How rare does an animal have to be for you not to hunt it?

Do you hunt for the Pot, does it give you more satisfaction to do so? How much of African and U.S. game goes in the pot?

I am finding it more difficult to hunt game just for the sake of a "Trophy."

To be honest,I have never hunted just for the sake of a trophy.
All meat goes into the pot,deer,pigs,antelope etc...
I think most people eat the meat of whatever animal is taken.

Sean

I maybe wrong as i have not been to Africa yet,but aren't all the aniamls shot by hunters eaten by the locals?? So you get your trophy and some of the poorest people on the planet get to eat.

In Africa almost nothing goes to waste. Either the locals eat it or(as I have often experienced) the nyama is stolen during the night by lions. On the whole though meat is never "wasted".

Shot my kudu in eastern cape way up on this steep mountain covered with short growth acacia trees frm six feet to 20 feet tall..I watched one of the Zulu's carry the guts, paunch and intestines out in a feed bag leaking all over his back and I asked Ph what he was doing?? They will eat it.

Also watched my bull ele disappear in hours to 300 locals nothing left but a wet spot on the ground...

Mike

Mike

Here's an image of what was left in the field of the nearly 2000 pound eland I took in Zimbabwe. Nothing goes to waste.

I don't think it's the rarity of an animal that would keep me from hunting it, but rather the level of organization associated with its management program. I have been offered opportunities to hunt Ibex here in Egypt but there is just NO management program and I can't bring myself to do it. Conversely, I will hunt Wood Bison (a little more than half the pop. # of the White Rhino) because of Canada's level headedness regarding Bison management. In other words, show me the money is going to conservation and I would hunt an old surplus non-breeding male from a global population of three animals.

JMHO,

JohnTheGreek

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
How rare does an animal have to be for you not to hunt it?
...
I am finding it more difficult to hunt game just for the sake of a "Trophy."

About rarety of animals, I think the question must be: can the population handle losses due to hunting, or not?? Don't forget that controlled big game hunting is about the best chance game populations have in these days of ever increasing pressure from encroaching human population. There is only way to ensure the survival of game populations, and that is sustained useage. With no tangible value to the local population, the game is "worthless" and treated as such. This has been the experience in North America, and nowhere is it more true than in Africa today.

I think you can opt for different selection criteria when you choose your animals to hunt. Meat is certainly one of them, trophy is another, age and sex are yet other options. I don't think one set of criteria is necessarily better than another, it all depends on how the management of the game population is done, and what part you play in that plan.

Also, don't forget, that we come to regard what is "ethical" to a large degree by what is legal in our neck of the woods. Legality observed over years forms your opinion of what should and should not be done. I don't know, but I'm guessing you come from the US, where there is great emphasis on utilizing the meat as a resource. I happen to agree with this goal, but there are other parts of the World, where there is no legal requirement for you to utilize your game. Consequently, people don't consider not doing so unethical. Right or wrong?? I'm not going to pass judgement on that, but just observe that rules change from country to country, and they form a big part in what we eventually consider ethical, and what not.

I could list a whole bunch of examples, but since that would probably strain your patience, let me just give you one more. In Germany it is not legal to shoot roe with shot, and a lot of German hunters consequently consider this hunting method unethical. Yet in neigbouring countries such as Denmark or Switzerland, hunting roe with shot on driven hunts is an integral part of hunting tradition. Done with restraint and discipline, this method can produce some very effective kills, and is a very impotant part of the management methods used to control population sizes. So as you see, ethics and regulations go hand in hand...

- mike

The tiger is being saved from hunting to extinction. Animals with no value other than their "aren't they cute" factor are probably doomed.

odie, woa is me. Grab another tree.

Let's see now. . . .who pays for conservation??

WE DO!

While nothing goes to waste in Africa, I would be lying if I told you that it's a perfect system.

You pay $750-1800 for a Kudu. Plus a daily rate. Plus the $100-250 he charged you to skin it.

Your PH or Outfitter sells the Kudu that you paid to shoot to a Abatour for $200-400.

This compounded by the fact that you will shoot 6-20 animals, makes this a shitty deal.

Versus you pay $50-750 for an elk tag, plus the hunt, plus the $200 processing, and you get to eat it all if you want.

"Rare" is defined at least in my case as an amimal that if hunted will not be able to sustain it's numbers, thus should be left alone.

Common sense should apply here; don't hunt animals that are on the verge of extinction.

Jeff

quote:

don't hunt animals that are on the verge of extinction.

Except these are often the animals that most need the protection and revenue that hunting can provide. If the management strategy is sound (in other words, "in need of funding") for a species, then I say 'hunt them" regardless of whether there are 500,000 of them or 5,000.

JMHO,

JohnTheGreek

Simply stated, if it is legal to hunt, and importable into the U.S., it's not too rare for me to hunt.

I may not hunt it for my own reasons, but rarity is not a factor.

George

There is nothing unethical about hunting, no matter the animal legally taken, regardless whether the meat is eaten by humans, or maggots! Nothing in nature is wasted! In Africa ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS WASTED! I would say more meat is wasted in North America than in Africa, if human consumption is the qualifying factor decideing waste.

The problem with nature is, man doesn't understad, for the most part. The animal rights folks are the least knowledgeable in matters of what is best for the animal population's continued existance. Animals understand nature, better than most people. Some animals are predators, and some are prey animals. If you see a herd of any prey animals, being attacked by a predator, they flee till one of them are caught, then they relax, and go on with their lives within sight of the feeding of the predator. No immotion involved, nature is simply accepted, without question. The prey animal exists for only one purpose, to feed the preditor! The predator exists for only one purpose, to limit the population grouth of the prey animals, so habitat is not overly used, and destroyed. He is designed so that his populations can stand a certain amount of loss and still remain viable. Game departments know this, and set their bag limits accordingly, and the uslization of the meat has absolutely nothing to do with this being proper aplication of bag limits. The abolitionest, is the wildlife's worst enemy. Sustained useage of the game is it's salvation, and the only gurantee of it's continued existance. If animals have no value to the people who are in dirrect compitition with them for a given habitat, then the animal will be removed, as conflicts will always be setteled in favor of humans. If, however, the animal is of value to the local, then they will be protected by the locals. Hunting is simply another form of land use, and is the only one that will guarentee that animal's continued existance in that habitat. The alturnatives are the plow, and cattel, and goats, and once the plow is taken to the land, it will never again be suitable for wildlife!

Most (99%) of all money for the management of MAN & GAME is paid buy hunters, and most (100%) of the misinfromation, regarding what is good for animal populations, is spouted by Animal rights folks, and little(1%) of the cost is born by them!

"Where there is no hunting, there is no game, not the other way around!" Peter Hathaway Capstick

quote:

Originally posted by odie:
The tiger is being saved from hunting to extinction. Animals with no value other than their "aren't they cute" factor are probably doomed.

Odie, the tiger is slowly being "saved" TO extinction from killing, by people that don't want to get eaten by them. And also by unrestrained loss of habitat, and rampant population growth. The best thing that could happen to the tigers, is to let hunters save them, as we have so many other species.

D99, I have never paid for the skinning of amy game animial in Africa and every place I hunted the meat was used by the local community or if on a ranch I ate venision at almost all of my meals, the game I consumed had been shot by me or another hunter. As to Elk if you are trophy hunting with an outfitter you forgot to mention his fee for the hunt say $5,000 plus depending upon the location of the hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by TOP_PREDATOR:
I maybe wrong as i have not been to Africa yet,but aren't all the aniamls shot by hunters eaten by the locals?? So you get your trophy and some of the poorest people on the planet get to eat.

Top Predator

Everything in Africa, from a lizard to an elephant gets eaten by someone.

Brad

I say If an animal is killed legally, it makes no difference what happens to it after that. The result is the same- one dead animal. I happen to like meat and I eat most things I kill but that is not what gets me out of bed at 4:00 am. If I did not like meat I would still hunt. I also do not get up early and spend money and free time to "help control animal populations." I do not apologize for my blood lust for hunting, I relish in it. There are lots of benefits to hunting but too often I see these benefits listed as the "reason" people hunt- I don't buy it. Be honest!

Damn these Snow Leopard steaks are good.


Garrett

I have never tried to justify sports hunting by what is done with the meat and see no reason to, even though it doesn't go to waste as most here have stated. I think history will show that more species were driven to extinction by meat hunters than ever were by sport hunters. If I recall, the passenger pigeon was driven to extinction by meat hunters, and native Americans would set fire to the prairie in order to drive herds of bison over cliffs to get meat. Wildlife in African and Asian countries where sports hunting is not allowed is taking quite a beating from "meat hunters". Anyway the original post has been edited quite a bit from what was posted last night. I think it said something like "greedy trophy hunters should just take pictures."

Trophy Hunter all the way and proud and content that it is thanks to guys like me, that game, particularly in africa has not been shot into oblivion--by meat hunters. "Rare" animals are RARE because of meat hunters and poachers and thansk to trophy hunters, a lot of them have and continue to make a comeback. jorge

quote:

Originally posted by RBHunt:
I have never tried to justify sports hunting by what is done with the meat and see no reason to, even though it doesn't go to waste as most here have stated. I think history will show that more species were driven to extinction by meat hunters than ever were by sport hunters. If I recall, the passenger pigeon was driven to extinction by meat hunters, and native Americans would set fire to the prairie in order to drive herds of bison over cliffs to get meat. Wildlife in African and Asian countries where sports hunting is not allowed is taking quite a beating from "meat hunters". Anyway the original post has been edited quite a bit from what was posted last night. I think it said something like "greedy trophy hunters should just take pictures."

While that was the hunting method of the Red Indians, I believe, it's the commercial killings by the non-Indian Americans that drove the bison to the verge of extinction.

Re hunting: I will not hunt any animal that is endangered and hunting of which is illegal.

Also, if an animal is shot by me, I expect to eat it or someone else to eat it. I will not leave the animal for nature to take its course. I shot it. So it is my responsibility to see it used.

I will never trophy hunt. But, I appreciate the commendable contributions of trophy hunters to conservation efforts.

Best to all-
Locksley, R.

I like what Jim Posewitz has to say on the topic of ethics and "trophy" hunting....

"The basic idea of a trophy is the pursuit of an animal that has grown to maturity by having survived both nature's limitations and many
hunting seasons. The pursuit of such an animal limits the hunter's chances of taking an animal because there are few of them in a population. Testing your skill as a hunter by restricting yourself to the pursuit of these uncommon, individual animals elevates your personal standard. In this context, seeking a trophy is consistent with a sensitive hunting ethic...

Implicit in the idea "trophy" is that the game pursued is a wild, free-ranging animal and that other hunters have not been completely restricted from its pursuit. Also implicit in the trophy concept is that the animal is the natural product of the land. Practices such as
stimulating antler growth with mineral blocks, hormones, or other substances is beyond acceptable ethical practice, and diminishes the
value of all trophies...

The ethics of pursuing a trophy animal are closely tied to why we seek such an animal. If you hunt these animals because they represent the survivors of many hunts, and you respect that achievement, then you have selected a high personal standard. If, on the other hand, you
pursue a trophy to establish that you, as an individual hunter, are superior to other hunters, then you have done it to enhance your
personal status, and that crosses the ethical line. No animal should be killed for that reason...

Hunting is not a contest between humans. Trophy scoring and big game contests come perilously close to, and sometimes cross, the line of
proper ethical practice. In other words, trying to take a trophy to get your name in a record book is taking a fine animal for the wrong
reason. Contests between hunters that require killing animals should be prohibited. Trying to kill the "big buck" to win a contest or a
monetary prize also represents pursuing and killing wildlife for the wrong reasons...

The idea of hunting trophy animals and the preservation of wildlife have a deep and common root in our history. One of our nation's oldest
and proudest conservation organizations has done both well for over a century. There is value in keeping trophy records, and they should
include information about the animal, the land that produced it, and the wild nature of the habitat that sustained it. Over time, valuable
information about a species and the land is collected and preserved. Displaying the name of the hunter, however, may no longer be necessary. "


JMHO,

John

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
"Where there is no hunting, there is no game, not the other way around!" Peter Hathaway Capstick

thats one hell of a thought

An ethic is a rule. Some rules are stupid (locally, we can use .458 Lott to hunt squirrels, but may not use centerfire rifles to hunt deer). Some reflect our deepest values. There's rare, and there's rare. If you mean a trophy in a common species, its not rare in the sense of being endangered. So -- I figure you're talking about endangered animals.

MacD37's quote of Capstick says it very well. In the US, lots of nongame species have benefitted heavily from habitat management payed for by hunters. Many species have been restored to or exceed pre-European population levels, as well. Sport hunters have indeed encouraged the promotion of regulations that benefit game species.

In mathematics, a counter example is sufficient to prove that a proposition is not true. However, the rarity of such an exception is often taken as the "exception that PROVES the rule." I have in mind Kenya. Yet they have an industry of non-consumptive "hunters" going on photo "safaris," yet have problems with poaching and disease in some areas, which may give them a little relief if they can just move some of those elephants from the overpopulated areas into the depopulated areas. Their management choice, based on the moral value that hunting (killing for recreation) ought not to be allowed, has brought with it much larger expenses than they would have had. Plus, it has promoted the sense among farmers that the animals are vermin -- or worse (their livestock and they are getting eaten by lions at an increasing rate).

When it comes to enjoying a wild population, the idea that hunting can be used as a conservation tool to reduce human-animal conflicts is an expedient. The underlying conservation ethic that wise use and intentional management to permit and encourage wild populations is much more of a core value statement: its based on the idea that hunters do value wild populations. Hunters value the chance to hunt -- not just financially (which helps pay for land set aside to help reduce human-animal conflicts, and helps pay for reductions in poaching, and helps pay for support for indigenous peoples who otherwise loose income from poaching), but they value the experience of wilderness that you can only enjoy by becoming a part of the food chain (well -- I don't thunk most of us would enjoy getting eaten -- but one of the best stories I read on this site involved hearing lions teeth grinding on buffalo bones -- being so close to excited buffalos and lions, both being dangerous conditions: that is vivid living).

Hunting "rare" animals? I hope sometime they won't be so rare. But then, our perception of rare can also be misleading, like the lady who asked me how I could hunt an endangered species -- when she was speaking of deer in NY State. I actually found it difficult to answer, except to point out that, having a heard of 1,000,000+ animals with so many obviously around by counting deer-car collisions that I found it hard to understand how she could mean they were endangered...

Dan

Unfortunately the quality of life is going down for both humans and animals.I feel the values of a hunter should reflect those of conservation.We fight to hunt,and should fight just the same for the preservation of healthy wildlife populations.All species that live on this earth have hunting and gathering insticts.We should not feel ashamed to do what comes naturally.Notice that there is no one intelligent associated with anti-hunting movements.Long live hunting and long live our wildlife.

I agree 100% with JohnTheGreek's post by Jim Posewitz. As usual someone else put my thoughts on paper better than I can.

Posewitz sounds like a sap to me.

quote:

Originally posted by D99:
While nothing goes to waste in Africa, I would be lying if I told you that it's a perfect system.

You pay $750-1800 for a Kudu. Plus a daily rate. Plus the $100-250 he charged you to skin it.

Your PH or Outfitter sells the Kudu that you paid to shoot to a Abatour for $200-400.

This compounded by the fact that you will shoot 6-20 animals, makes this a shitty deal.

Versus you pay $50-750 for an elk tag, plus the hunt, plus the $200 processing, and you get to eat it all if you want.

If I was looking for the best "deal" for meat, I would buy a side of beef from the local cattle ranch over the phone and have it delievered while I was sipping a Corona, watching the Outdoor Channel.

It pains me to see the "eat what you kill" philosophy made absolute. How much do you have to eat? Just the backstraps? Or all shoulders/hams? Is it unethical to make a shoulder shot and render it inedible? What about the liver and heart? Is a hunter a "better" man because he eats the brains or a fool because of Chronic Wasting Disease?

One man's vermin is another man's trophy. Depends on which side of the fence you stand. Usually, a win-win situation can be worked out and the effort to get there is good stewardship.

Is it morally wrong to kill a whitetail just for his antlers? Perhaps, but I need to know more.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Let's see now. . . .who pays for conservation??

Rusty,
Don't tell me you are paying for conservation....... The greenies will never believe you.

I think with the hunting of rare there is a lot to do with the rarety of a animal and some scientific study. Take for instance the Black Rhino, how was the 10 Cites permits obtained between RSA and Namibia. Yes they are rare and they must be protected. The old bulls became o problem in the conservation process. They are were not fertile anymore, but because they were dominent the young fertile bulls could not mate with the cows. It made good sense to hunt the old bulls, that is why certain citeria was attached to the hunting of Black Rhino. If all rare animals are treated like this we will have a bigger conservation movement going. That's to say if we can make sure there will not be coruption involved.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Posewitz sounds like a sap to me.

I think most would disagree with you. Posewitz simply recognizes that, if hunting is to persist as socially acceptable and publicly accessable, it is up to us to present our sport in the best possible light by undertaking only ethical practices. No one is perfect in this regard and everyone has their own definition of "ethical" but it is clearly not a "sappy" thing to be thinking about.

JMHO,

John

Somewhat related to this. When I was coming back from Namibia, I shared the flight from Windhoek to Joberg with a group of teachers that had been in Namibia on a cheetah project. The leader of the workshop or whatever it was they went to had told them that sport hunting is now being recognized as being good for animal populations.

I only hope more ebvirnmental groups can see the light too.