https://www.duluthnewstribune....ing-big-game-hunting



Why Americans - including hunters - are souring on big-game hunting

By Washington Post on Nov 20, 2017 at 4:00 p.m.

President Donald Trump on Sunday, Nov. 19, called elephant trophy hunting a "horror show" and signaled his skepticism of claims that practice is good for elephant conservation.

The data generally support the President's beliefs: elephant populations in Africa have declined sharply and steadily since the turn of the 20th century. Trophy hunting brings in very little money relative to other forms of tourism, and corruption and instability mean that in some countries, very little of that money actually makes its way toward conservation efforts.


One reason trophy hunting is of questionable value when it comes to large African animals is that there are few of those animals left in the wild today. And when you're dealing with small, dwindling populations, every individual member of a species counts.

Population estimates for the "Big Five" African game animals - cape buffalo, elephant, lion, rhinoceros and leopard. - range from a robust 900,000 or so for cape buffalo, down to perhaps 25,000 for black and white rhinos. African leopards are so elusive that the number of them left in the wild is currently unknown.

It's particularly instructive to compare populations of the Big Five with the populations of the five most commonly hunted animals in the United States. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, those animals are deer (white tail and mule), wild turkey, squirrel, rabbit and pheasant.

There are roughly 100 times as many deer in the United States as there are elephants in Africa. Gray squirrels are America's third most-hunted species (yes, really), which makes sense if you consider that with 766 million acres of forest with an average squirrel density of at least 1 squirrel per acre, there are somewhere in the ballpark of 800 million gray squirrels residing in the U.S., not counting the throngs of them populating suburbs and urban areas.

The United States is also home to 14.5 million pheasants,6.7 million wild turkeys, and an unknown but enormous and increasing number of wild rabbits.

There's a big difference, in other words, between bagging one of America's 32 million deer, and one of Africa's 25 thousand rhinos. And Americans seem to get this: a 2015 Marist survey found that while 41 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of hunting animals for sport, only 11 percent said that hunting of big game like lions and elephants was "acceptable." In fact, fully 62 percent said that such big-game sport hunting should be made illegal.


Attitudes among American hunters have also evolved considerably, with "sport" hunting falling out of favor relative to hunting for meat. For instance, in 2008 33 percent of U.S. hunters said they hunted primarily "for the sport or recreation," while 22 percent hunted "for the meat." By 2017 those numbers had essentially reversed, with 27 percent favoring sport hunting and 39 percent favoring hunting for meat.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, says that "the number of people interested in killing elephants and lions is small, and diminishing because of increasing social pressure." He points to a number of watershed moments in recent years contributing to that shift, like the killing of Cecil the Lion in 2015, and the shutting down of the Ringling Brothers' circus earlier this year.

When it comes to trophy hunting, Pacelle says, "you basically just have the hardcore industry people and the wildlife management profession who defend it. There's very little support among regular people for this."

He points out that there are wild elephant populations in approximately 50 countries in Africa and Asia. But only five of those countries allow elephant trophy hunting. "If trophy hunting were such a valuable tool, you would see a wider application of that tool," he said.

Author Information: Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.

quote:

Originally posted by Kathi:

When it comes to trophy hunting, Pacelle says, "...and the wildlife management profession who defend it."

And what do they know? (sarcasm)

Here's another viewpoint on the subject, perhaps a little more informed....
Bill

THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY ELEPHANTS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
By Ron Thomson

Don’t get me wrong. I love elephants. Next to the black rhino they are my favourite animal but, as they say in the classics: “Enough is enough”.
The elephant is one of the most important animals in Africa at this time because the species has focused world attention on Africa. The continent’s whole wildlife future rests on: (1) What we are going to do with our (own) elephants; or (2). What the rest of the world is going to allow us to do with our (own) elephants; or (3) how far we are going to allow the rest of the world to push us around - with regards to how they believe we should manage our (own) elephants. And the truth of the matter is that it seems neither they nor our own authorities, have any idea just what our management options are.

There is truly nothing mysterious about wildlife management; or about elephant management. The concept is actually very simple.

Management is the action that man takes to achieve a man-desired objective. There is nothing natural about wildlife management. It is man conceived; man designed; man implemented; man manipulated; and man is the principle beneficiary.

The next thing we have to understand is that - in terms of our options - mankind has three obligatory conservation priorities to consider. Our FIRST priority is to protect the SOIL and to use it sustainably and wisely - because without soil there would be no plants. Our SECOND priority is to protect and to use PLANTS sustainably and wisely - for without plants there would be no animals. Our THIRD and last priority is to protect and to sustainably, and wisely, utilise our ANIMALS. Animals come LAST on the list of our conservation priorities NOT because they are UNIMPORTANT but because they are LESS IMPORTANT than the soil and the plants.

Plants do a number of things in the environment. They produce food for herbivorous animals to eat; they provide cover for all animals - protecting them from the elements and hiding them from their enemies; they provide cover for the soil - protecting it from the erosive forces of the sun, wind and (especially) the rain; and finally - coupled with the physical character of their local environment - plants create the different habitat types to which all nature’s multifarious animal species are variously and specifically adapted.

Wild animals live quite happily - and sustainably - in the different habitats to which they are especially adapted, provided they don’t over-utilize the habitat’s core resources. Sustainability means they do not permanently change the quality or the quantity of the vegetation in which they live. In a nutshell, this means they can use (feed upon; break down; or cause the death of) any component part of the vegetation, provided the rate of their usage in any one year, does not exceed the degree to which nature can grow back the used parts of the plant community during the next year’s growing season. So, the basic nature of the habitats should not change from one year to the next. They should remain in a dynamically stable state!

There is only one species of savannah elephant (Loxodonta africana) and it lives in 37 countries (elephant range states) from one end of sub-Saharan Africa to the other. Within these countries it occurs in 150 different populations.
A POPULATION: is a group of animals of the same species the individuals of which interact with each other on a daily basis and they breed ONLY with other animals in the same group.

Elephants live quite happily in a range of habitats from monpane forests to lowland grasslands, savannahs, marshes and deserts. So they live in often vastly different habitat types each of which subjects the elephant populations that live within them, to widely different environmental conditions. Management plans for each elephant population, therefore, have to be drawn up separately. This fact dictates that the much vaunted endangered species concept is a fallacy. There is simply no one-size-fits-all (endangered species) management plan that can be applied universally to any animal species.

The ecological status of individual elephant populations can vary greatly. They can be UNSAFE, SAFE or EXCESSIVE; and these categories are related in large measure to the sustainable carrying capacities of their habitats.

The CARRYING CAPACITY of a habitat is the MAXIMUM number of elephants that can be permanently sustained without causing irreparable damage to the vegetation.

Populations are UNSAFE when they exist in numbers well below the carrying capacity of their habitat; because they are not breeding well (so they are declining in number); and because the causes of the decline cannot be reversed. Such populations face eventual extinction.

Other populations are SAFE. They occur in good numbers - but not exceeding the carrying capacity of their habitat. They are fat and breeding well - because good food is abundant; and their numbers are expanding. SAFE populations should be culled annually - to keep their numbers uniformly stable (at a level below the carrying capacity of their habitat); and they can be utilized quite heavily by hunting or harvesting.

The third kind of population is the EXCESSIVE one - which, in number, greatly exceeds the carrying capacity of its habitat; is still expanding; persistently over-utilizes its habitat; causes massive habitat change; eliminates sensitive habitats; eventually extirpates all favoured food resources; and causes massive species diversity losses.
By eliminating large trees and other shrubbery excessive elephant populations expose massive areas of bare ground to the most powerful soil erosion force in nature - tropical thunderstorms. And here the simple rain drop is the culprit. In Kruger National Park more than 95 percent of all top canopy trees in the park have been eliminated since 1960! This fact has huge negative ramifications on the health and stability of the park’s entire ecosystem, and is particularly destructive of its biological diversity. All other game reserves with excessive elephant populations are similarly affected.
Excessive elephant populations should be drastically reduced in number - in the first instance by no less than 50 percent.
Practically every elephant population south of the Zambezi and Cunene Rivers in southern Africa is excessive! This will give you some idea of the magnitude of the elephant management dilemma that southern Africa now faces.

Approximate population figures for just three of our national parks:
• Hwange NP (Zimbabwe) - 5000 sq. miles - 50 000 elephants;
• Gonarezhou NP (Zimbabwe) - 2000 sq. miles - 14 000 elephants;
• Kruger NP (South Africa) - 8 000 sq. miles - 20 000 elephants.
Botswana’s elephant sanctuary tallies (2013) (area not known) - 207 000.

Hwange is now carrying 20 times as many elephants per square mile as the figure recommended by the Rhodesian (now Zimbabwean) National Parks Board in 1960 (which was one elephant per two square miles).

Now consider the fact that the approximate sustainable elephant carrying capacities for all these game reserves is probably close to one elephant per two square miles. Work out the figures for yourselves; look at the numbers; and start to feel the uncomfortable quandary in which these facts now place us all. And remember, these national parks were created NOT for the uncontrolled proliferation of elephants - but with the priority objective of maintaining their overall biological diversities.

Now you will begin to understand why the Great Elephant Census (GEC) (2016) frustrated me so much. The elephant counts were made, no doubt to the best of the participants’ capabilities; but the population numbers were distributed without the comparative elephant carrying capacity calculations for each of the game reserves in question. The count figures were truly, therefore, just a bunch of numbers. Without being able to determine whether the elephant populations were UNSAFE, SAFE or EXCESSIVE, the whole exercise was a great but worthless effort.

To drive this home: Everyone in Botswana was elated when the Botswana elephant count in 2013 reached over 200 000; but when it is considered that this population is GROSSLY EXCESSIVE - and that the management recommendation must be to reduce this population by half in the first management action - that is, by 100 000 elephants (and probably more later) - this puts an entirely different slant on the Botswana elephant numbers story. And it leaves no room for rejoicing!

What is abundantly clear is that the wildlife sanctuaries of southern Africa - if they are to survive into posterity - can sustainably maintain only a tiny fraction of the total numbers of elephants that the rest of the world expects us to carry.
--
Ron Thomson CEO - TRUE GREEN ALLIANCE
Cell: 072 587 1111
E-mail: magron@ripplesoft.co.za
TGA website: www.mahohboh.org
TGA Facebook: www.Facebook.com/TheTrueGreenAlliance
TGA Twitter: @TGA Mahohboh

Animal welfare/rights is becoming a religion in America and abroad. Most folks are so far removed from nature they see themselves as apart from it, not a part of it. The way pets are pampered is laughable, a lot living very unnaturally indoors. I don't want to ban forcing pets to live indoors, but they have no problem forcing their beliefs onto others. That goes for all issues now days.

Breatta: See the first line of Kathi please st, "President calls elephant trophy hunting a horror show." Cows have nothing to do with it. I get your explanation that your statement of agreement was a joke, but this is not a time for jokes.

Somebody tell me how shooting a bull elephant in the brain (quick death) is anymore of a horror show than shooting a deer in the lungs or a slaughterhouse. It is not. In fact, I would rather take the bullet to the brain than starving to death any day.

How does joe American think these things live and die in their habbitat. I do not care if it is a doe whitetail or a bull elephant everything dies the same way: old age
starving.

Hunting takes the inevitable death and gives monetary value to the loss and yes personal satisfaction for having done the deed well. I take no same in that because the animal deserves the deed done well.

Weeks like this make me understand and accept the world is going to end some day. Giant meteor 2020.

Those folks don't think elephants die just like every other living being. Discussing the Cecil debacle with a non hunter I asked, "did you think it would live forever?" I could tell by the eyes they had never considered it. Most have never seen a dead animal outside of roadkill. It's indoctrination, brainwashing, Disneyfication. All they know is asphalt, gadgets, and outrage at perceived injustice on vast subjects they know nothing about other than what their beloved technology tells them.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Those folks don't think elephants die just like every other living being. Discussing the Cecil debacle with a non hunter I asked, "did you think it would live forever?" I could tell by the eyes they had never considered it. Most have never seen a dead animal outside of roadkill. It's indoctrination, brainwashing, Disneyfication. All they know is asphalt, gadgets, and outrage at perceived injustice on vast subjects they know nothing about other than what their beloved technology tells them.

You make an important point: that people rarely think of the death of an animal outside of human intervention. I have done the same as you and gotten either the blank stare, or a very defensive ,”well, at least people aren’t killing them,” response. I’ve taken to using the phrase, “hastening an inevitability” when I talk to people about hunting. Always reminding them that the animal will die, it’s just a matter of when and how.

It is not that anti hunters are against hunting because of any particular reason but they are a kind of people that are jealous,full of hate and who even hate their own lives.As far as I am concerned,if you eaten meat in your life or wore a leather coat or shoes you are just as guilty as someone shooting an elephant.Did God make the elephant more holier than the cow? All those people crying they love wild animals.How many of them have done anything in their lives for the conservation of wild animal populations? How many of them spent their hard earned dollars to go to Africa and see a wild elephant for the sake of seeing an elephant in the wild? If you enjoy hunting and hunting in Africa,don't be a coward tell your friends and other hunters that you like to hunt Africa.

What a nut case, comparing elephant populations to deer! I can't imagine what my farm would look like if the whitetails were replaced by elephants.

Why isn't anyone concerned about the effect of poaching and the "Bush Meat" industry is having on wildlife populations, and NOT just on those species that are "Sport Hunted"?

What about the effect the indigenous people have on Lion and Leopard populations trying to protect their families and livestock?

Hastening an inevitable...well put Baxter.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Why isn't anyone concerned about the effect of poaching and the "Bush Meat" industry is having on wildlife populations, and NOT just on those species that are "Sport Hunted"?

What about the effect the indigenous people have on Lion and Leopard populations trying to protect their families and livestock?

Because they don’t know anything about it. I follow Mike Fell on Instagram and he did a great run of pictures showing the illicit bushmeat trade I believe in Niger or maybe Congo. The comments were unbelievable, and showed a) a general lack of knowledge that it existed, and b) zero sympathy for the people and the conditions that spur the bushmeat trade. It’s all emoticons and crying faces and poor animals this and that, and evil humans. It really is pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Those folks don't think elephants die just like every other living being. Discussing the Cecil debacle with a non hunter I asked, "did you think it would live forever?" I could tell by the eyes they had never considered it. Most have never seen a dead animal outside of roadkill. It's indoctrination, brainwashing, Disneyfication. All they know is asphalt, gadgets, and outrage at perceived injustice on vast subjects they know nothing about other than what their beloved technology tells them.

You make an important point: that people rarely think of the death of an animal outside of human intervention. I have done the same as you and gotten either the blank stare, or a very defensive ,”well, at least people aren’t killing them,” response. I’ve taken to using the phrase, “hastening an inevitability” when I talk to people about hunting. Always reminding them that the animal will die, it’s just a matter of when and how.

What are you talking about, mother nature is kind and peaceful.

Another idiot trying to push his own agenda.

One idiot using the opportunity given to him by another stupid idiot.

One wants to satisfy his political agenda, and the other is trying to satisfy his "feel good" agenda.

Imagine if SCI actually does something positive towards hunting.

Like taking an advertising space in New York for instance, where they show a continuous video of animals killing other animals.

The photo above is a perfect example.

And ask if we should eliminate all those nasty animals which are killing the poor bambies and their sort!

The elephants will disappear only when you stop hunting.

Just a comment, and this is the rebuttal that will come out after a statement such as the following is made:

quote:

You make an important point: that people rarely think of the death of an animal outside of human intervention. I have done the same as you and gotten either the blank stare, or a very defensive ,”well, at least people aren’t killing them,” response. I’ve taken to using the phrase, “hastening an inevitability” when I talk to people about hunting. Always reminding them that the animal will die, it’s just a matter of when and how.

The response from an anti is going to be, Humans are the ONLY species that makes a conscience CHOICE to kill an animal and NOT for food.

Mammalian and Avian predators HAVE to kill to survive.

I do not think hunters as a group are souring on big game hunting or hunting in general, but are growing tired of the attitudes/actions some of our fellow sportsmen display both in the field and belief that many have developed that hunting is a "Competitive Sport" with awards being given for the biggest and best specimen taken.

It seems that a certain segment of the hunting community has lost or never developed the base concept that hunting is an integral past of human biology and not a "Game" where he who spends the most and kills the biggest wins.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Just a comment, and this is the rebuttal that will come out after a statement such as the following is made:

quote:

You make an important point: that people rarely think of the death of an animal outside of human intervention. I have done the same as you and gotten either the blank stare, or a very defensive ,”well, at least people aren’t killing them,” response. I’ve taken to using the phrase, “hastening an inevitability” when I talk to people about hunting. Always reminding them that the animal will die, it’s just a matter of when and how.

The response from an anti is going to be, Humans are the ONLY species that makes a conscience CHOICE to kill an animal and NOT for food.

Mammalian and Avian predators HAVE to kill to survive.

I do not think hunters as a group are souring on big game hunting or hunting in general, but are growing tired of the attitudes/actions some of our fellow sportsmen display both in the field and belief that many have developed that hunting is a "Competitive Sport" with awards being given for the biggest and best specimen taken.

It seems that a certain segment of the hunting community has lost or never developed the base concept that hunting is an integral past of human biology and not a "Game" where he who spends the most and kills the biggest wins.

Largely true. Antis aren’t changing their minds anyway. The nonhunting public is where our attention should be, and yes, they have problems with the competition. However, just as vegetarians and vegans are a minuscule proportion of the population, so are the competitive hunters a very small proportion of hunters. This is where the “rest” of hunters have an opportunity.

You should get on Instagram and see how social media has changed hunting. There is a competition of sorts with pretty girls, face paint, back straps, heavy packs etc. It is as bad (to me) as gold trophies and whatnot because it is contrived to either make others jealous or gain fame. Do t make the mistake of thinking that the “new” hunters to are any less competitive.

WaPo is utter garbage. What ever they print, the exact opposite is true.

"Democracy dies in Darkness," yet supported the candidate who takes foreign donations through a Canadian shell company in order to not disclose who made them. The candidate with the " public and private position." The candidate who couldn't pass the D.C. Bar exam, Can't ever remember anything under oath, but was the most qualified Candidate ever. The candidate who never went to Wisconsin, but blames losing Wisconsin on Russian meddling.

Go home WaPo, you're drunk.

Don't even think I would wipe my ass with that tag. Might catch something.

In the USA, "animal rights" groups are growing more and more aggressive in their views.

Recently in Colorado, a group of self-anointed animal saviors trespassed onto a farmer's land and stole his chickens in order to protect them from being killed!

Many mainstream Americans accept these acts as harmless or acceptable.

In Denver, the City Council recently passed a bill banning cat owners from having their cats declawed.

This type of thinking is totally out of control. On Facebook I received a video of a mountain lion being backed into a corner by a group of wild dogs. The captions read "Cougar abuse by feral dogs". I commented "it is not abuse, it is nature".

Those types of idiots are becoming more common unfortunately. Sport hunters have to stand up for their rights and not be intimated by the ignorant hordes.

BH63