I would like to get a better feeling of how many people equate lion scientists with anti-hunters and why.

If you vote in the poll...please take the time to explain your answers.

Have a good day!

Question:
Based on what you know today...do you believe that all lion scientists/conservationsists are members of the anti-hunting community...aka: Antis???

Choices:
Yes, All scientists ARE antis!
No, many lion reseachers are completely pro-hunting.
Well...some are some are not...I take all they have to say with a grain of salt.
None of your answers fit my thinking. I wrote in my answer below.

 

I do tend to believe scientist to begin with, and I do not see them as antihunters in general.
Sustainable hunting is supported in many places buildt upon scientist reports. Many of the old time hunters of the past turned to game consevation..like Sydney Downey..Alfred Pease..Jim Corbett etc. The survey/poll here ofcouse reflects a more american way of thinking by reducing issues into "camps"...things might be more sophesticated than such...Don`t mess with Texas

Happy 4th of July .

Lane,

I vote in the someare, some arent column. The pro-hunting advocates are generally easily identified. However it has been my experience in the past that there will be the Yes-But crowd that many times does have an anti-hunting agenda but cloak it in double talk.

I.E. Well hunting has its place under certain circumstances.......yadayadayada.And they make sure their data proves that those circumstances never arise.

I am not speaking of any in the Lion debate in particular, I have just seen it too many times in other places in the Wildlife Science/Ecologist/Eco-management/Hunting Arena.

SSR

As our resident experts have posted scientific studies in support of what they are trying to do. Its obvious there are some pro hunting scientists. I am not educated enough on the subject to say what the split might be.

quote:

No, many lion reseachers are completely pro-hunting.

Hope so!!

Scientists are people. Some are pro and some are anti when it comes to hunting. What is sad is both sides can be guilty of bad science either through coincidence or an actual determination to champion a cause.

The world is an amazing place and small wonders never cease, I have to agree with STU and his estimate of the situation.

ttt

Lane,

I voted to explain below.

I feel a disporportionate percentage of scientists are antis or far left loons. Here's why; the "university culture" breeds a leftist mentality, not all, but a disporportionate percentage. By definition a scientist has had a long university stint.

The same holds true for media types, why are they so far left, same reason, professors that spew a social equality agenda. Somehow they know something the rest of us do not. They are enlightend, educated.

Men that earned their own way building business over long periods of time are the polar opposite, there lies the rub. We never needed (or wanted) help from society, we carried the weight of the world on our shoulders, They exist in the shade of the structure build by the world business's. And resent it.

Close?

Steve,

Your post is exactly correct and a very good post.

It stereo-types not only you but very much me as well.

I left home when I was 18 years old never to return except to visit and never ask for or received any help...I got where I am today (good or bad) with my own hands, feet, and mind.

Thanks for posting.

BTW...I am going to write another agreement and example of how folks become obsolete in reply to your other post. But...it is going to be a long story and I need time to type.

Lane,
let me tell you the short version of a long story. I first hunted Luangwa in 2004, there was a young German woman living in the bush there. (name withheld ) She was doing her thesis for her PH'd on leopard range size and territorial stuff.

She would come into camp on a regular basis for lunch or dinner or just to visit. I returned back to Nyaminga for the next 5 years hunting various critters with Alister Norton. This researcher, when I first met her she was a raving loony liberal anti that just could not understand why we must kill things to complete the cycle of life.

As we spent more time together around the fire in the evenings, I started to see through her and could actually see someone inside that was NOT completely convinced of her own convictions. As the years passed we began to look forward to seeing each other every year and began to correspond with one another in the off seasons.

I am most likely done hunting Luangwa for a while and her research has long since concluded. We still speak weekly and are pretty darn good friends.

She is now pro hunting.....for conservation but still doesn't understand a bloodsport.

Bottom line is, I think given time, we as ethical sportsman can show by our actions that our way is not the wrong way. We just don't have the time.

Complex issues have complex answers.

Steve

Unfortunately many "scientists" and "researchers" today don't deserve the titles. They become shills for whoever is paying their grant money. Outside of those doing pure laboratory research, the majority are pushing some kind of agenda. Gone are the days of of scientists who seek to find and publish the truth even at the risk of death for being declared a heretic by the Inquisition. Today the majority are trying to push an agenda, usually liberal.

To a degree one could look at the academic pedigree of an ecological "scientist" and get an idea of where they stand on hunting related issues. If their degree is from a California school, likely anti hunting. If from Texas A&M, he's likely a hunter himself.

quote:

If their degree is from a California school, likely anti hunting. If from Texas A&M, he's likely a hunter himself.

Caleb,
There is at least one exception...Paula White!

She studied at Berkley...arguably the most liberal school in the world. She works with lion in Zambia. She staunchly supports best-practice hunting as a conservation tool. She works with hunters routinely.

Being a retired research biologist myself I can say that many wildlife biologists base their hunting/anti-hunting stance on their personal feelings about hunting rather than on a science based decision, especialy in their early years. I have seen it go both ways, a research pushing for more hunting when it is detremental to the population as well as the opposite. It takes some years in the field to develope an objective view by most researchers.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

If their degree is from a California school, likely anti hunting. If from Texas A&M, he's likely a hunter himself.

Caleb,
There is at least one exception...Paula White!

She studied at Berkley...arguably the most liberal school in the world. She works with lion in Zambia. She staunchly supports best-practice hunting as a conservation tool. She works with hunters routinely.

Lane,

Come now.....full disclosure here mate.