WWTBAM Bored

Been reading a few anti-hunting columns and comments over on Facebook. The basic anti-hunting comment is a personal attack on hunters as you can see here.

http://magazine.africageographic.com/we ... -huntress/

The real interesting comments are at the "Africa Geographic" Facebook page for the story itself-if desired just scroll down a few stories. I leave it up to you to note the high-level of conservation analysis in the comments.

Then there are the usual suggestions to hunt with a camera.

My personal comment in the thread was this>>>>
"Posted by David Wrolson. As a hunter, I notice several interesting things about this thread. The basic anti-hunting comment is limited to personal attacks on hunters and that(with suggestions of phototourism) is largely where their level of analysis stops. However, the fundamental issue is that hunting provides value to the local communities for wildlife in vast areas that are not suitable for photographic tourism. How do anti-hunters propose to save wildlife in these vast areas? Without regulated hunting to provide value, the wildlife would likely soon be poached out and the land converted to other uses.<<<<<<<<

That is the basic core of the issue for me-however it dawned on me that there is simply no idea among the anti-hunters that the local communities want to eat meat. Protein is very valuable in Africa and the meat from regulated hunting is a treasured food source for local communities-as I saw myself.

How would the anti-hunter (phototourism advocate) provide meat for the local communities in a way that preserves wildlife in the vast areas that are not suitable for tourism? Given that a huge resource (wild meat on the hoof) is staring them in the face.

The environmental issues of mass tourism in areas like the Serengeti are a whole 'nother topic-but as you can see from the comments -that level of analysis is way beyond the capability of the typical anti-hunting commenter.

In a way, I am laughing about this-never once does it dawn on them that poor Africans might want to eat the meat they see every day.

Spock wrote: In a way, I am laughing about this-never once does it dawn on them that poor Africans might want to eat the meat they see every day.

If hunters were truly interested in feeding poor Africans, they would take the money they spend on these faux-manliness-affirming hunting safaris and spend it directly on efforts to feed or provide medical care for those poor people. It would do a lot more good for a lot more people.

SSS, just curious. Are you against skeet shooting?

Beebs52 wrote:SSS, just curious. Are you against skeet shooting?

SSS is against anything to do with guns. He is scared of them or anyone with them.

BackInTex wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:SSS, just curious. Are you against skeet shooting?

SSS is against anything to do with guns. He is scared of them or anyone with them.

I'm not scared of guns. I've fired guns in the past, including whatever the Army was using as a machine gun in the early 1970s when I was in ROTC (I can't remember the model off the top of my head).

However, with the exception of the military and police forces and a few other rather limited exceptions, I think they do more harm than good. And in most situations when I see a private individual toting a gun around, I think that the odds of me and anyone else in the vicinity getting shot go up substantially. So, all things being equal, I'd prefer to distance myself from that individual. I'd feel the same way if I saw someone walking around with a stick of dynamite in his pocket (actually more so, since it's tougher to blow up a stick of dynamite very quickly than it is to start shooting).

silverscreenselect wrote: And in most situations when I see a private individual toting a gun around, I think that the odds of me and anyone else in the vicinity getting shot go up substantially. So, all things being equal, I'd prefer to distance myself from that individual.

Do you feel the same way when walking down the street, on a sidewalk, and you see people driving cars? That the odds of you or anyone else in the vicinity getting run over go up substantially vs. a street with no traffic?

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: In a way, I am laughing about this-never once does it dawn on them that poor Africans might want to eat the meat they see every day.

If hunters were truly interested in feeding poor Africans, they would take the money they spend on these faux-manliness-affirming hunting safaris and spend it directly on efforts to feed or provide medical care for those poor people. It would do a lot more good for a lot more people.

Let's see - actual meat on the table, or whatever is left of the $$ once it trickles down through the layers of bureaucracy... yeah, I'll take the meat, thanks.

tlynn78 wrote:
Let's see - actual meat on the table, or whatever is left of the $$ once it trickles down through the layers of bureaucracy... yeah, I'll take the meat, thanks.

I'd say if you look at the total amount of money spent on these "safaris" when compared to the total amount of edible meat that's generated, the cost is substantially more than what it would cost, bureaucracy or not, for charities to supply food and medical supplies to the poor in Africa.

If would be Ernest Hemingways want to try to prove their manhood by blasting away at African animals who in most cases aren't in a position to do anything other than try to outrun a bullet, that's one thing. But they should at least be man enough to own up to that and not invent the lamest of excuses that they're doing this to help starving African villagers.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: And in most situations when I see a private individual toting a gun around, I think that the odds of me and anyone else in the vicinity getting shot go up substantially. So, all things being equal, I'd prefer to distance myself from that individual.

Do you feel the same way when walking down the street, on a sidewalk, and you see people driving cars? That the odds of you or anyone else in the vicinity getting run over go up substantially vs. a street with no traffic?

I do exercise caution when walking around traffic and I try to avoid it when I can. Perhaps, BiT would rather try to prove his manhood by crossing business hghways without looking out for traffic.

silverscreenselect wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
Let's see - actual meat on the table, or whatever is left of the $$ once it trickles down through the layers of bureaucracy... yeah, I'll take the meat, thanks.

I'd say if you look at the total amount of money spent on these "safaris" when compared to the total amount of edible meat that's generated, the cost is substantially more than what it would cost, bureaucracy or not, for charities to supply food and medical supplies to the poor in Africa.

If would be Ernest Hemingways want to try to prove their manhood by blasting away at African animals who in most cases aren't in a position to do anything other than try to outrun a bullet, that's one thing. But they should at least be man enough to own up to that and not invent the lamest of excuses that they're doing this to help starving African villagers.

I rather doubt the recipients of the meat (or the beneficiaries of the income from the would-be EH's) share your delicate sensibilities.

tlynn78 wrote: I rather doubt the recipients of the meat (or the beneficiaries of the income from the would-be EH's) share your delicate sensibilities.

Is it better that the meat go to villagers rather than be left to rot for hyenas and vultures? Yes
But those villagers would get a lot more good out of what that money could buy if donated by someone who truly cared about helping them rather than was looking for an excuse to justify his pastime.

It's interesting that, after spending the last two days in thread after thread lecturing us about the evils of these Somalis, Spock now develops a conscience and a desire to help some of those other poor African villagers.

silverscreenselect wrote:Perhaps, BiT would rather try to prove his manhood by crossing business hghways without looking out for traffic.

You use the "prove manhood" phrase or something similar a lot. I don't do anything to prove my manhood. It doesn't need proving. If someone is unsure of my manhood, that's their issue to resolve. I couldn't care less.

I do things I enjoy because I enjoy doing those things, whether its firing my guns at a gun range or listening to Under The Sea at the broadway production of The Little Mermaid.

You, apparently, do things to prove something about yourself, mostly to yourself, I guess, because you don't like or are not happy with yourself. And you assume other men are similar. We are not.

silverscreenselect wrote:

tlynn78 wrote: I rather doubt the recipients of the meat (or the beneficiaries of the income from the would-be EH's) share your delicate sensibilities.

Is it better that the meat go to villagers rather than be left to rot for hyenas and vultures? Yes
But those villagers would get a lot more good out of what that money could buy if donated by someone who truly cared about helping them rather than was looking for an excuse to justify his pastime.

It's interesting that, after spending the last two days in thread after thread lecturing us about the evils of these Somalis, Spock now develops a conscience and a desire to help some of those other poor African villagers.

You're really a broad brush sorta guy, aren't you? There are other brushes out there, you know-some fineline, some for a wash, some for caligraphy. In other words, discussing one issue doesn't preclude other issues from being considered. You almost did a Look! Something sparkly! because you just don't have the fuel to continue this debate.

BackInTex wrote: I do things I enjoy because I enjoy doing those things, whether its firing my guns at a gun range or listening to Under The Sea at the broadway production of The Little Mermaid.

I have no doubt a lot of men do enjoy shooting off guns. I think that if you look more closely at their reasons for so doing, you will find in many cases that there's a lot of maculinity issues involved. You are the only person who may know why you act as you do in regard to guns. But, from your history of posts on this Bored, I can make a very educated guess.

http://nursingclio.org/2012/12/31/mascu ... n-america/

Beebs52 wrote: You're really a broad brush sorta guy, aren't you? There are other brushes out there, you know-some fineline, some for a wash, some for caligraphy. In other words, discussing one issue doesn't preclude other issues from being considered. You almost did a Look! Something sparkly! because you just don't have the fuel to continue this debate.

Unless you or anyone else really thinks that the reason Spock spent thousands of dollars going to Africa was to help feed hungry villagers, there is no debate. For the record, I didn't make any comments about his safari earlier because I didn't want to spoil something he obviously cared a lot about and enjoyed a great deal.

But when he decided to bring this lame ass justification for his actions, especially after two days of Somali bashing on this Bored, I did comment on just how lame a justification it is.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: I do things I enjoy because I enjoy doing those things, whether its firing my guns at a gun range or listening to Under The Sea at the broadway production of The Little Mermaid.

I have no doubt a lot of men do enjoy shooting off guns. I think that if you look more closely at their reasons for so doing, you will find in many cases that there's a lot of maculinity issues involved. You are the only person who may know why you act as you do in regard to guns. But, from your history of posts on this Bored, I can make a very educated guess.

http://nursingclio.org/2012/12/31/mascu ... n-america/

So what are women who like to shoot attempting to prove?

tlynn78 wrote: So what are women who like to shoot attempting to prove?

From the article I linked to:

In mass shootings specifically, the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are men. In the past thirty years, only one of the 62 massacres involved a woman as the shooter. (Here are two sites discussing the history of mass shootings in the U.S.: The Telegraph and CNN.) This isn’t to say only men commit violence, and this isn’t to demonize men at all. Rather, the extraordinarily disproportionate ratio between male and female aggressors in gun violence speaks to an important issue, an issue that if addressed can help lessen the deaths and ease gendered anxieties. Clearly, the connection between gun violence and masculinity is real and needs to be addressed.

Talk about strange coincidences, I just got this e-mail (I'm at my soon-to-end part time job right now so I can't open blind links):

This guy almost got himself killed...because he thought he was protected by his guns...

Here's the shocking story that will make you think twice if you are confident that your guns will save you:

>> Click Here To View The Short Story

Even though guns can protect you...in reality, when a crisis happens so quickly...guns actually give you a false sense of protection.

Instead, there are simple tricks that ANYONE can use...even seniors, or people with disabilities...to disarm any attacker and take down anyone (no matter how big they are) with only 1 hit.

>>>You'll discover the method here.

Stay Safe!
Frank Bell

P.S. Self defence experts have already sent me numerous hate mails, claiming that I'm destroying their businesses by exposing the truth. But I believe you and your family deserve to know the real facts about self protection...

>>>Click here to watch the video

P.P.S: This Is The Secret Move I'm Talking About::

I know it's spam, but I'm kind of curious to see just what he's peddling.

SSS, since you're apparently a psychology and stats expert, here's a broad brush for you. An educated guess could be made that those guys who hate guys, just because they're MEAN PSYCHO FREAKS they are, those gunners, who shoot guns, for sport or self protection, not crime, have reduced Y chromosomal activity. And women who do so have no X chromosomes at all. Yessir.

the extraordinarily disproportionate ratio between male and female aggressors in gun violence speaks to an important issue, an issue that if addressed can help lessen the deaths and ease gendered anxieties. Clearly, the connection between gun violence and masculinity is real and needs to be addressed.

Seriously?

There is an extraordinarily disproportionate ratio between male and female aggressors. (emphasis on the period).

That is because, despite what feminists such as yourself say, there is an inherent difference between men and women. We are made different, we behave differently. It is supposed to be that way. It is not for the best in every situation, but in the grand scheme, yes, it is good that we are different.

The tool used for aggressive behavior is irrelevant in the analysis.

Haven't had a chance to go back in this thread-but just started a fascinating book that deals with the Africans that are on the front lines of wildlife confrontations. It appears to deal most with those that border the reserves.

Not that I expect anyone here to read a book outside their comfort zone-but here it is anyway.

http://www.amazon.com/Save-Lions-Mouth- ... ions+mouth

Interesting quote just a few pages in.
>>>>right across sub-Saharan Africa, many people ‘fear and detest’ elephants and lions. They look upon wildlife as either edible or dangerous. Indeed, throughout much of the region, the all-encompassing word for wildlife is nyama – meat.<<<<<

Another quote-actually on-topic if you remember my old "Hippos VS Crocs" argument based on a WWTBAM question.
>>>The hippo is often seen as a rotund comical character, when in fact it is the most unhumorous animal God ever created. Few programmes, brilliant though many of them are, focus on the reality of rural Africa or help us empathise with those who live every day with wild animals as neighbours, and who not only lose livestock and crops to wild animals, but who also lose loved ones and neighbours to them. Annually, throughout Africa , many thousands of deaths are caused by lions, leopards, hyaenas, crocodiles, elephants, hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses and buffalo, and tens of thousands are killed a year by snakes, according to the WHO. <<<

Note what has happened to Kenya's wildlife since they banned hunting in the 1970's
>>>Kenya’s wildlife is in an appalling mess; numbers have fallen disastrously since hunting was banned a third of a century ago, at the behest of animal lovers in Europe. Lions are now considered vermin by rural dwellers in that country and have never been so low in numbers.
<<<<<<<<<<<

BackInTex wrote: That is because, despite what feminists such as yourself say, there is an inherent difference between men and women. We are made different, we behave differently. It is supposed to be that way. It is not for the best in every situation, but in the grand scheme, yes, it is good that we are different.

Males of a number of species will battle each other to the death in order to win a mate. That doesn't mean that is acceptable behavior in humans, any more than rape, cannibalism, stealing food from others, or performing bodily functions and marking one's territory in public are acceptable because other animals do the same thing.

Many men feel a need for to exercise control over others, and for those without the physical prowess to do so, guns provide a handy shortcut.

http://voicemalemagazine.org/fatal-dist ... -violence/

Quote:

Guns and violence are not ends in themselves. People are not attached to guns because of guns. Nor is violence glorified for itself. Guns and violence are used for something, a means to an end, and it is from this that they acquire their meaning and value in the culture. It is that end that we must understand.

Guns and violence are instruments of control, whether used by states or individuals. They otherwise have no intrinsic value of their own. Their value comes from the simple fact that violence works as a means to intimidate, dominate, and control. It works for governments and hunters and police and batterers and parents and schoolyard bullies and corporations and, by extension, anyone who wants to feel larger and more powerful and in control than they otherwise would. The gun has long been valued in this culture as the ultimate tool in the enforcement of control and domination, trumping all else in the assertion of personal control over others. Can anyone forget the scene in Indiana Jones when ‘our hero’ is confronted with the huge man wielding an equally enormous sword, and the white man unholsters his gun and the crowd roars its approval as he calmly shoots the other man down? The gun is the great equalizer with the potential to elevate even the most weak, shy, or timid above anyone who lacks equivalent firepower. What this makes clear is that violence in this country is not an aberration or a simple product of mental illness. It is an integral part of the American way of life.

The key to understanding gun violence and the fact that all these shooters are men is this: an obsession with control forms the core of our cultural definition of what it means to be a real man. A real man is one who can demonstrate convincingly an ability always to be in control. Because violence is the ultimate and most extreme instrument of control, then the capacity for violence—whether or not individual men may actually make use of it—is also central to the cultural definition of manhood.

Every man and boy faces the challenge of signaling either their own capacity for violence or their support if not admiration for that potential in other males, if for no other reason than to solidify their standing as real men (or boys), if not to deter acts of violence and ridicule directed at them. It is a dynamic that begins early—in locker rooms and schoolyards—and extends in one form or another throughout men’s entire lives. However men and boys choose to deal with it as individuals, deal with it they must.

SSS, you do realize you are posting articles that are contradictory to each other and using them as some sort of support for your worldview of men.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: In a way, I am laughing about this-never once does it dawn on them that poor Africans might want to eat the meat they see every day.

If hunters were truly interested in feeding poor Africans, they would take the money they spend on these faux-manliness-affirming hunting safaris and spend it directly on efforts to feed or provide medical care for those poor people. It would do a lot more good for a lot more people.

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read. I will chuckle till my dying day about your quote-"Directly on efforts to feed"-see below. First I am trying to count up how many Zimbabweans I employed during my 10/11 days there.

There were at least 5 in the main hunting throughout the week. Plus another one or 2 joined later when we started hunting village vs government land.

1) My awesome Zimbabwean PH (Professional Hunter)-We won't even count my white PH.
2) A government Game Scout-not to be named.
3) A tracker who was so good-I suspect he eats a few poached animals along the way.
4) Chris's assistant-
5) An apprentice PH and experienced tracker.

I left a box of rifle bullets for #5 ($100 worth) for his upcoming PH marksmanship test. This was possibly life changing for him as there is no way he could have afforded them.

This group was all tipped handsomely at the end of the hunt-except for the Game Scout.

I describe where we stayed as an all-inclusive resort that we had all to ourselves.

I think there were 3 laundresses, 3 groundskeepers and 3 or 4 skinners that were tipped on the last night in camp. This is their only source of income and the money went directly to them and not through a chief-not sure if they have to give a cut to somebody-if so, TIA-"That is Africa."

Here is where your "Spend it directly on efforts to feed" gets hilarious.

1)First animal I shot was an impala-I got to eat certain cuts of this-but the bulk went to camp staff. I directly fed them with the sustainable harvest of an impala.

2) and 3) Cape Buffalo and Waterbuck-I got to eat certain cuts of these-But I think the carcasses were taken in to town and sold-not sure who got that money-but camp staff Directly got the organs and tripe.

4) Warthog=Split Directly between me (chops) and camp.

XXXX) Shot several Guinea Fowl and Francolins (Birds)-I ate some, but the bulk went Directly to camp staff. I have never seen adult males have as much fun as the hunting crew did during this bird hunt. It was an absolute party for them

5) and 6) Zebra and Kudu--Shot on village land-Villagers Directly got the meat plus a substantial trophy fee. I don't know the distribution of the money(Chief? maybe) but the villagers directly partook of the meat.

Yeah, I guess I could have sent $20 to "Save the Children" and had the same effect-but I prefer this way.

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: In a way, I am laughing about this-never once does it dawn on them that poor Africans might want to eat the meat they see every day.

If hunters were truly interested in feeding poor Africans, they would take the money they spend on these faux-manliness-affirming hunting safaris and spend it directly on efforts to feed or provide medical care for those poor people. It would do a lot more good for a lot more people.

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read. I will chuckle till my dying day about your quote-"Directly on efforts to feed"-see below. First I am trying to count up how many Zimbabweans I employed during my 10/11 days there. Yeah, I guess I could have sent $20 to "Save the Children" and had the same effect-but I prefer this way.

Crap is crap Spock and you're full of it. I went on a number of cruises and some of the money we spent did help out some poor people in Central America and the Caribbean (not to mention the third world cruise workers) but I don't pretend I was taking those cruises to help alleviate poverty in those countries. If your purpose was to help feed people there, you picked a very odd and inefficient way to go about it.