Scientists Supporting Hunting

30 August 2019, 11:29

DLS

The part that said trophy hunters target Cheetahs, Giraffes, Grey Parrots and Chimpanzees told me all I needed to know. While a few cheetahs and giraffes are shot each year, Grey Parrots and Chimpanzees certainly aren’t, but facts are apparently unimportant to the writer of the article.

30 August 2019, 12:30

Saeed

quote:
Originally posted by DLS:
The part that said trophy hunters target Cheetahs, Giraffes, Grey Parrots and Chimpanzees told me all I needed to know. While a few cheetahs and giraffes are shot each year, Grey Parrots and Chimpanzees certainly aren’t, but facts are apparently unimportant to the writer of the article.

My impression is the write is an idiot with an agenda, and does not like what the scientists are saying.

30 August 2019, 13:52

Ratwhiskers

Ah yes, "The Daily Wail" once the morning read of the sensible Tory housewife, now just another idiotic and agenda riddled rag....

l'm afraid the Times is beginning it's steady slump down the same sorry road.

30 August 2019, 18:00

ledvm

True scientists have ALWAYS seen the benefit that hunting provides to conservation...especially via habitat provision. It is only unethical hunting they oppose. Just go to the Lion Conservation page and read The Definition of a Huntable Male Lion.

Hunting orgs and hunters in general shun collaborative work with true scientists at their own peril.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.

30 August 2019, 23:33

Tim Ferrall

Sooo, politicians, comedians, and bimbo girlfriends support a ban on legal, well-regulated hunting, while scientists do not support a ban!

31 August 2019, 01:43

crbutler

Lane, you are correct, to an extent.

Some of these scientists are too wedded to the ARA types and anti hunting agendas.

Many refuse to stop themselves from either being misquoted or make deliberate statements that are deceptive relating to hunting. Recall that there was much scientific blather about “Cecil” that only once the whole furor died out did they admit to him not being in the park, and much of the misstatements corrected.

We should support those who do not play games with the antis. I don’t expect them to necessarily participate in hunting themselves, but they should refrain from stating how much they rather it wasn’t done.

31 August 2019, 03:37

ledvm

quote:
Originally posted by crbutler:
Lane, you are correct, to an extent.

Some of these scientists are too wedded to the ARA types and anti hunting agendas.

Many refuse to stop themselves from either being misquoted or make deliberate statements that are deceptive relating to hunting. Recall that there was much scientific blather about “Cecil” that only once the whole furor died out did they admit to him not being in the park, and much of the misstatements corrected.

We should support those who do not play games with the antis. I don’t expect them to necessarily participate in hunting themselves, but they should refrain from stating how much they rather it wasn’t done.

Don’t disagree with anything in that Dr.

But...I will add that there was untoward conduct associated with the Cecil incident from the hunting side. Thus, there was blame all around there.

03 September 2019, 22:25

maki

An article written by the authors of the report can be found @ https://phys.org. It was posted late last week.

The authors of the report were quite honest. Even the ones uncomfortable with trophy hunting agreed that it was generally a good thing for animal populations.

Dean