I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I attempted to ask a few questions about my itinerary for my after-hunt trip on a website/forum devoted to travel. Some of the responses were quite . . . . educational . . . as to what many people feel about hunting:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g293820-i9680-k168...amibia.html#10294056

I posted a reply over there it could stirr a bit of a storm

Typical of the young, leftist, artsy-fartsy generation who thinks food comes prewrapped from a StarTrek type replicator. As you know most people have no knowledge or appreciation of the real world benefits of hunting including economics and wildlife conservation.

Eric I'll post for you some suggestion on next week.

same sort of posts you see on hunting videos on youtube.

The rest of the world is a scary, dirty, disgusting place full of all sorts of monsters when your personal world is your basement, the internet and the bit of pavement you walk every day.

You know for a guy who owns guns and eats game meat, he certainly seems to be playing both sides of the battle. The easiest way I've found to explain to an anti that hunting is directly responsible for the preservation of wildlife is:

I like to hunt. I want to pass it on to future generations so they can hunt. If I kill everything and don't worry about preserving and managing populations - what am I going to hunt?!

Precisely. But offer that explanation to a PETA freak or anti-hunter and watch his eyes glaze over. I always use Kenya as an example of what misguided people can do to a thriving game environemnt, but their eyes glaze over, anyway.

I don't worry about them. Nothing I can do except pay my fees, support hunter education programs and hunt my game and hope that reason will prevail.

Having moved to NZ from the UK I notice a real difference in attitudes to hunting. Here in NZ animal rights means good farming practices, and animal husbandry. In the developed "West" it practically means giving sheep the vote.
At work I was chatting, and mentioned my dream of hunting in Africa, maybe even elephant. Only one person raised their eyebrows at this, and my boss shouted him down, with her telling him not to be such a bloody greeney!!!!

Sadly arguing with these people is merely and excellent way to waste good oxygen. But that is always the case when arguing facts against emotions.

quote:

Originally posted by bullterrier:
Here in NZ animal rights means good farming practices, and animal husbandry. In the developed "West" it practically means giving sheep the vote.

Perfect!

The reply David Hulme from Zim made to the animal rights halfwit was priceless.

I posted a response, here it is. Should get Mfuwe a little worked up, I'm sure. I was so worked up that I posted it twice by mistake! I am also so sick and tired of the ignorance. Guess we really shouldn't take the bait, but sometimes I can't help myself.

Dave

Mfuwe,

You are a clueless idiot.

You stated :'And we are surely talking of domestic animals reared for the purpose not wild ones.'

Have you ever seen cows being slaughtered with a 'humane killer'? Do yourself a favour and visit your nearest abattoir. I, personally, would prefer to be the buck shot in the bush than smell the blood of my 'dead' companions as they lead me bellowing in terror down the race.

Have you ever seen the living conditions of battery chickens or how thery separate calves from dairy cows? Think about it all, next time you eat a beef burger, an egg sandwich or drink a glass of milk, retard.

You also stated that : 'I suppose their money funds the Serengeti, Maasai Mara, Bwindi forest, Virungas, Ngorongoro, QEpark, Murchison etc., etc.,?'

Let me tell you something greenie boy. I live in Zimbabwe, and in this country alone hunters preserve wildlife area far larger than all the areas you mention put together. Try these for starters - Chewore Safari Area, The Save Valley Conservancy, Sapi Safari Area, Dande communal land, Omay communal land, Siabuwa communal land, Chirisa Safari Area, Doma Safari Area....The list goes on and on. Millions upon millions of hectares of pristine wilderness, preserved by hunters and hunters alone. And true wilderness - not plastic, zebra bus pseudo bushveld.

And there is more. In Zimbabwe, National Parks non-hunting areas are funded in a big way by visiting hunters.

I wonder who you are? I bet you are too cowardly to reveal your true identity. My name is David Hulme and I am an active hunter. If I ever have any children, I shall encourage them to keep up this fine tradition. I already encourage my nephews wholeheartedly.

My country is in a terrible state at the moment, and the only sector that manages to keep its head above water is the wildlife industry. This is due entirely to visiting hunters.

Next time, do some research before you decide to bray your confused opinion.

David Hulme

There are many people who think an animal is equal to--OR BETTER--than a human. With this sort there is no reason. I have pictures of me with my cape buff, kudu, and impala on the walls of my examination rooms. Most all comments are heartily positive. One said I was a murderer! 99.999% of comments open segways for conversation on conservation and feeding hungry people.

In some ways I'm glad to see the reception you got as it serves to remind us all what we are up against. We hunters are a minority these days, fortunately the majority of non hunters do not fall in the category you encountered. We do need to refute these fools, and I enjoyed what AR folks posted on that site, and I am grateful to you all for doing so....backing down, avoiding confrontation with such ninnies, hiding your own passion will not help....FACTS WILL, if not with that individual, with others. AS to "what gives you the right to take a life"...so far as I know no animal leaves this earth alive, we only participate in deciding the time of parting and which of the earth's predators benefits.

John,
You were diplomatic, good for you.

I find that pissing matches with these folks are pointless, albeit tempting!

I have found that tactful and persistent education often helps change minds. Those that don't will always counter us, so be it, stuff them. However most 'anti's' are open to good articulate justification and critical arguments.

I have been fortunate in that I have delved a fair bit into the philosophy of animals rights, killing, hunting etc and feel I can present a good argument, buts its not short.

I am always tempted to pitch in those forums but its just too much time sink...I do what I can though!

Enjoy Namibia

quote:

Originally posted by kayaker:
John,
You were diplomatic, good for you.

I find that pissing matches with these folks are pointless, albeit tempting!

I have found that tactful and persistent education often helps change minds. Those that don't will always counter us, so be it, stuff them. However most 'anti's' are open to good articulate justification and critical arguments.

I have been fortunate in that I have delved a fair bit into the philosophy of animals rights, killing, hunting etc and feel I can present a good argument, buts its not short.

I am always tempted to pitch in those forums but its just too much time sink...I do what I can though!

Enjoy Namibia

In an argument such as this there is no hope in changing the mind of the person that you are arguing with, you just try to affect the views of the other people who are reading it.

I have pictures and a few mounts in my office. Often folks ask about "endangered" animals and I show them the above picture of kids awaiting to get their first protein in four months. I then explain what happens to the game I take in Africa and point out that these little boys are the real endangered species. I've never gotten an adverse comment after that.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:


I have pictures and a few mounts in my office. Often folks ask about "endangered" animals and I show them the above picture of kids awaiting to get their first protein in four months. I then explain what happens to the game I take in Africa and point out that these little boys are the real endangered species. I've never gotten an adverse comment after that.

POWERFUL!!

Eric tell that ashole that he changed your plans for you you are hunting that time aswell now but only in etosha

Greenies are very cruel as well they will cook a live carrot if it was a crayfish it would have screamed. and if the lord didnt want us to eat venison he would make it poisonous

I suppose that was the most visits and hits the Forum ever had in their life, in one day

Imagine if all AR members would post at least one post in one day it would probarbly crash their server with too much blood talk.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I have pictures and a few mounts in my office. Often folks ask about "endangered" animals and I show them the above picture of kids awaiting to get their first protein in four months. I then explain what happens to the game I take in Africa and point out that these little boys are the real endangered species. I've never gotten an adverse comment after that.

Excellent way to do it!!

It was like I said on the string about Marc Watts, we will knock the snot out of each other but let an outsider attack one of use and you have all of us to deal with.

It's futile to argue with closed mind idiots. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

What is amazing to me is that if I had simply NOT said two words, "Hunt" and "Taxidermy", then I would have gotten some good advice and assistance. But those two simply words opened up this can of worms and vitriolic, uneducated hatred.

Honestly, I don't have a problem if people have decided to remove themselves as much as possible from their food - if they want to deny or suppress what really goes in to bringing a steak or chicken breast to their table, that's not a concern for me. However, when they decide to use their political power and ignorance to force those of us who ARE much closer to our food to become like them, then I have a big problem.

As for "what gives me the right" - give me a break. What gives HIM the right to fly down to namibia, rent a car, drive all over, and not inject more money into the economy and help create the numerous jobs that I am going to with my hunting? I bet I will spend more in one trip, create more jobs, and help save more animals than he will in 4 trips.

Eric,

I'm not 100% sure but I have read that in SA 1 hunter equals 8 tourist spending money wise.

Lets invite this oke to SA and pretend we are greenies make him drunk on mampoer. take him to a lion camp and watch how he says peace to a mature male lion.

who's got a buldozer so we can just pickup all the shit when its finished

"Eric, I'm not 100% sure but I have read that in SA 1 hunter equals 8 tourist spending money wise. Frederik Cocquyt"

The spread apparently is much wider. This past June a major outfitter in Namibia told me the 50 hunters he books each year provide more revenues/profit than the 7,000 tourists who visit his tourist lodge. That's a 1:140 ratio!
Bill Quimby

Post this!

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-11/hunters/poole-text.html

It's the best work on hunting in a Mainstream (nearly lefty) journal I've ever read.

Great National Geographic article there. I also saw a very neat show tonight on Animal Planet on Rogue Elephants - I was pretty impressed that they actually talked about this problem and didn't blame it all on humans, and showed that yes, indeed, Dumbo can be a right bastard and nasty to humans.

John,

I have posted the following "argument" in defence of your hunting to the tripadvisor forum. Needless to say the administrators deleted it. I post it here in the hope that some of you will be able to use the line of reasoning to counter anti-hunting arguments. It can be well used against vegetarians too!

There are exactly two types of humans:
1. Those that are dying of hunger by not eating food.
2. Those that eat food and are not dying of hunger.

If you are of the first type: Enjoy dying, you most certainly deserve it!

If you are one of the second mainstream type, you are again one of two subtypes based on the way their food gets killed:
2.1. Those that themselves kill some living organisms to eat. These do not usually kill EVERYTHING that they eat themselves, but to fall in this group they must at least themselves kill SOME of what they eat.
2.2. Those that have the ALL the killing of living organisms done by others so that they can eat.

The choice of the words “killing of living organisms†was intentional. What is a living organism? Even low grade biology teaches us that a living organism is one that:
1. Takes in nourishment of some sort.
2. Grows from small to bigger.
3. Reacts to external stimuli.
4. Reproduces its own kind.
5. Can die.
A little bit of reflection on the above reveals that we, as humans, are eating things that are killed to be eaten. You may well ask: “Is this true?†The reply is a most definite: “Yes!†If you wish to argue, please look at any meal table, and then realize that common table salt [NaCl] is a flavouring agent only. By no means can anyone think that salt has any nutritional value, and thus is not a foodstuff. Now then tell me what food is NOT made of something that was once living? Bread? Well it is made from flour, which in turn is milled wheat, which is in turn the LIVING seeds of the wheat plant. Well, come on, name me ANY nutritious foodstuff that was not alive before it was KILLED in the process of making your food? But you may counter that “It is only a wheat seed!†Yes, it is only a seed of a plant, but it IS ALIVE, and to make it into bread a few thousand of them has to be killed – that means ALL of the factors described in 1 to 5 absolutely destroyed! Lettuce? It is also the living tissue of a plant. Tomato? Just as much alive as any other living thing. Oyster? Well it is normal to eat these alive, but what happens to them once in your stomach? Yes, they get KILLED! Simple summary: In order to keep on living man must eat things that is or was once alive!

It is neither a shame nor an accomplishment to belong in either subclass 2.1 or 2.2. You are after all human, and if you choose not to belong to one of these two subclasses, well, enjoy dying as an idiot in Class 1. By this time you should have guessed that subtype 2.1 have again two sub-subtypes, and subtype 2.2 also have two sub-subtypes.

2.1.1. Those who ask the animal or organism they intend to kill it's permission, and even maybe give it a choice of how it should be killed, once it has agreed to be killed.
2.1.2. Those who do not ask the animals or organism they intend killing for permission, but just kill them so that they and their families (and maybe others) can eat.

The sub-subtypes of 2.2 are:
2.2.1. Those that know and realize that others kill living organisms so that they can eat.
2.2.2. Those that do not even realize that in order for them to eat other people actually kill living organisms. As said, all food was once alive. Can you wait until an organism dies a natural death so that you can say “No one had to kill anything so that I could eat�

[Just BTW: The more intelligent of the readers of this stupid post will by now realize where it is leading to?]

The really interesting sub-sub-subtypes come at the 4th level of classification of travelers.

2.1.1.1. Those that understand the animal's answer to their question. Incidentally I think that Mfuwe [http://www.tripadvisor.com/members/mfuwe] is one of them! He implied in another post that one should ask before killing a buck and claims that he has killed stock. I quote:

“I have actually used a 'Humane Killer' to slaughter stock on the farm where I live. I have no need to visit an abbatoir.
<I, personally, would prefer to be the buck shot in the bush than smell the blood of my 'dead' companions as they led me bellowing in terror down the race.>
That may be your opinion but did anyone ask the Buck?
What gives YOU that right to decide whether an animal should live or die? …..â€

But let us look at another lot: Those who don’t ask before killing. I proudly claim to fit into this category of people who do not ask organisms or animals about the animal’s preferences before killing them. I also do not expect the others who kill on my behalf, like the miller who grinds up, and in the process kills, the millions of living wheat seeds to make flour for my bread, to ask them about being killed. I sometimes buy meat from a butcher, and I know exactly how the stock was prodded by electric shocks to follow, bellowing and extremely reluctantly, their mates to an obvious place of death at the abattoir. I do not like most abattoir bought meat, and most certainly will not eat liver from an animal that was slaughtered in an abattoir – it is tainted by the fear that the animal felt before finally dying to a ‘Humane Killer’! I am proud to say that most of the meat that I ever eat I kill myself, or it is killed under my supervision. I also take pride in the fact that the overwhelming majority of animals that I or my clients kill dies instantly, without any fear or stress of any kind whatsoever! The livers of animals that I kill therefore tastes pleasant and untainted. Some misguided individuals may now ask if I get any “kick†out of killing? The reply is No! But I do get a hellofa kick out of LIVING, not being a member of Class 1! One of the nice things about living is the eating of nice food, like the well prepared liver or meat from animals that was not tainted by being subjected to any stress before dying instantly!

I now live and have lived on a farm, and, like Mfuwe, I have killed stock. My “Humane Killer†was an accurately fired rifle of sufficient caliber to totally destroy the brains of a stock animal from a distance while it is peacefully grazing or just standing there being alive. Next moment, without any stress whatsoever it is instantly dead. Where do I get the right to decide on the life and death of a domestic stock animal? I claim that being human and the lawfull owner of such stock gives me the right to decide on it’s life or death at any time I choose, like when it is standing totally relaxed and unstressed!

But stock animals are not the only ones that I kill: I’m proud to call myself a hunter too! That really means that I do not only kill domestic animals, but wild ones too! I also take pride in the fact that I only hunt legally: That means as part of a controlled conservation and sustainable utilization program. I do NOT poach – I hunt! It is particularly about my own record of not having wounded any game animal that I have hunted for a long time that I’m proud of. I hunt and practice my killing [shooting] skills regularly to ensure that the animals that I hunt do not even know that they are being hunted. Just like a relaxed domestic animal in a pasture, a game animal may be totally oblivious of my presence one moment and totally dead the next! I do not ask it if it is OK for me to kill it! I know that it, or another one from the same herd, HAS to die to conserve the rest and to practice sustainable game management. This knowledge, and sometimes, when required, a valid game hunting license gives me the RIGHT, or better the OBLIGATION to kill that game animal. From my own deep respect for the animals and for L-I-F-E the self-imposed requirement for ensuring as far as humanly possible, that any attempt to kill one is met by instant death of the prey.

It is not my intention to do anything more than enlighten some misguided individuals about ethical hunting and give some often neglected facts about living.

Thanks for bearing with me. By all means, go ahead and classify the other remaining subgroups as you wish.


In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

Well said Andrew

What a wennie that guy is! He trys to convince us in one breath that he slaughters cattle on his own ranch and then asks, sanctimoniously, "what gives you [a hunter] the right to decide how something will die?" Is there the slightest bit of consistency in that argument?

When given facts to refute their arguments, anti-hunters often resort to vulgar psychoanalysis and question your motive for hunting.

That little button in the lower right hand corner "Report as inappropriate"; I'm using it a lot on the greenie responses.

I just couldn't help it. The same topic opened on a new thread, so I went over and humbly confessed that I have yet not visited Namibia. I did, however, list an dozen-odd other African countries I've either worked in or visited.

And I mentioned that I would likely visit Namibia in a couple of years to hunt PG after I had concluded a safari in TZ. I just couldn't help it, after they deleted a couple of posts and closed the thread.