https://www.scientificamerican...ill-animals-for-fun/

It is a blog associated with scientific America but it shows how subjective views impact scientific discussions.

From one of the cited academic articles

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublis.../3/20160909.full.pdf

Mike

Did you actually expect a Fair and Open Minded discussion from these folks?

And those people tell us GW is coming
Yeah right :&:$)@?

Academic, but hardly scientific.

That article has so many holes in it you could drive an aircraft carrier through it.

Per review is a joke in those circles, it's more a circle jerk than rigorous criticism.

Looks like a balanced article and I cannot disagree with any of the arguments.

EXCEPT for IFAW's contribution at the end.

That article is biased junk science. The slant is against hunting.

Hunters kill to display their wealth and power. Just a tired old animal rights lie.

quote:

Hunters kill to display their wealth and power. Just a tired old animal rights lie.

If they used SCI and its awards program as proof would it be a lie? It seems a large segment of big game hunters fit that description to a tee. However unfortunate that may be....

Some may do it for those reasons, but that's not why I hunt or why I went hunting in Africa.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Some may do it for those reasons, but that's not why I hunt or why I went hunting in Africa.

no..me either, but a large portion of the "group" does or so it would seem.

Were it not a too often repeated case of Hunter's themselves providing the ammunition, some of the negative reactions might not be so visible.

Over the past 3 decades how much emphasis has been directed by many hunters toward putting an animal in the "Books"?

I limited my time frame to the past 40 + or - years, around the mid to late 80's, because that is about the here in America that Deer hunting basically became a Competitive Sport among a large segment of the hunting Public.

My Personal whitetail deer hunting philosophy has not changed, but my daily observations of deer have changed, especially when looking at bucks. Being a guide, when I look at bucks after they have started putting on the new antlers, on the properties I guide on and adjoining properties my focus is on guessing approximate age and size of rack, both width and estimated measurements as per the Boone & Crockett scoring system.

I catch myself wondering if that is really good for actual conservation of the herd, or is it placing too much emphasis on one specific segment while letting animals with inferior genetics breed and pass those inferior genetics along.

If we honestly stop and look back over the past 3 decades or so have people connected with one certain Record Keeping organization been found guilty of both illegal and unethical actions and been fined 10's of thousands of dollars, killing an animal(s), simply to get an award?

Anyone believe such information stays totally within the hunting community?

For me the real issue is that there is so little scientific data and analysis on African hunting - pro or anti.

Even in scientific or academic settings the pro or anti argument comes down to pop psychology.

Mike

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.89465caba2bc

There's nothing wrong with science or the scientific method. There's a great deal wrong with those who profess to be scientists and adherents of the scientific method.

Another description of the issue:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

quote:

Hide Post
For me the real issue is that there is so little scientific data and analysis on African hunting - pro or anti.

Even in scientific or academic settings the pro or anti argument comes down to pop psychology.

Do you see that ever changing? Honestly, do any of us believe that when it comes down to the issue of whether or not "Sport" hunting is or is not detrimental to the conservation/long term survival of any species, that fair/impartial/open minded researchers can be found to conduct the research???

I know I don't.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.89465caba2bc

There's nothing wrong with science or the scientific method. There's a great deal wrong with those who profess to be scientists and adherents of the scientific method.

The only way pseudo science is challeneged/defeated is via real data and replication.

There are tens of thousands of animals hunted and killed ever year in Africa and for all these data points there is little real analysis if hunting is good or bad.

My gut is hunting is the second best alternative - there is indirect conservation thru the use of a renewable property right. Problem is there is little data to show my gut reaction. I can point to save or bubye but there are other places that no longer have any elephants in prime hunting concessions (all of tanzania).

But it seems the argument for or against hunting is pop psychology.

Mike

Look at this little jewel at the end of the article...

"But perhaps most importantly, he added, legalized recreational hunting derails conservation efforts by simply devaluing the lives of the hunted animals.
"It's a message that won't be heard as long as it is common and legal to kill lions for sport," Flocken said in the article. "Why should anyone spend money to protect an animal that a wealthy American can then pay to go kill?"

Suggesting that hunters are turning people off from donating to conservation. Get rid of the hunters and the cash will flow. That's a new one!! Jokers.

quote:

Suggesting that hunters are turning people off from donating to conservation. Get rid of the hunters and the cash will flow. That's a new one!! Jokers.

Stop for a minute and think about it. Would you give $$$$$ for something only to find out that the $$$$$ was not doing anything to help the cause you intended it for?

I know of folks that are open and generous to various charities, as long as they know that money is going where it supposed to be going. Let them find out it is mostly going to pay the Administrative Staff of such a charity, and they stop giving.