1. hynes57

    hynes57 Active Member

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
  2. westcliffe01

    westcliffe01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,191
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    People in Southern Africa have been fighting this BS for decades now. Not least of all with the elephant which are in no danger of extinction and which HAVE to be culled annually lest they ruin their habitat through over grazing and population expansion. But as stated in the article, the anti hunters are more interested in depriving people of hunting opportunity than any concern over the animals themselves.
     

  3. hynes57

    hynes57 Active Member

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    How can you argue with the last paragraph.

    "This animal would have had to be culled anyway, and the revenue from the hunt is explicitly earmarked for anti-poaching and conservation efforts. But even if neither of these were true, and the profit went straight into a greedy rancher’s back pocket, the price paid for a trophy hunt is a splendid incentive to sustain healthy populations of rare and endangered animals. Especially when hunting bans, nationalisation, emotional appeals and most other tricks we’ve tried have failed to save endangered species "
     
  4. westcliffe01

    westcliffe01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,191
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Every year, the national parks have to BURN their ivory, so that their people are not endangered by the potential of armed raids to steal it, so that it can be sold on the black market to china.

    Lets not forget that the same people behind the prohibition of legal use of these animal products, are the same ones that want guns, ammo and hunting banned everywhere. Its the same denial of reality that no law can control or "regulate" any commodity that is in the hands of career criminals.
     
  5. Sully2

    Sully2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,480
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Every year animals of whats considered the "Big 5" in Africa are killed....mainly for the bragging right of "mines bigger than yours" sort of thing. Just have them pull them out and measure them and that will tell the real story.

    Of course some of the idiotic overthrows of the politics there gets some but its mainly caused by people incursion...killing the grasslands and the forests to do what with....raise cattle?...geeze. Like "we" need more cows on earth!

    The old BS line that animals need to be culled before they eat themselves out of house and hoe is 100% true...and why?...because PEOPLE have crowded the animals down into about 10% of the area they used to have to live on. Dont cull the animals...cull the people for gods sake. Show me one single thing that has been created or vastly improved in the area south of the Sahara to the northern tip of South America......Nothing...NOTHING EVER....so why do we promote people to live there and kill off wildlife?

    There is no good reason other that to line the pockets of dammed few with $$$
    Its just a dammed shame is all
     
  6. Sully2

    Sully2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,480
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    They burn it all because the governments DONE WANT to spend the $$ to keep it safe and to release small amounts to ivory carvers...its not that they cant....but its because they wont!
     
  7. westcliffe01

    westcliffe01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,191
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Since when is it sustainable to continuously expand national and provincial game reserves by buying up surrounding private land at market value and then installing infrastructure (game fencing) and increasing resources to manage it ? Where must the cash come from ?

    Your ignorance of the incredible job that has been done on conservation in sub Saharan Africa (commonly known to be the finest example in the world) just reveals how shallow your knowledge on the topic is.

    Why don't you start a voluntary euthanasia group, get congress to make it legal and plan your own extermination as soon as possible. It sounds like you hate people, after all...

     
  8. Sully2

    Sully2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,480
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011

    Im not saying to kill off the american people...we arent crowding the Big 5 1 iota...and no one has to BUY any property when it was already the property of that countrys government.....look at the USA and see how much western land STILL belongs to "Uncle Sam" because it was his when this country was started.

    My so called ignorance as you put it comes from reading every piece of printed material can...seeing each and every documentary on the subject(s) that every ben publicized and so forth...but lets related the subject to YOUR ignorance. Where would the $$ come from.... It would come out of the pockets of all the TOURIST that can get to those countrys to WATCH the animals "do their thing"...and they see them over and over again because someone hasnt put a bullet in their brain
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2014
  9. westcliffe01

    westcliffe01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,191
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    So if the animals are all being killed off as you say, why do you suppose that scientists who work for the governments involved are the ones who say that the cull is necessary to prevent destruction of habitat ? Bearing in mind that liberal idiots are the only thing standing between the people managing the herd and their ability to turn culled animals into cash to pay for conservation, rangers to help with poaching, aircraft for spotting, drones etc.

    If the culls do not take place the quality of the parks will degrade, animals will starve from over grazing and LESS tourists will visit the parks. Circling the drain, so to speak. So the rangers have to cull the animals and are unable to earn anything from that activity unless they sell the hunt itself. Its not what they would choose to do, but they have to get money from somewhere. Numbers or tourists is more driven by the price of the plane ticket, economy at home and the perception of safety and security, than anything else. There is nowhere else to go to get a similar experience - period. From that point of view, you can see more animals now than at any time since the colonial era. And that you cannot blame on the natives. They never had cattle prior to the arrival of the white man and lived in harmony with nature just like the native people in North America.

    The problem is that the natives now want to live like americans. A consumption driven society is clearly not the friend of natural resources. The people on this site are the minority of Americans who are personally involved and care deeply about having wild life in the US. But to do so and participate requires disposable income. That is something that the natives in sub saharan africa do not have much of. They are at a completely different station in life compared to the tourists who are shuttled into and out of their national parks, which are very large areas compared to what one has here in the US.

     
  10. Sully2

    Sully2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,480
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011

    They would certainly destroy the habitat they live in because there isnt enough habitat. More and more animals are crowded into less and less space. And never forget this.... The people that inhabit those countrys were on this planet AT LEAST 1 millon years prior to there even becoming a USA. We have gotten where we are....like it of not. The fact that they havent "made it" doesnt mean as humans we can destroy all the wildlife in those countrys because someone HERE says its OK...they will flourish when culled.. HA!
     
  11. hynes57

    hynes57 Active Member

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Uh........ Sahara is in Africa. South America is a different continent completely.
     
  12. westcliffe01

    westcliffe01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,191
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Where do you come up with this falsehood ? The boundaries of the national parks are fixed in most cases. Crowding is a relative term. Space is not the problem. It is carrying capacity and rainfall. Other than central africa (war zone - they are trying to fulfill your anti human mandate) the area is generally rather arid, in some cases extremely arid. Plants and trees grow slowly and regeneration is slower still. The people responsible for sustainable management of wildlife there are not under any delusions regarding funding or the course of nature. Their decisions regarding culls are driven by wildlife count, observation of weather patterns, knowledge of persistent drought status, actual observance of overgrazing (particularly for elephant which can permanently modify a habitat).

    I fail to see what qualifies YOU to make the kind of criticism directed at people who have chosen to devote their life to conservation and who are living on site and earning considerably less money than the average American ? THEY know what is going on and are aware how it has developed over decades. YOU are simply reading the propaganda of the liberal media which always knows better, regardless of the subject and the level of expertise is directly proportional to the distance from the subject.

     
  13. hynes57

    hynes57 Active Member

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    I think you missed this part..... It's tough to read I know.

    :rolleyes:

    I'm not sure I've seen someone profess their intelligence in such an incoherent way.
     
  14. Sully2

    Sully2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,480
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    South America was a typo...but Id have thought you could figure out where it was I was meaning...but then again......