Discussion in 'News & Announcements' started by Hallgeir Gravråk, Jun 2, 2019.
I'd suggest a name change soon: National Enquirer Geographic.
The Sky is falling. Climate change is due to trophy hunting.
My be they should apply this to the humans
The CRAZY thing is that half way through the article, the lead researcher says that hunting can be a powerful force for conservation. Polemic headlines generate better click bait.
One of the advantages (one of the few advantages, in my view) of record books is that we can have some idea of what is actually happening on the ground. And what's happening is that new records are being entered onto the record books all the time. Record books aren't a complete answer of course - lots of bigger animals were likely never entered in the past (but many are likely still not entered today) - but they are useful in demonstrating trends. And the trends are positive.
I too was a bit surprised to see that - somehow snuck through the editing process likely. But it is a fact. And to the extent that the AH community is a reasonable sample of hunting nuts, the trend is definitely towards hunting older animals. Everyone wants a dugga boy rather than a bull from a herd. We are not the problem!
This article was from November 2017 so is a bit old. Although the author buts a slightly negative twist on trophy hunting, all the professors/researchers seem to support it. Most hunters do only target the older males, which has been demonstrated on here multiple times.
I’m not even gonna read it. I thought trophy hunting, game management and the money raised all aids conservation of various species . It also is a thriving industry generating income for countries that may not have much to sell otherwise. Most of hose dollars are coming from wealthy people so what goes around comes around. I’m not Wealthy in my country but comfortable and working.
And also, climate change is due to meat eating.
The girl of 16, knows!
What do we know?
Except, that I am not changing my habits. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
Interesting. And no, the article does not suggest that trophy hunting is related to climate change...
Just as an aside, but IF trophy hunting is ever driven to the wall, then the only option operators have left to compensate, is to jack up the daily rates sky-high for photographic and "eco" tourists!! With their wallets hit hard - then they'll scream!!
Model of India, and model of Kenya - work! Eco tourism is not really expensive there.
Nobody questions them. They exist for decades! Without sign of any change.
So non hunting model, (non consumptive), eco, should be considered as successful model.
The result of this models, is different type of tourists visiting national parks, and overall less numbers of wild animals in the country, in the wilderness. It is also politically correct model.
Even hunters, world wide have nothing to say against national parks.
On the other hand... South African, Namibian models... game ranching, CBL issues...World wide Hunting in general, the ball is always on our, hunters, part of the field. We know the story, been discussing daily.. No need to go into details.
Tour operators can simply turn attention to other type of clients.
game ranchers in case of trophy hunting getting to the wall, can turn to photo safari, on reduced numbers of animals, or to cattle ranching. We know then the long term outcome. (total reduction of bio diversity, and when it gets there - its too late, example is kenyan white rhino...)
Thanks for that info, I've added a little more to the ken of my knowledge on the subject. So in the long run - an inevitable bio diversity disaster? The eventual, total, eradication of all wildlife outside designated Nat Parks. Then human pressure is increased on those remaining havens with the wildlife with no where left to go - just like that's currently happening in the palm oil industry.
Its not exactly "info", its only my personal view.
The first model, India, Kenya, national parks, etc - financed by governments.
2nd model, Namibia, RSA, financially self sustaining, private enterprise, and still growing industry.
There is a North American, and European approach that is also successful, and different from both of these. Speaking from hunters perspective, of course. Where many of large game is still very much huntable. Example is Bison... on both continents, almost extinct. huntable today.
Including hunters and poachers into the same category is equivalent to comparing pharmaceuticals with drug cartels.
I also hate it when so called Conservation Groups say hunting revenue is " siphoned away by corruption and mismanagement". I can say from experience that every penny from hunting goes into running costs such as feed, fencing, vet bills, anti-poaching etc... And if there is any left, the farmer usually uses this to expand his ranch or acquire more game.
Another uninformed article full of bias!
Separate names with a comma.