yosvany Alvarez Bonilla wrote:
Iam a passionist of the animal, sometimes the man forget the animal rigth, but iam sure that the animal has the same right of the man in the same planet. Please, if sombedoy can read this message, please think about it.

This is what true "Conservationists" are up against ... Congressional Sportsman's Foundation" - aka Sportsman's Link - aka Professional Lobbyists - which have a strange idea about what "Sporting" means. http://sportsmenslink.org/ "CSF’s mission is to work(*) with Congress, governors, and state legislatures to protect and advance hunting, angling, recreational shooting and trapping." (*) There should be a "bribery" in there somewhere.

On 2016-04-04 17:58:32, Danni miller wrote:
In the general public at large there is a overall doubt as to the concept of killing animals preserves them. Hunters say it culls the old and infirm but hunters only kill the strong and best looking. So there is no validity to that. Who would kill an old infirm Elk to hang on their wall or feed their family. That's clearly inaccurate. Then they say they pay to protect habitat but a recent study indicated in the U.S. Hunters only pay 3-4% of the overall cost while taxpayers and environmental groups carry the majority of the load. The same is claimed for Africa but if they preserve the species by hunting than why at so many nearing extinction?! They never have an answer to that question. Sure blame poachers but is that not simply one more fact which should be factored in to this conserving wildlife myth. Sorry hunters. Hack away. The public no longer believes your story from 1953. Times have changed and we must change with them. If hunters are unwilling to contain their bloodlust than we will have to make laws to stop them. It may take time but it will happen. The cat is out of the bag so to speak.