quote:

Originally posted by snowhound:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by snowhound:
Do you suggest that the decrease in lions during the last 50 years is largely due to hunting?
Hint

I've re-read my post and can't see anywhere i make any such suggestion.

No, that is why I phrased it as a question.

Your long and informative reply top Saeed tells me that you are very much into saving/helping individual animals. That is very good of you but you seem to lack a basic understanding of ecology. Your friend who culled deer, you were OK with that because although it meant killing individuals, it was necessary to help the species. This would be true even if this deer species was endangered elsewhere wouldn't it?
Why are you so unwilling to objectivly look att the possibility that the same is true for the lion? That although the species is diminishing, controlled trophy hunting may be doing good for the species as a whole?

For your information, I am not an Africa hunter. Nor will I probably never be accept for the possibility of hunting for meat if my plan to move to Africa comes together. I don´t either understand the lure of trophy hunting and have no trophies in my home. I am a conservationist by heart and a tree hugger by profession and like you I come here to learn from the vast knowledge that this forum has.

My apologies snowhound, i reacted cynically and was looking for the trap that is occasionally laid for me here.

I have looked objectively at the possibility that controlled hunting could be good for the lion. Many here have given me links to research, pasted research and discussed this topic with me. I just don't believe that with lion numbers depleting as they are hunting is the answer.

I can completely see what you are saying about my being able to see the benefits in the deer cull, so why can't i attempt to see this will help the lion?
Well for one lions are not in need of culling. They are not over running the land are they?
The weakest aren't picked off to protect the strong, hunters want a magnificent trophy for their cabinets, not a sick or weak looking animal.
Lions cannot withstand the offtake of the hunter alongside the offtake of other natures in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

Pretty sure the response you are looking for is not the one you're going to get.

Abhorrent, disgusting, awful, all the not nice words under the sun spring to mind!

however show me a pic of a hunter posing next to his lion kill and you will get pretty much the same response.

The only difference between a hunted lion kill and this pic?
One is legal (most of the time) and the other is not!!

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
attention whore

I shall add that to the list of other names i have been called here and that have also had no effect whatsoever on me.

Water off a ducks back springs to mind!!

Suggest you read what two of your fellow posters have written about resorting to calling names.

Jo,

I will take you at your word that you are here only to learn to form an opinion and are not just trying to stir the pot.

I spent 37 years as a wildlife biologist and research biologist in the U.S. During that time I was in constant contact with sport hunters as part of my job. During that time, I never ran into anyone that wanted to see any game species of animal or bird go extinct. In fact hunters are some of the most conservative people around when it comes to preserving wildlife species. For one thing they do not want to be accused of causing any species to go extinct. That would do their cause no good at all. One of the biggest problems that we had in managing deer and elk populations was convincing hunters that we needed to reduce a population due to habitat destruction, populations exceeding carrying capacity or depredation problems.

If you will notice anti-hunters want to stop all hunting in Africa. While African hunters support a combination of hunting areas and non-hunting areas as management tools. If you spend much time here you will see almost unanimous condemnation by hunters of those hunting in National Parks. They see and support the benefits of having some areas that do not allow hunting. The same can not be said of anti-hunting groups.

You have stated that your only concern is the protection of endangered or near endangered species. In that light, when it comes to lion populations management we need to approach it with objectivity in mind. The deciding factor should be, does an activity increase the chance of loss of a species, improve its chance of survival or is it neutral in that regard? It is very easy to get side tracked by looking at the fate of an individual animal rather than to focus on what the affect is on the whole population. As an example, going in and shooting a stock or man killing lion or leopard is much better for the whole population than having the natives put out poison and kill a whole pride of lions in addition to other scavengers such as hyena, leopard, jackals etc.

In the last few years lion harvest schemes have been developed to minimize or eliminate any negative affects on lion populations. If you are unfamiliar with them check out the threads on this forum having to do with lion management.

Again, if you truly mean that protecting populations of endangered species is your goal than I propose that you have more in common with hunters than ant-hunters.

Your quote!

"Pretty sure the response you are looking for is not the one you're going to get.

Abhorrent, disgusting, awful, all the not nice words under the sun spring to mind!

however show me a pic of a hunter posing next to his lion kill and you will get pretty much the same response.

The only difference between a hunted lion kill and this pic?
One is legal (most of the time) and the other is not!!"

There are many more differences between the two than simply one is legal and one is not.

The snared animal suffered horribly and for a long time, hunted animals are usually killed quickly with only a small amount of suffering if any.

The hunted animal was taken under strict rules to assure that the harvest is within the sustainability of the population, the snared animal will be added mortality on the reproductive portion of the population.

The snared animal appears to be a female which may mean that there are cubs that won't be fed and whose survival prognosis isn't very good.

I find the psychlogical implications of your not seeing one of these dead lions as being more upsetting than the other very interesting based on the info that I provided above. Look into yourself and see what you see.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

Pretty sure the response you are looking for is not the one you're going to get.

Abhorrent, disgusting, awful, all the not nice words under the sun spring to mind!

however show me a pic of a hunter posing next to his lion kill and you will get pretty much the same response.

The only difference between a hunted lion kill and this pic?
One is legal (most of the time) and the other is not!!

And that this is an immature Lion that has not contributed it's genes to the gene pool and thus a much greater loss than a mature male of 6 years or older that is a non-pride holder.

The other fact you continue to ignore is that poaching is much less prevelant in areas with anti-poaching patrols that are well funded - read hunting blocks. Thus there is less chance this immature Lion would have been snared. Perhaps he would have grown into adulthood, held a pride for 1-3 years, increased the Lion numbers in the area.

That would be a direct result of hunting dollars.

Of course you chose not to recognize that fact just like you choose to cherry pick a trophy fee for a canned hunt in RSA and ignore other costs such as day rates when trying to make a comparision to support your incorrect assumptions.

Carry on!!

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Todd, I'm not going to respond to everything on your post but be assured i have taken it on board and will look at it. Apologies for the red writing but my copy and paste isn't working for some reason so i've had to quote your whole post when i only wanted certain bits.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
$3,500 for a lion hunt and therefore the hunting of lion is not a go/no go scenario for the business. $3,500 for a lion hunt is laughable. Never seen anything approaching this amount. Obviously RSA and obviously for a female.


Here is the link to said lion hunt. Yes it is in SA but i could hardly quote something from Zambia could i?

http://www.africahunting.com/hunts-offered-wanted-worldwide/10469-kwalata-wilderness-free-roaming-wild-lion-hunting-safari.html

As you can clearly see male lion, trophy fee $3,500

Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the realities of supporting the truly wild lands of Africa and the infusion of funds into the local communities that prevents the locals from retaliating against the predators for taking the odd goat or cow.

You say you haven't seen the numbers of how much a lion hunt brings in as compared to plains game or even photographic safaris? Let's put some numbers to it then based on where I hunted my lion last year in the Zambezi Valley of Zimbabwe. We'll use the numbers right off their website OK?

Plains game as quoted: 1 to 10 days at $650 per day. Most guys doing a plains game only hunt will choose 7 days. So here we go:

Daily rate: $4,550
Zebra: $1,250
Impala: $ 250
Warthog: $ 450
Reedbuck: $ 600
Kudu Bull: $1,200

Total for day/TF: $8,300

Now, in a non fenced wild environment where actual hunting is required, it is highly unlikely that one would be successful in taking these 5 animals in 7 days. But, it's a generous sampling and I have no problem allowing for the theoretical success shown.

Lion and Buffalo as quoted: 21 days at $1,800 per day. Note, buffalo is included as lion hunting requires bait which must be paid for as well. Buffalo is the traditional bait animal so that is why it is quoted together. However, we are attempting to view this exercise from a standpoint of reality so 1 buffalo for bait isn't going to result in success. There will be other TFs paid in support of the lion hunt as well and I'll attempt to list them on the conservative side here. Remember also, most Dangerous Game hunts of this nature will result in several plains game specimens being taken as well; I've included same.

Daily rate: $37,800
Lion TF: $10,000
Buffalo TF: $ 4,550
Buffalo Cow TF: $ 1,250
Hippo TF: $ 4,000
Kudu Bull: $ 1,250
Impala: $ 250
Warthog: $ 450
Zebra: $ 1,250

Total for Day/ TF: $60,800

Quite the difference in terms of money brought in wouldn't you agree? Yes, it's expensive in terms of meat used, but realize that a portion from each bait animal is still given to the community and only animals on the original quota allocation are used. There is simply no other animal that generates these kind of funds. Also realize, that a wild lion hunt in the Zambezi Valley is probably one of, if not THE least expensive place to hunt a wild lion in today's Africa. Maybe one of the Tanzania guys could post some numbers. That would truly be scary to see!! Well upwards of $100,000 in most cases.

Now, I know for a fact, that the company I hunted with, spent a large amount of the money generated from hunting operations last year on drilling 3 bore holes. This was done in an attempt to rehabilitate an area that was previously poached out, but now under their care. This area traditionally did not hold water throughout the dry season so the animals move out each year and back into areas where anti-poaching is not conducted. Yes, holding the animals in this area for longer periods of time will result in some being shot by hunters. But that number is greatly controlled through the quota system, further restricted by the hunting company who is attempting to rehabilitate the area. In comparison to the numbers that are lost through poaching in the non managed surrounding area, there is no contest as to which area is more beneficial to the overall numbers of game animals. Unfortunately, those bore holes collapsed and were unsuccessful in bringing year round water to the area. Not to be outdone, they are going a different route this year in constructing several dams to hold surface water. This is but a very small example of how hunters funds are being used to rehabilitate a wildlife area that was void of animal habitation just a few years ago. One or two lion hunts per year, which by the way is their total quota, for this company very easily can make or break their financial ability to be good shepherds of the land.

All this simply MUST be presented as nothing more than a part of the overall conservation picture however. Without these funds being brought into the community, the local farmers WILL retaliate against predation when a goat or cow is taken. How do they accomplish this? By poisoning a carcass which kills indiscriminately. Every single animal who partakes of the poisoned carcass dies. Lions, the entire pride, not just a solitary old male who is no longer contributing to the gene pool. Every leopard, male or female, adult or cub. Every single Hyena. Every single vulture. Weigh the cost of that against the taking of that one very regulated, no longer reproducing male lion. How is this accomplished? By direct compensation to the farmers for allowing an occasional stock animal to be taken. For direct compensation to the locals for information about who is conducting poaching in the areas. By direct employment of some of those locals.

Jolo, I've got to go back to one of your comments however. Leopard numbers are diminished? Really, you've got to stop showing us how very, very little you know about actual events and conditions on the ground in Afica today if you expect to gain a shred of credibility amongst a group of knowledgable people such as this site is populated with.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/15954/0

Leopard are on the red list of threatened species.

This is exactly the point of why no one really wants to engage you. You are not going to take the time to respond to every point as you say. Only the individual points that you can cherry pick. You "couldn't very well use Zambia as an example"? What are you talking about lady? That Zambia is currently closed does not negate the fact that lion hunts have been going on there in the recent past and finding out the true cost of a hunt there would simply be a matter of making inquiries to several outfitters. You easily can find out what lion hunts there cost prior to the current closure and what they expect to be when hunting is reopened. Same goes for Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Tanzania, ... get the picture? You are selecting an internet example from RSA that isn't even close to being representative of lion hunting there, let alone real lion hunting in true safari areas. Your credibility is ZERO. Every statement you make reconfirms it!

You simply fail to understand that RSA lion hunting and wild lion hunting are two totally separate issues. One does not affect the other. One is raised in a paddock in the same manner as cattle, routinely feed and watered, relying on human contact to sustain the population through breeding programs, the other is a self sustaining wild population, dependent on natural resources and ecology to sustain itself. Raising stock for canned hunting in RSA has no ties whatsoever with using the funds from said hunts to improve and rehabilitate wild areas and make them attractive for wildlife to enter and thrive. To do this takes money. Where are those funds going to come from? What industry is best paying the way for anti-poaching and rehabilitating wild lands for wildlife. In a word, HUNTING! This is exactly the same argument being made about the Massai and their overgrazing of the subject land in Tanzania.

About the leopard comment, yes, I understand how the leopard is "LISTED". That listing however, DOES NOT reflect the realities of leopard numbers on the ground in Sub-Saharan Africa today. That's my point exactly. You are going off of internet research without first hand knowledge of the realities in the field. You need to do A LOT more research on the Sub-Saharan leopard. The polar bear has also been "listed" by the USFWS. However that "listing" was more political than realistic, derived inaccurately by sensationalizing the "possible effects of global warming in the next 45 years". That listing has noting to do with how many bears exist, what the current population trends are, and how many bears are still being harvested. Anyone who does a cursory internet inquiry on polar numbers is going to get a completely false sense of reality concerning that species based on false science. Exactly the same situation as the leopard's listing on the "red list". In fact, just a quick check of the CITIES website just now concerning leopard shows the last "red list" entry under "status" as being from 1996 and states "lower risk - of least concern".

Very presumptious of you Todd to make an assumption about what i will and won't do.

Taken straight from the red list :-


Red List Category & Criteria:

Near Threatened ver 3.1



Year Published:

2008



Assessor/s:

Henschel, P., Hunter, L., Breitenmoser, U., Purchase, N., Packer, C., Khorozyan, I., Bauer, H., Marker, L., Sogbohossou, E. & Breitenmoser-Wursten, C.



Reviewer/s:

Nowell, K., Breitenmoser-Wursten, C., Breitenmoser, U. (Cat Red List Authority) & Hoffmann, M. (Global Mammal Assessment Team)



Contributor/s:




Justification:
Leopards have a wide range and are locally common in some parts of Africa and tropical Asia. However, they are declining in large parts of their range due to habitat loss and fragmentation, and hunting for trade and pest control. These threats may be significant enough that the species could soon qualify for Vulnerable under criterion A.



History:




2002

–

Least Concern



1990

–

Threatened (IUCN 1990)



1988

–

Threatened (IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre 1988)



1986

–

Vulnerable (IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre 1986)

So last assessment 2008 and near threatened.
There is nothing for 1996 there at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

Pretty sure the response you are looking for is not the one you're going to get.

Abhorrent, disgusting, awful, all the not nice words under the sun spring to mind!

however show me a pic of a hunter posing next to his lion kill and you will get pretty much the same response.

The only difference between a hunted lion kill and this pic?
One is legal (most of the time) and the other is not!!

And that this is an immature Lion that has not contributed it's genes to the gene pool and thus a much greater loss than a mature male of 6 years or older that is a non-pride holder.

The other fact you continue to ignore is that poaching is much less prevelant in areas with anti-poaching patrols that are well funded - read hunting blocks. Thus there is less chance this immature Lion would have been snared. Perhaps he would have grown into adulthood, held a pride for 1-3 years, increased the Lion numbers in the area.

That would be a direct result of hunting dollars.

Of course you chose not to recognize that fact just like you choose to cherry pick a trophy fee for a canned hunt in RSA and ignore other costs such as day rates when trying to make a comparision to support your incorrect assumptions.

Carry on!!

It is my belief that any dead lion is an atrocious tragedy and should not be happening no matter the circumstances and i am entitled to that opinion just as much as you are entitled to yours.

As for the canned hunt i suggest you take a look at this again.

quote:

Link to hunt :-

http://www.africahunting.com/h...-hunting-safari.html

This chap who is offering the hunti in partnership with blah blah blah is a sponsor of africahunting.com. Are you suggesting they are sponsored by someone who operates canned hunting? And as he is offering see above a wild roaming lion i'm not to sure he'd be pleased with you stating it is a canned hunt!!

I might just email the guy myself and ask him if he is providing canned hunts. See what he thinks of the comments made about it here!!

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Jo,

I will take you at your word that you are here only to learn to form an opinion and are not just trying to stir the pot.

I spent 37 years as a wildlife biologist and research biologist in the U.S. During that time I was in constant contact with sport hunters as part of my job. During that time, I never ran into anyone that wanted to see any game species of animal or bird go extinct. In fact hunters are some of the most conservative people around when it comes to preserving wildlife species. For one thing they do not want to be accused of causing any species to go extinct. That would do their cause no good at all. One of the biggest problems that we had in managing deer and elk populations was convincing hunters that we needed to reduce a population due to habitat destruction, populations exceeding carrying capacity or depredation problems.

If you will notice anti-hunters want to stop all hunting in Africa. While African hunters support a combination of hunting areas and non-hunting areas as management tools. If you spend much time here you will see almost unanimous condemnation by hunters of those hunting in National Parks. They see and support the benefits of having some areas that do not allow hunting. The same can not be said of anti-hunting groups.

You have stated that your only concern is the protection of endangered or near endangered species. In that light, when it comes to lion populations management we need to approach it with objectivity in mind. The deciding factor should be, does an activity increase the chance of loss of a species, improve its chance of survival or is it neutral in that regard? It is very easy to get side tracked by looking at the fate of an individual animal rather than to focus on what the affect is on the whole population. As an example, going in and shooting a stock or man killing lion or leopard is much better for the whole population than having the natives put out poison and kill a whole pride of lions in addition to other scavengers such as hyena, leopard, jackals etc.

In the last few years lion harvest schemes have been developed to minimize or eliminate any negative affects on lion populations. If you are unfamiliar with them check out the threads on this forum having to do with lion management.

Again, if you truly mean that protecting populations of endangered species is your goal than I propose that you have more in common with hunters than ant-hunters.

Your quote!

"Pretty sure the response you are looking for is not the one you're going to get.

Abhorrent, disgusting, awful, all the not nice words under the sun spring to mind!

however show me a pic of a hunter posing next to his lion kill and you will get pretty much the same response.

The only difference between a hunted lion kill and this pic?
One is legal (most of the time) and the other is not!!"

There are many more differences between the two than simply one is legal and one is not.

The snared animal suffered horribly and for a long time, hunted animals are usually killed quickly with only a small amount of suffering if any.

The hunted animal was taken under strict rules to assure that the harvest is within the sustainability of the population, the snared animal will be added mortality on the reproductive portion of the population.

The snared animal appears to be a female which may mean that there are cubs that won't be fed and whose survival prognosis isn't very good.

I find the psychlogical implications of your not seeing one of these dead lions as being more upsetting than the other very interesting based on the info that I provided above. Look into yourself and see what you see.

465H&H

Let me think on what you have said and i will get back to you. Unfortunately i have limited time tonight to make the response your post deserves.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
I might just email the guy myself and ask him if he is providing canned hunts. See what he thinks of the comments made about it here!!

Go ahead email him. He certainly won't like the term "canned hunt". But when you do email him, ask him directly if his Lions are pen raised.

BTW, though I would never take part, it is legal.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

It is my belief that any dead lion is an atrocious tragedy and should not be happening no matter the circumstances and i am entitled to that opinion just as much as you are entitled to yours.

Then that begs the question. Why are you here wasting your time and ours?

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

It is my belief that any dead lion is an atrocious tragedy and should not be happening no matter the circumstances and i am entitled to that opinion just as much as you are entitled to yours.

Then that begs the question. Why are you here waiting your time and ours?

She’s not wasting HER time! Wait till you see the hundreds of quotes taken out of context that she re-posts on anti hunting web-sites taken out of five pages we are supplying for her to pick and choose from!

The first five posts answered her thinly veiled question and five pages later...................

It seems sometimes we are our own worse enemies!

……………………………………...........................................................

Mac,

Can you post those quotes or give us a link.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Mac,

Can you post those quotes or give us a link.

465H&H

I don't know that she has posted them yet, but you can be assured that she or other antis will, and I also assure you they will have a whole new meaning than they were intended!

Gentlemen getting nasty with antis does nothing but make us look like the kooks that antis are.

Visit the animal rights and anti hunting websites and you may see your own words turned around so you look wackier than the emotion driven antis. When dealing with them simply state facts, and leave it at that. Leave the potty mouth at home!

As an answer to the opening post by JOLOUBURN and to
respond to her claim of why sport hunters hunt, as a rec-
reational hunter I'd say what I like about it in order is:

1- Stalking up as close as possible without spooking
my quarry, and once I've decided I'm as close as I
can get without spooking my intended kill I get it in
my sights and start to squeeze the trigger BUT THERE'S
NOT ENOUGH PRESSURE APPLIED TO CAUSE THE RIFLE TO FIRE,
THEN THERE IS! It's that portion of a second when it's
undoubtable that I'M GETTING A GOOOD SHOOTING OPPORTUN-
ITY because I've started to squeeze and can feel that
slightly increased pressure on my finger! Once the rifle
fires it's LESS of what I want out of the experience.
I'm very picky about when I squeeze the trigger because
I want ONE SHOT INSTANT KILLS ONLY. I've only had one
beast that needed follow up shots. That's one too many
for my liking. I want instant death to occur without
pain. The getting close vs. longer shots thing is that it's HARD
to get close to the quarry because of their God given
senses. So I feel good about having built up my stalking
skills the way the primitive people did, those who had
no firearms. I only use rifles because I'm convinced they
kill with much less pain to the quarry than other choices;
I love the mechanics of them in a big way too, & their looks!!!
(of course for birds on the wing I use a shotgun, duh...)

2- All the science says that legal sport hunting is great
for the animal population AND habitat that they require.
The money we spend on licenses, and the taxes we pay on our
equipment, finance so much of the conservation efforts in
place for these wild animals and their habitat that with-
out sport hunters money there would not be half as many
animals nor habitat!!! So SPORT HUNTERS KEEP THEIR PREY AT
NUMBERS THAT HELP KEEP ENOUGH OF THEM ALIVE AND FREE!!!
A FACT THE ANTIS HATE, BUT A FACT IS A FACT.

3- Eating meat/fowl obtained from my own effort to
acquire food. THAT, is a satisfying meal let me say, when
the meat is of my kill and the vegetables and fruit are of
my garden.

4- Camaraderie with those who think like me.

5- Memories of the trip including the stalk and trigger
squeeze of course, but certainly all the previous goings-on and
the details that play out after as well.

6- Pictures and video of the trip.

And if I choose to spend the money on hide, horn, antler, etc. pre-
servation, (almost NEVER)

7- The physical trophy.

The BEST trophy of a hunt is detailed in the first part of number
1 above; that experience is the mountaintop of trophies. One can
acquire physical trophies and never get off the couch with the internet
and black market, if so inclined and willing to take the risks.

Jo

Your logic and poor awareness of facts makes it difficult to have a cosntructive debate.

You said
[quote] http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/15954/0

Leopard are on the red list of threatened species. [end quote]

You failed to understand or deliberately avoided mentioning that leopards are also very common and a virtual pest in some areas including vast areas of Africa.

You failed to idnetify or deliberately ignored the fact that leopard human conflict is common in many parts of Africa as well on the rise in many areas including in India.

You are either ignorant, negligent or deliberately hiding the information that man eating leopards are a real problem in some of the above mentioned areas.

It appears that instead of being open minded in securing accurate facts, you are actually trying to dfend a pre concieved position that is prejudiced and contrary to scientific facts or reasonable logic.

BTW, you still havent replied to my question - Why are you not challenging Dr.Kat on his prejudices and his lack of transparancy in trying to prevent hunters from having their fair representation in his forum, posts, propaganda etc.

Naki, your commentary is spot on with my comments to Jolo. She claims that I'm being pretentious by stating that she "will not take the time to respond to each point" of my post but that is exactly what she said in her opening remark to me. Said she isn't going to comment on each point I made. Then when I call her out for cherry picking, I'm all of a sudden being pretentious! Go figure!

About the leopard comments. Exactly. They are on the redlist but actual conditions on the ground in Sub-Saharan Africa today indicate anything but a species in decline. They are the widest distributed member of the big five, flourishing in just about any environment, including many suburban areas. For the pseudo science frauds, it's easy for them to claim leopards are on the decline simply due to their secretive nature. Just try to find one driving around in the daytime. Yeah, you'll see them every once in a great while like that, but not very often. Hang some meat in a few trees and see how long it takes to attract Mr. Spots, or more often, Miss Spots. They are damn plentiful. Now getting them to show up when you're in a blind, in daylight hours, or even night time in areas where they've been hunted and we are talking a different story. But they are there and quite plentiful.

Jolo really needs to put boot to ground and go see for herself how the wild areas are being protected with hunters dollars. Boot to ground will give her a better sense of how the masses of sheeple have been mislead by the pseudo science of the bleeding heart NGOs simply to attract funds and line their pockets. That is if she is sincere in her stated objective of "learning". I remain dubious on her sincerity. By all appearances, she hasn't spent any time in the field with a hunting organization in an attempt to see how things really are. She's done a lot of pseudo research on the internet which is heavily biased against hunting because the anti position is easily sold with a 10 second sound bite. The truth takes much more attention to detail and at least SOME field experience to gain an appreciation for the conservation realities in the wild lands. A photographic safari to a game preserve or national park doesn't qualify as they mostly have their own sheeple oriented bias. Not that a hunting company wouldn't have it's bias as well, but exposure to the realities will quickly make a point on all but ideologues, zealots, and those profiting from the animal rights scams. I have a strong feeling that Jolo fits all three of those descriptions.

debating this fool is like dueling with an unarmed man- a waste of time with a foregone outcome...

Hey Jellybrain,

Why are you not answering my questions regarding what YOU and YOUR nitwits have DONATED to conservation?

You are no better than Dr. Kat in being an utter hypocrite.

Why are we not allowed to state our opinions on your pages on FB?

You see where the truth lies?

We gave you enough rope, and you put the noose around your own neck.

When you started here, the first thing you said you were not against hunting.

What has changed?

Why do you go to other websites and misquoted what we have written?

Hunters pay so much money into the African communities, which obviously makes people like you jealous ha?

Ask Dr. Kat to come over here and have a discussion with us regarding this.

I promise you we will not censor or ban him, because we KNOW we are right, and have nothing to hide.

Unlike you lot.

Could someone post directions to Joloburns FB page so I can read for myself?

I haven't the time tonight to reply to any posts but here ya go

https://www.facebook.com/TheSwingGate

Jo,

So your a man and not a woman?


465H&H

Jo

Here is another challenge (and I doubt you will take it up). How about you & Dr. Kat do pioneering conservation work in South Sudan?

Let us see how far you are prepared to go to conserve wildlife in an area that has never been explored in an organised manner for over 200 years! No roads, no infrastructure, few villages ..... perfect for you to establish your credibility.

BTW my family members have just been there for a short trip and are going again for 3 years as medical project leaders working in tented camps.

There others here keen on establishing the infrastructure for both conservation & hunting - working with the local community & the government - to establish basic policy, procedures etc. before even actually doing any hunting.

You fail to get the point that hunters have ALWAYS been the pioneers of conservation!

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
I have looked objectively at the possibility that controlled hunting could be good for the lion. Many here have given me links to research, pasted research and discussed this topic with me. I just don't believe that with lion numbers depleting as they are hunting is the answer.

I can completely see what you are saying about my being able to see the benefits in the deer cull, so why can't i attempt to see this will help the lion?
Well for one lions are not in need of culling. They are not over running the land are they?
The weakest aren't picked off to protect the strong, hunters want a magnificent trophy for their cabinets, not a sick or weak looking animal.
Lions cannot withstand the offtake of the hunter alongside the offtake of other natures in my opinion.

Well you are given loads of facts and research and you do not dispute the validity och these facts and research but choose to stick to an opinion which seems to be based only on feelings and wishes. In that case there is no point giving you even more facts and research.
You are simply not ready to change your mind whatever evidence is put in front of you so I will leave it there.

Just one last question:
If all trophy hunting of lion was banned as of today. Do you really believe that there would be any lions at all tolerated to live outside of national parks and on what do you base this belief?

quote:

Originally posted by snowhound:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
I have looked objectively at the possibility that controlled hunting could be good for the lion. Many here have given me links to research, pasted research and discussed this topic with me. I just don't believe that with lion numbers depleting as they are hunting is the answer.

I can completely see what you are saying about my being able to see the benefits in the deer cull, so why can't i attempt to see this will help the lion?
Well for one lions are not in need of culling. They are not over running the land are they?
The weakest aren't picked off to protect the strong, hunters want a magnificent trophy for their cabinets, not a sick or weak looking animal.
Lions cannot withstand the offtake of the hunter alongside the offtake of other natures in my opinion.

Well you are given loads of facts and research and you do not dispute the validity och these facts and research but choose to stick to an opinion which seems to be based only on feelings and wishes. In that case there is no point giving you even more facts and research.
You are simply not ready to change your mind whatever evidence is put in front of you so I will leave it there.

Just one last question:
If all trophy hunting of lion was banned as of today. Do you really believe that there would be any lions at all tolerated to live outside of national parks and on what do you base this belief?

Interesting that when you go to the facebook site that jolouburn provided we find out that she is actually a he and his name is Alan Jo Burn!

465H&H

good Lord. all this time i thought this fool was just a stupid, biased women. now i find out "it' is a stupid, biased man. wonders never cease

Actually, I though we had already established that the handle Joloburn was the husband and wife team combined and posting under the single nom de plume here.

Just a quick pass through. Been busy so no time to make lengthy replies but i'm working on it.

I am female and if you'd looked at the posts on facebook it would have been clear. The reason my profile says alan jo burn is because i sometimes use it for work promotion and that includes us both.

Funnily enough i'm the one in the wedding dress, Jo, short for Joanne!! On here the Lou is short for Louise and Burn is my surname.

Alan doesn't post on here and never will. He's not at all interested in anything you have to say to be frank. I am and hence i, Jo, female do.

Oh and in case you think i spout about you elsewhere i also have a twitter account, same name as here jolouburn. Check it out by all means!!

For those claiming i post things from here elsewhere put your money where your mouth is or stop making false, blatant lie accusations.

Now time for me to go but i will be back with replies for all of you who have asked questions.

One of the issues I see - and I suppose it has been discussed before but missed - one-eyed antis like jolouburn only look at animals like the lion, leopard and such Africa-wide, rather than their conservation at a local level or at least on a country-by-country basis. Africa is a very large place and what is happening in one country is different to others.

So too it is all too easy for 'them' to look to safari-hunting 'take', when a species overall numbers are falling, thinking that if we stop sport hunting it will reduce the losses, even by that small number. They fail to consider that sport-hunting, or conservation hunting, as we call it here in Australia, is actually preventing the population from falling even further.

Matt,

Jolo and her lot only look at animals through their own glasses.

These glasses are especially made for people who have absolutely no wish to look at the world realistically.

They have their own reality, never mind the world we live in.

Todd,
I’ve just been reading your original post again. The one I said I would reply to in greater depth at a later time!

Whilst I appreciate what you are saying about the cost of a lion hunt, you originally said that the lion hunt I had quoted was impossible, that the cost was too little. However that lion hunt totalled at $42,000.

‘Daily rate: $37,800
Lion TF: $10,000
Buffalo TF: $ 4,550
Buffalo Cow TF: $ 1,250
Hippo TF: $ 4,000
Kudu Bull: $ 1,250
Impala: $ 250
Warthog: $ 450
Zebra: $ 1,250

Total for Day/ TF: $60,800’
Above is your lion hunt. Mine only included a male lion and a hippo. So if you take off the other animals you get $51,800. Near enough a ten grand difference but then the lion in mine was only $3500.

Speaking off that male free roaming lion that it was insisted was canned, well it’s not. See all of us failed to notice that the hunt is on some newly acquired land in Mozambique, NOT South Africa. Guess that’s all of our bad for not reading properly.

I have never denied that hunters, hunting concessions, reserves contribute vastly to conservation in the areas they own. I did question whether a concession etc would go under if lion hunting were banned. I see now that it is quite possible they would, in fact the majority might well.

However here in lies a dilemma! Do we sacrifice the lion to protect and ensure the conservation of other animals and land? Or do we (perhaps) sacrifice other species to save the lion?

I do not believe the lion can sustain the off take of hunters as well as other off takes. For all the claims here that vast areas have improved in wildlife due to hunters, hunting concessions efforts the number of lion is not increasing! They are decreasing, pointing to the fact that whatever we are doing is not working.

On to your next post, I won’t address the RSA hunting digs as well as it turned out we were all wrong and the hunt I referred to and you in turn referred to was in Mozambique, so moot point.

On to your next post. With the upmost respect put yourself in my shoes for a moment and consider whether you would believe a hunter who claims that leopard are plentiful and wants to shoot them, or the red list which is all about the conservation of animals?

I’d like to ask you a favour Todd. Could you point me in the direction of anything relating to leopards being man eaters! All I could find was a report from Nepal and one from India, but nothing for any part of Africa. I searched for ages and came up with absolutely nothing.

And your final post I have already addressed. What you have established and what is the truth unfortunately don’t equate. I’m female.

465H&H,
‘The deciding factor should be, does an activity increase the chance of loss of a species, improve its chance of survival or is it neutral in that regard?’

It is my opinion that allowing lion hunting to continue alongside all the other types of off take the lion is up against can only increase the chance of the loss of lion.

With regards to the picture of the lioness I stand by what I originally said. I will say though that I know this lion would have suffered and as someone said could well be a young female or like you said have cubs. In that respect yes the picture shown is worse.

Can you honestly say though every lion and lioness hunt goes perfectly? Has no lion/ess ever had to be tracked as the bullet has taken longer to kill it than anticipated? Has no lion ever been killed that is still capable of breeding, 7 is not necessarily past breeding age? Has no lioness ever been killed that has cubs? Lion aging is not an exact science, has no lion/ess been killed that has turned out to be too young?

Your next post, I have not used quotes from here elsewhere. I do not post on anti hunting sites. I have given my facebook and twitter for anyone who wants to look.

Your next post, I’m female. I’ve explained the name on the facebook account in an earlier post.

Frostbit,

I asked (emailed) and as you may have already seen in a previous post the hunt I quoted was actually for Mozambique. I guess we didn’t read the link properly did we? That’s if you read it at all.

Your next post. Well I came here this time to ask about the collared animal being shot and then about the maasai. I didn’t come to have a debate about lion hunting but threads always veer off don’t they?

Speaking of the Maasai, I read in the other thread about it that the company has lost the land. Guess my question that never got answered by Saeed who would know best being a member of the royal family who owns the company is pretty moot now.

Macd37,

Oops. That accusation bit you in the butt a bit didn’t it.

Nakihunter,

I responded to your question pages ago and when you asked for a second time I told you I had already responded. So once again I have already responded.

Your next post for many reasons I cannot fulfil your challenge.

Dr Kat? Why don’t you ask him?

Saeed,

Are you sure I said I WASN’T against hunting?
To prove you’re mistaken or lieing see my very first post from AR.

‘As someone who is completely against hunting full stop I think you will be surprised to find me here or think that I am here to slate, insult and name call. Well I'm not, I'm here to attempt to understand fuller the views and mindset of hunters. I have plenty of info that supports my anti hunting beliefs but very little other than a couple of pieces given to me kindly by one of your members on the other side of the fence.’

‘Why do you go to other websites and misquoted what we have written?’

Put your money where your mouth is and prove I’ve done this. Otherwise you’re just lieing yet again.

Snowhound,

I appreciate your replies to my posts but you’re right we aren’t going to agree on what is best for the lion.

Yes I do believe there will be places lions are tolerated just as much as I believe there will be places that won’t. It will be little different to now really except that hunters, hunting concessions no longer able to kill them won’t protect them in any shape or form. Most only care whilst they are paying and they are on their trophy menu.

I however will care if they are huntable or not huntable. Let’s see how many hunters will contribute to the lions conservation if lion hunting is banned.

Now for a general response on some of the things said here at AR.

‘I have the right to hunt just as my ancestors have always done’

(I’ve made my feelings on hunting in general clear in a previous post to Saeed. The following is with reference to the lion.)

Do you have the right to hunt lion? YES
Do you have the right to treat me with disrespect when I post here? YES
Do you have the right to call me names? YES
Do you have the right to claim you are right? YES

Does having the right to do something necessarily equate to it being the right thing to do? NO

For example the Spanish inquisition burnt people they saw as heretics. Did they have the right? Clearly. Was it the right thing to do? No. We all (with a few exceptions) recognise now that every person has the right to choose any religion they wish to.

Do Americans have the right to bear arms? Yes. Does that mean that allowing every American a gun is the right thing to do? Clearly not, I’m sure I don’t need to go in to detail here. Just for the record I’m not against the right to bear arms.

Bias and agenda

Often I am accused of being biased and of having an agenda. Is this true? Most certainly yes. However that makes me no different to any of you here! You have biases and you have agendas, some of them just differ from mine.

I cannot claim to know the agenda of every one of you, just as you cannot claim to know the agenda of every anti. I do know that for some of you conservation is top of your agenda and for some of you the continuation of hunting and for some both.

My personal agenda is simple, the continuation of every species. If that is achieved by the banning of hunting, so be it. If it is achieved by the continuation of hunting, so be it. And before you jump on me and say there are many other factors to consider other than hunting I am fully aware of this.

Am I biased? Most certainly. I have a chocolate Labrador and cross whippet which I would say are the best two dogs in the world. Now I am aware that there are others on AR’s forums who also have these dog breeds and would probably say the same. Typical bias!

The difference in bias between myself and many on AR is that I am willing to consider all possibilities when it comes to hunting as a conservation tool. I can accept that banning the hunting of lion may have its bad points, where as you (generic) cannot accept that the continuation of hunting will have any negative effects whatsoever!

You (generic) are partially blind to your bias and in general dishonest (I feel) about your agendas. He who lives in a glass house really should not throw stones.

Research and researchers

For every piece of research you present to support hunting the lion there is a piece which does not support it. You (generic) however will not accept research from anyone but your favoured researchers.

Dr Paula White is one such favoured researcher who it was claimed here ONLY studies lion. Unfortunately a quick google of Paula White proves that to be a lie or at best a fallacy. You (generic) do yourselves and Paula White no favours by starting off on the footing of falsehood.

Craig Packer, another favourite when I first started posting here but who seems to have faded into oblivion. A little research into why that is of course reveals that Mr Packer did a bit of a u turn in his views on hunting lion, and therefore goes from trusted researcher to someone who shouldn’t be taken seriously in your eyes. If Paula White did a bit of a u turn would she fall out of favour also?

Personal attacks

I never expected to be flavour of the month here but as someone who tries to be respectful of everyone’s beliefs I didn’t expect the venom and personal attacks that some here have made.
IF you are in the right why can you not arm yourselves with the facts and not venom? I have only once made fun of a person here and that was Saeed and his typing in anger causing him to make mistakes. You (generic) however have made personal attacks on me and others repeatedly!

Tell me what good you think you are doing for your cause by doing this?
Does it make you feel big and clever?
Do you not realise that resorting to insults makes it look as though you cannot defend your ground on any other level?
Do you not see the hypocrisy of berating antis for the exact same thing as you have done here?

The truth is I’m far to tough a cookie for your names and insults to have an effect so I don’t know why you bother!

False accusations and lies

The attempts by some of you to prevent some members holding debate, conversation with me by claiming I post your comments elsewhere is pretty pathetic. In this thread alone you have been called out and found wanting.

Your response? More false assumptions and accusations! You really think you would learn from these mistakes.

I won’t name them but someone here has been shown to be a liar many times over when referring to myself here. These were rather inconsequential lies but lets be honest here who is going to believe someone on serious matters when they cant even get the little stuff factually correct?

Being mistaken about something is one thing, being a blatant liar entirely different!

Some things to ponder on

‘Hunters are the pioneers of conservation’

I would suggest that this is not strictly true! However unconscious it was I would personally suggest that the natives of Africa were the original pioneers of conservation. They took what they needed from the land and left alone what they didn’t.

It wasn’t until settlers came to Africa, (you know those who suddenly discovered there was this land of plenty with gold, land and so many animals that they just had to go there and stake their claims) that Africa needed conscious conservation efforts.

They will move on

In the recent conversation I had with some here about the Maasai eviction I asked what would happen to the Maasai that were evicted. I got one answer which was simply that they would move on.

Now looking at the reason the hunting company wanted the land was (according to those here) to restore the land and game numbers it seems rather strange that there is little concern here for where the Maasai will move onto.

After all IF the Maasai have ruined the land and dwindled the game numbers will they not just do the same wherever they move onto? Are you (generic) not just shifting the problem on to another area?

Is the lack of concern because the hunting company and hunters will have what they want and what the Maasai do next is no concern to them?

Would it not be better to try and educate the Maasai about the consequences of their actions with some of those conservation dollars you speak of?

Pests and man eaters

I am very aware of the human / animal conflict that has become a problem over the years in many places. Humans encroaching onto the animals natural habitats is of course the reason for this but very little can be done to change that now.

I am also aware that the temporary quick fix is for hunters / landowners to kill these ‘pest’ animals. It is not rocket science though to know that for every one you kill there will be another ready to step into its place. So what’s the solution? Kill them all?

Bees! They proved to be a good solution when research was done to prevent elephants from following trails they had done for years.

Elephants are scared of bees apparently and stayed away from land that the sound of bees emanated from. No need to kill any, just the sound of bees was enough.

Perhaps it is time we stopped killing pest animals and find other solutions to keep them from becoming pests. But of course this does not suit the hunter does it?

I find it rather strange that a group who claim conservation is top of their agenda would rather kill an animal than find a solution that would prevent the animals death!

I struggled to find records of deaths of humans that resulted from leopard attacks in Africa. I certainly am not saying that these do not occur but I would suggest not in the number that is implied here. Again these deaths are no doubt a result of human encroachment onto the animals natural territory.

I found several references to the hippo causing more deaths in Africa than any other animal and I also found lists that stated which animals were the top ten killers in Africa. The leopard did not feature on any one of these lists.

Again I would suggest that other solutions are found to prevent these deaths than killing the animal involved. But again this would not suit the hunters agenda would it?

Jo

When this thread is all said and done the fact will remain that you have never stepped foot in Africa as far as I can tell. Tourists, whether they are photo or hunting safaris, contribute money to the local economies and governments. Some of these monies find there way into conservation.

If you really cared to "learn" you would go and form a real opinion!

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
it's a fucking mountain lion, you idiot! if you are going to post a stupid comment, at least post it where it belongs- in the North American hunting forum... i doubt that cougar has a passport and immigrated to Africa.