quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

These nitwits are bent on "animals should be free to roam" theory.

More name calling, how grown up.
Animals should be free to roam. It is only because humans have encroached on land belonging to them that they can't.

Hello! it is MAN's "land" as much as it is the animals.

quote:

Forgetting that us humans who decide what is valuable and what is not.

If it has no value, it can bloody well die off - especially in Africa

Believe you me i know this only to well. Man is arrogant, selfish and just loves to stamp his authority. What you and others are forgetting is that everything on this planet has its value without man having to put their stamp on it.

These two statements say it all. Jolo, you are an avid Animal Welfare activist. The kind that thinks humans do not deserve to be on earth as much as other life.

Bwanamich,

So that gives man the right to encroach on land that animals habitat to the point they struggle to survive does it?

Saeed and others,

Your silence on the actual topic of this thread speaks volumes. You claim to want to clean up the hunting industry but you do nothing about it. When the lion hunting ban comes in and other hunting bans you will have noone to blame but yourselves.

So lets get back to the topic at hand :-

I ask again........

1. Can you honestly say that canned lions are not passed off as wild lions in SA?

2. Can you honestly say that if this is occuring that it does not mess with the facts and figures out there for the SA lion and ultimately could put them in danger?

3. What have YOU done about it?

Please do not bother to wait for an answer from me.

Because I know, without any hesitation, that all you want is something to twist around to suit your convoluted sense of justice in this life.

It really makes no sense to discuss lions, or anything for that matter, with someone who has such a closed mind.

You remind me of the lady I was talking to about elephants.

She said "she would rather see no elephants around, rather than see them being hunted"

You bunny huggers are the arch enemies of wild life. You would rather see no wild life rather than see them being hunted.

Saeed,

Thanks for the reply albeit not answering my question. I suggest you read my other thread and see where i stand from that.
I personally would rather see what is best for the animals to survive happen whatever that may be. Noone can say 100% what the right course of action is to save our wildlife we can only do what we feel is best.
Hunters and anti hunters are miles apart in their beliefs but they all want the same thing, to save our wildlife.
Research can be found that is convincing on both sides of the board but as i and others here have said quite frequently it is never unbiased.
The issue i have raised here comes from CITES figures and TOPS regulations, now unless people here are saying they are biased towards the anti-hunting community surely it is something that everybody should be looking closer at.
If you don't want to answer my questions thats fine but please dont ignore that this goes on. Please dont ignore that illegal activity does go on across the board. Surely as owner / administrator of this site it is your duty to report illegal activity.
A major factor in the decision of hunting continuing or not will be whether the hunting industry has cleaned its house up, Packer has said as much.
I want to save the lion just as much as you do and i wont stand by and watch people use illegal means to hunt it.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Please do not bother to wait for an answer from me.

Because I know, without any hesitation, that all you want is something to twist around to suit your convoluted sense of justice in this life.

It really makes no sense to discuss lions, or anything for that matter, with someone who has such a closed mind.

You remind me of the lady I was talking to about elephants.

She said "she would rather see no elephants around, rather than see them being hunted"

You bunny huggers are the arch enemies of wild life. You would rather see no wild life rather than see them being hunted.

ABF post here. Jolo, other people can see what we are doing to keep our house in order, even if you can't. The information here is not restricted to this site. You started off with hope, now you come across as just another amongst the blinkered pack. Evaporate little anti, your disguise has slipped.

David,

Other people can see what you're not doing much clearer. And honestly whatever you claim to be doing, it just isn't enough.

quote:

Packer has said as much

Is he a close friend of yours, or maybe a member of your organization?

Well, you got what you wanted, so why don't you go along and try to make something of what we all said?

You had your own pre-conceived answers before you came here, and we made sure you kept them.

What we are doing is living like normal human beings, just like all normal humans have been doing since they came down from the trees

We have no silly ideas that animals have the same rights as us humans.

We have no problems accepting that life and death go hand in hand.

We are not hypocrites.

We enjoy eating meat.

We enjoy wearing leather goods.

A few eggs for breakfast starts the day off.

A roasted baby chicken with some wild rice for lunch.

And a lovely rib eye steak with baked potato for dinner.

What can be better?

The only thing i make of what you have said is that your silence speaks volumes. In my time here people have been extremely eager and informative about their views on hunting as a conservation tool.

Yet ask what you are doing about cleaning your house up regarding canned lion hunts and you all clam up.

What is it that has you scared about this question?

What do you possibly think i plan to do with anything you tell me about how you intend to stop this practice?

Better would be stepping up to the plate and accepting that the hunting industry is not perfect. Better would be doing something about it and i'm pretty sure if you were doing something you would be dieing to tell me just like you were dieing to tell me how ethical hunters are and how they are the saviour of the lion.

Jo,

Let's reverse this a bit.

What has the anti-hunter industry done to correct the mistakes in Kenya? Anything?

Kenya is a huge country with a unified anti hunting policy that has failed. The anti hunters have no answer for that failure nor any idea to reverse it in any meaningful way. Yet you are attacking the hunting community because of specific examples of a PH or customer with issues. Kenya is a Macro issue, the anti's attack on Micro issues. Yes Micro issues need to be addressed but it is the Macro issues that really count.

You also seem to think the "hunting industry" has some sort of organizational structure. Yes there are hunting clubs (in the US we have SCI, Ducks unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk foundation, to name just a few) No single group has any control over members other then to possibly kick a member out. If any of these tried to fine a member (or take some other punitive action) for some violation of rules the member would simply laugh at them and walk away.

Only governments have the control that LionAid presumes these clubs have. So the regulations must be at that level. And like all good regulations you move slowly and take into account testimony from various stakeholders and, in this case scientists.

This is happening today and much of the funding for the effort is coming from the hunting industry. If the anti hunters think that gives us too much influence then they should step up and help fund the effort as well. The money would be appreciated.

If LionAid succeeds in there ill-considered lion import ban then they will very likely circumvent the years of hard word that has been put into wild lion conservation by governments, clubs, foundations, scientists, etc... with a simplistic solution that plays well to the local masses in the west but would be disasterous to wild lions. There are limited resources available for this fight and they are a distraction.

As for answering your question.

1. Can you honestly say that canned lions are not passed off as wild lions in SA?

>> Probably happens all the time.

2. Can you honestly say that if this is occuring that it does not mess with the facts and figures out there for the SA lion and ultimately could put them in danger?

>> This has probably zero effect of the wild lion population in SA. It doesn't matter.

3. What have YOU done about it?
>> I have discussed it on boards as a means of educating other hunters so they can make an informed decision on whether they want to hunt a canned lion or not. But not really concerned about it since it has little to no effect on wild lions. What exactly do you expect me to do about it?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
So we have someone who has spent most of his life doing research on snails, and someone who had visited a couple of game parks in South Africa pass themselves as the saviours of the lions1

Absolutely fantastic, you are both doing a GRAND job!

please Saeed, they are not snails. they are bi-valves( oysters and clams). there is a huge difference and you are surely insulting Dr. Kat and snails all over the world by confusing the 2 species.

Puttim on ignore; on to the next thread.

The antis have a fantastic way of squeezing money out of poor ignorant Joe Blogs!

I just saw an advert in a British magazine, for some orgenization claiming to be saving teh tigers in India.

They tell you to adobt a tiger, for something like $30 a month.

For that, you get a little tiger toy, which probably cost 50 cents. Then they send another 50 cents to someone in India, and they pocket the $29 a month.

The sad part is that there so many gullible people who actually believe this crap!

yes and a few of these gullible fools show up here( NO NAMES STATED, OF COURSE).

Eish, sorry jdollar, I have let the team down, I am ashamed....

But I haven't given them any loot to save the tigers

jolouburn,

I again have a few rhetorical questions, but also some very specific questions for you. But let me first do the right thing and reply to some specific questions that you have put to hunters, and thus to me. I’m referring to this:

quote:

Saeed and others,

Your silence on the actual topic of this thread speaks volumes. You claim to want to clean up the hunting industry but you do nothing about it. When the lion hunting ban comes in and other hunting bans you will have noone to blame but yourselves.

So lets get back to the topic at hand :-

I ask again........

1. Can you honestly say that canned lions are not passed off as wild lions in SA?

2. Can you honestly say that if this is occuring that it does not mess with the facts and figures out there for the SA lion and ultimately could put them in danger?

3. What have YOU done about it?

I answer these very much the same as JohnHunt.

So, now you have two "hunters" that have replied to your question. OK. Here are a few rhetorical questions that you may wish to consider replying to: So how many hunters do you think should bother to reply? What will make you happy? Will you feel that you have "won the hunters" on this issue if 3, 30, 300, 3000, ? hunters replies. What are you going to do with JohnHunt's and my replies? Do these satisfy you? Do you agree or not? If not, why not? What “ideal answers will make you anti-hunting heart happy? Please provide us with what you think will be, from the anti-hunting point of view, the “ideal answers” a responsible hunter should give? I’m really asking you to tell us as hunters what you think we should do.

But there are a few other issues about which I want to ask very specific questions, which I trust you will have the decency to reply to in sufficient detail to enlighten us hunters about how such a “forum debate” should be conducted. As introduction to these questions I quote from your first posting on this topic:

quote:

In summary, LionAid states that CITES records indicate that 2651 “wild” lion trophies were exported from South Africa 2000-2009, and 3024 “captive/ranched” lions over the same period.

Now add to this quote the numerous accusations and counteraccusations about one or the other side twisting the truth and not doing the research properly, or checking the accuracy of statements made by others before presenting such statements as facts.

My four questions to you, as representative of the anti-hunters on this forum, are now:
1. Do you fully endorse the statement quoted above as factually accurate, in as much the 2651 and 3024 figures for the 10 year period are correct?
2. Please give a full reference(s) as to the source(s) that you have consulted in verifying the accuracy of these figures as well as a definition of what criteria were used to classify any exported lion as “wild” or “captive/ranched”? Need I explain that by a "reference" I mean enough information so that I as a scientist can trace the publication and verify for myself that I agree that the facts are indeed correct. I expect that these will be mostly URL's to CITES year reports, but whatever, place me in a position to verify for myself the correctnes of the facts.
3. If possible, can you give any possible trend(s) in the two classes of lion over the past ten years, are there year by year figures available from 2000 to 2009?
4. Tell me, and please motivate how the actions of hunters that leads to these figures - and specifically the trends, will have any negative effect on the lion habitat and thus on the actual free ranging wild lion population in both South Africa and in Africa in general.

I have some more questions, but I will not ask these now, as your reply to the four posed here may very well cover what I may wish to ask about.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

Andrew,

quote:

My four questions to you, as representative of the anti-hunters on this forum, are now:

1. Do you fully endorse the statement quoted above as factually accurate, in as much the 2651 and 3024 figures for the 10 year period are correct?

2. Please give a full reference(s) as to the source(s) that you have consulted in verifying the accuracy of these figures as well as a definition of what criteria were used to classify any exported lion as “wild” or “captive/ranched”? Need I explain that by a "reference" I mean enough information so that I as a scientist can trace the publication and verify for myself that I agree that the facts are indeed correct. I expect that these will be mostly URL's to CITES year reports, but whatever, place me in a position to verify for myself the correctnes of the facts.

3. If possible, can you give any possible trend(s) in the two classes of lion over the past ten years, are there year by year figures available from 2000 to 2009?

4. Tell me, and please motivate how the actions of hunters that leads to these figures - and specifically the trends, will have any negative effect on the lion habitat and thus on the actual free ranging wild lion population in both South Africa and in Africa in general

In answer to your questions:



1.The figures all came from the CITES Trade Database. Anyone can access them here: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/trade.shtml

2.“wild” and “captive” and “ranched” are all trophy categories that can be selected

3.Trends are as follows (2010 data is excluded as it is only just being compiled – data listed there is preliminary)



Wild

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

189 149 192 177 182 235 284 414 455 374



Captive/ranched

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

36 73 112 134 241 211 403 411 707 696



4. That question cannot be answered as hunting concession holders do not allow independent assessments of lion population numbers and demography within areas where lions are trophy hunted. They are perhaps too fearful of losing quota. You might be able to see how in Zimbabwe many have argued that quotas are excessive. In Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Cameroon at least hunting concessions that border directly on protected areas have been shown to have impacts on protected populations. Andrew Loveridge (Biological Conservation 134 (2007): 548-558) reports that sport hunters in the safari areas surrounding the park killed 72% of tagged adult males from the study area. Over 30% of all males shot were sub-adult (<4 years). Hunting off-take of male lions doubled during 2001–2003 compared to levels in the three preceding years, which caused a decline in numbers of adult males in the population (from an adult sex ratio of 1:3 to 1:6 in favour of adult females). Home ranges made vacant by removal of adult males were filled by immigration of males from the park core. You can also read “Effects of trophy hunting on lion and leopard populations in Tanzania”. 2010. Packer et al., Conservation Biology. And “Cat dilemma: too protected to escape trophy hunting?” Palazy et al, PLoS One, 2011.

John,

As for Kenya: Trophy hunting was stopped in 1977 as the authorities judged it was having a negative impact on wildlife populations. Since then, and despite massive population growth, Kenya has earned vastly greater sums from non-consumptive tourism than hunting could have delivered. Kenya is a favourite country for hunters to point to as they insist that with hunting, the wildlife would not have declined as much as it has. They ignore the fact that countries with trophy hunting – Zimbabwe, Botswana (no lion hunting), and Cameroon at least have seen similar or greater declines.



You might also want to read a 2009 report by the IUCN: La Grande Chasse en Afrique de l’Ouest – Quelle Contibution a la Conservation (Programme Aires Protegees d’Afrique du Centre et de l’Ouest – PAPACO). It actually covers trophy hunting in eastern and southern Africa as well. There seems to be an English translation now available.



Happy reading.

quote:

As for Kenya: Trophy hunting was stopped in 1977 as the authorities judged it was having a negative impact on wildlife populations. Since then, and despite massive population growth, Kenya has earned vastly greater sums from non-consumptive tourism than hunting could have delivered. Kenya is a favourite country for hunters to point to as they insist that with hunting, the wildlife would not have declined as much as it has. They ignore the fact that countries with trophy hunting – Zimbabwe, Botswana (no lion hunting), and Cameroon at least have seen similar or greater declines.

What a load of codswalop!

I have been hunting in both Zimbabwe and Tanzania. And I have gone on photo safaris in Kentya more than one ocassion.

I have seen more animals in Tanzania last year than I have seen in Kenya, even in a national park.

So your argument, as usual does not hold any water for us who have seen both side.

quote:

As for Kenya: Trophy hunting was stopped in 1977 as the authorities judged it was having a negative impact on wildlife populations. Since then, and despite massive population growth, Kenya has earned vastly greater sums from non-consumptive tourism than hunting could have delivered. Kenya is a favourite country for hunters to point to as they insist that with hunting, the wildlife would not have declined as much as it has. They ignore the fact that countries with trophy hunting – Zimbabwe, Botswana (no lion hunting), and Cameroon at least have seen similar or greater declines.

Let me get this right: So long as non-hunting generates more revenue than hunting in a given country, IT MATTERS NOT that the majority of Wildlife inhabiting non protected areas declines by 70%. Is that what is termed as collateral damage?

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

Kenya has earned vastly greater sums from non-consumptive tourism than hunting could have delivered.

Vastly greater sums of non-consumptive $$.
It certainly didn't look they could make much income the times I have been there with little in tourist numbers and the only wildlife seen was restricted to the few most popular parks with the other Ex Safari areas being left in the hand of Farmers and Poachers.
Perhaps they count the "handouts" as apart of this income? Too bad about the wildlife outside these core tourist areas.

Saeed,

I'm sure you will understand when i say 'i have seen' proves nothing. Good for the goose, good for the gander. However should you be able to source anything on your 'opinion' i will gladly take it on board.

Oh and i never mentioned Tanzania!

No Bwanamich, not at all.

However the damage done by over hunting and other factors cannot be repaired over night.

Also if allowing hunting there was really the answer do you not think they would have reallowed it by now?

ozhunter,

In another thread i discussed the economics of Africa with members of AR. Not one person could find anything to suggest that Kenya was not indeed making more from tourism than hunting brought in.

More to the point hunting was stopped because it was not sustainable. Should it have continued there probably would be no or close to no wildlife left to see or hunt by now. And in turn no revenue from either.

Lovely!

So what we see when we visit Kenya "proves nothing".

But you have proof that banning hunting has stopped the decline of wildlife.

Sounds logical to me.

From a close minded bunny hugger!

Saeed,

There is a difference between providing research and stating ones opinion. All you have done is state opinion backed up by nothing.

Now you said hunters weren't hypocrites so please provide some research to back your claims as i have been asked to do and have done. Again good for goose, good for gander!

I wasn't aware we were in a blue blood dictatorship in this forum. Ie, you dictate and others have to accept it!

Care to comment on canned lion being passed off as wild yet considering this was the OP of the thread. Or are you just going to continue deflecting away from it?

Jo,

You really are beyond hope!

NO one here cares what you think, just as we could not care less whatever any bunny hugger thinks.

Your only purpose of coming here is to start arguing endlessly about something you obviously know very little about.

You have no idea what hunters do.
And I suspect all you want is to stop hunting, regardless of whether it is behind a fence or not.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Saeed,

I'm sure you will understand when i say 'i have seen' proves nothing. Good for the goose, good for the gander. However should you be able to source anything on your 'opinion' i will gladly take it on board.

Oh and i never mentioned Tanzania!

Masai Mara?... Serengeti?... not part of the Kenya/Tanzania ecosystem on which both countries rely (Kenya more so)?
The problem with Kenya is that most of the land once inhabited by game (and looked after) is now inhabited by humans (the kind that doesn't give a damn about wildlife).

Oh what the hell...you can take a horse to water....the rest you know.

What Saeed said X 10

Saeed,

I rather think this may be my last interaction with you.

quote:

You really are beyond hope!

NO one here cares what you think, just as we could not care less whatever any bunny hugger thinks.

Your only purpose of coming here is to start arguing endlessly about something you obviously know very little about.

You have no idea what hunters do.
And I suspect all you want is to stop hunting, regardless of whether it is behind a fence or not.

Firstly again you manage to evade any kind of adult intelligent discussion. Do you actually have any clue what you are talking about?

You really are arrogant if you feel you can speak for everyone on AR.

My purpose in coming here i won't bother to explain to you as you have a preconcieved opinion of me and i don't really wish to change that. You have a nerve stating i know nothing about the topics i start here when you can only give opinion and nothing to back it up. I have noted this is not just related to me, most people get the same treatment from you.

Suspect away Saeed it is of no relevance to me. Those who actually hold adult conservation with me know what my attitudes are towards hunting.

It's time you took a long hard look at yourself Saeed. Hypocrisy should be your middle name. You demand i prove but say i should take your opinion alone. You claim antihunters are emotional and name call, you have been all too emotional and incessantly name called all be them pretty pathetic. You start a forum for discussion and debate yet repeatedly berate those who do not share your opinion with nothing to back it up. You claim closed mindedness on my part yet i read what others put and post, what do you do? By your own admission you ignore anything that does not advocate hunting.

It is people like you that give hunters a bad name and will play a large part in the decisions to come and not for the good.

There are probably many here that would share my opinion but don't speak out because you run this forum and you could ban or censor their posts.

My discussions with you Saeed are done. I do thank you though for providing this forum for 'free' speech, its enlightening.

Great, by going somewhere where your thoughts are better understood, would do you a world of good.

Because there is no way in hell are you going to convince any of us to give up hunting.

If you just bore something very simple in mind before coming on here, that:

THIS IS A HUNTING WEBSITE!

So you are right, anything that distracts from that great and noble endeavour, is not welcome here.

Jolouburn =

Face it guys, no matter what we provide, whether economic, scientific or anecdotal Jolouburn consistently displays and espouses the typical views of the "anti"/liberal/socialist/progressive mind. Continually says she "came here to learn" and "what is best for the animals" and continually dismisses everything provided from the "pro hunting" community and counters it with quasi/pseudoscience and unprovable counter-claims like above, "Kenya has earned vastly greater sums from non-consumptive tourism than hunting could have delivered" and yet can't explain why/how the wildlife populations in Kenya (after 35 years of a total ban on sport hunting) have plummeted and in some cases are near collapse. Maybe it is related to the "non-comsumptive" poaching for FOOD the locals do or the poisoning of predators to protect more "valuable" livestock or crops grown for food and as long as the only value game has is as a food source and not a source of food AND income that is greater than what they consume (crops or livestock) they will continue to be indiscriminately killed. They (the anti) can pass as many laws against hunting/poaching/guns as they want, the truth is locals will still kill game animals for "consumption" and indiscriminately poison predators for protection as has been going on in Kenya for the past 35 years. Unfortunately, the anti mind has an inability to comprehend this.

They refuse to accept the fact that those countries that adopt and accept well regulated sport hunting have game animal populations that are on the increase and the local people and governments derive significant economic income from it. It wasn't sport hunting that decimated elephant populations. It wasn't sport hunting that decimated the lion populations and it currently isn't sport hunting that is decimating the Rhino populations. Face it guys, no matter what we say, do or provide to the contrary, the mind/position of an "anti" will never be changed. For some reason their minds can simply not grasp the simplicity of this basic premise - hunters want more animals to hunt not less and the money we pay does more to protect and increase populations than that of the anti community.

Per her original post ref "wild" vs "captive/ranched" lions over a 9 year period. If we accept those numbers as fact (and lets set aside the "hunting ethics of it for a separate discussion) then the "fact" remains that there were 3024 more lions in RSA due to captive breeding/ranching than in all likely hood would have been breed in the "wild" or "raised" otherwise - why? There was an economic "value" to them to make it worth the time/trouble/expense for someone to do it. AND it could be reasonably argued, those 3024 lions significantly reduced the hunting pressure/demand off the "wild" population.

Kenya was the "great experiment" and despite the truth that it is an abject failure, an anti either cannot or will not accept it. We should leave Kenya to the anti's to hold as their shining example of their ideas. Let them tout the success of all their anti hunting policies while they can't provide evidence of one single species of animal that has increased in Kenya as a direct result of their policies while they refuse to accept the game population increases in countries that have adapted sport hunting. In the anti mind, hunters are the single root cause of everything - they use us as scapegoats to rally their cause to...anyone else see the historical connection?

The anti view is similar to that of a religion or communism - there are very few believers of of either that actually convert and want they want to impose their view on everyone else. Hunters aren't the ones trying to end "photo safaris" or force an anti to hunt/kill anything against the anti's view. The same can't be said of the anti community and therein is the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
No Bwanamich, not at all.

However the damage done by over hunting and other factors cannot be repaired over night.

Also if allowing hunting there was really the answer do you not think they would have reallowed it by now?

Jolo,

33 years is overnight?

The reason why Kenya HAS NOT re=opened hunting is because the animal welfare groups keep the political decision makers happy with their $$ donations. In case you are not aware, there is a growing voice in Kenya that is asking for a review of the status quo and to re-introduce hunitng. When Kenya reviewed its wildlife policy a couple years ago, the animal welfare groups of the world "took control" of the process with their millions of $ and bought out political support to derail the discussions. So long as these underhand tactics continue, it will be hard for Kenya to change its policy. Dr. Lawrence Frank, was very vocal in the press about re-introducing hunting and the good reasons why.

M3taco,

I haven't the time to address everything right now as I have work to go to however I will say this.
You miss a vital point in your reasoning on canned lions passed off as wild and that is that they are passed off and recorded as wild lion therefore making the number of wild lion seem greater than it is. Result = too large quotas of lion being set in the following year and unsustainable hunting of the lion.

Jo,

IF the full quota the following year was used on truly wild lions then you might have a point (and the assumption that canned is substituted for wild on any regular basis).

However the same drivers would be in place the following year and the year after that. If they can't find a wild lion this year.. or last year and they have a guy will 50k burning a hole in his pocket...

A few years ago SCI moved all SA lions to there own category, similar to ranch hunted deer back here in the states. While there are some truly wild lions hunted in SA. Most people would argue that most are either canned or habituated to people one way or another.

I have no issues informing people before they hunt about the realities of the situation. However I see no benefit to telling someone after they come back and are boasting about a great lion hunt that it was a set up. Most only do this once in a lifetime so what good would come from that?

I suspect if you look at the actual practices of firms that fill out that CITES paperwork in this regard that this particular check box isn't given much thought.

John

And what you consistently miss is the point that IF there are in fact reduced numbers of "wild" lions then that increases the economic incentive (value) of captive raised and released lions. This higher value of captive raised lions will in all likelihood have MORE captive raised lion operations spread over larger geographic areas and reduce the demand and pressure on "wild" lions.

After all you repeatedly claim you want what is best for the animals. Maybe it is more precise for you to say you (and the aniti community) what what YOU believe is best for the animals and not what is the best way to ensure the long term survival of each species. Your repeated focus on "the animals" betrays the nature of your underlying belief in "animal rights" versus conservation and hunting and at least placing humans on the same level of importance as that of animals.

In either case your postings here are a great reminder and provider of insight into the anti mind. i.e. you provide your own anecdotal experiences of visiting a couple of captive lion parks and playing with captive raised lion cubs and visiting a few parks in Kenya and viewing animals from the confines or your "eco-friendly" car as Gospel yet dismiss our anecdotal experiences in multiple countries over many years of actually hunting animals up close, in their "environment" as nonsense or worse. Your anti mind also accepts "scientific" reports from the "anti community" again as Gospel and those who do this "research" as above reproach nor do you question their motives, either moral or ECONOMIC. Then you dismiss the info we post as illegitimate and question the authors motives

Again, the anti mind is set on dictating and imposing on others their view and continue to try to dictate to others how they should behave and what they should and shouldn't do.

Please don't spend your time counter posting anything to me. Like others here, when you first came to the forum I thought you really were interested in learning as you claimed. Also, like others here I have seen the futility of continuing any dialog with you as you honestly don't care what the pro hunting views are nor actually "seeing" the value and conservation/economic impact sport hunting adds to the overall welfare of game animals as well as the local people.

Others here can do as they please but, I for one will

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Bwanamich,

So that gives man the right to encroach on land that animals habitat to the point they struggle to survive does it?

Man in rural Africa struggles to survive as well in case you haven't noticed. By your reasoning, animals have more rights than humans. As i said, Animal welfarist.

We have only ourselves to blame for entertaining such individuals in the first place.
I wonder who "Joester" masquerades as? - another bunny-hugging troll I suspect who registered 2 days apart from the one we already know.

JOLO, how much are you being paid to converse on these threads because for the amount of typing you do I hope that they supply you with medical insurance for the wrist pain you will be enduring in the near future. I've also noted that you require a vast amout of time to respond to many threads is that due to the fact that you need approval from the organization funding you to answer or that you need to discuss responses with their team of dimwitts to formulate an answer to make everyone else look bad.

either way as I 've said before if you are looking for the hunting community to hang themselves and fall appart, well it's like winning an argument with your spouse. IT AIN"T GONNA HAPPEN!

On to the next topic!

DAMMIT GUYS- FOR THE THIRD TIME-