They want to eat meat

[Spock]

SSS>>>And a wild boar is a very large hog with some very nasty tusks, not a cow.<<<

One of the things I love about you is that you have an answer for everything(that you want to answer-I haven't seen any conservation analysis yet) but so often you have no clue what you are talking about.

A mama cow with a new baby is often a very dangerous animal. In my herd about half of them are very protective (thus) dangerous. The exciting thing about catching the baby for initial processing is that you never quite know where Mama will fall in the protective spectrum. Seriously, you could get killed any time you go after the baby(people do)-and I do it dozens of times a year.

I made the comment before my trip that while Cape Buffalo are Dangerous Game-I have/had much more chance of getting/seriously injured by a Mama Cow that spring before the trip than by a Cape Buffalo.

We have a Kawasaki Mule-Kind of a golf cart type vehicle-that we use for processing. I would love to have video of it-but several times I have been chased around and around around it by a Mad Mama Cow-The kids laugh about it and it is kind of funny, but I wouldn't want her to catch me.

[silverscreenselect]

Admittedly(Later on) , he is not a vegan-and he obviously supports a food production system/immigration policy where endless waves of immigrant labor keep slaughterhouse wages cheap. When I was a kid slaughterhouse jobs were good union jobs-waves of immigration killed that. Nice segue to the other topic, if I say so myself

I guess he prefers his "Defenseless Birds" killed by Somalis/Karens/Mexicans or whatever the latest wage-cheapening Ethnic wave is.

I'm not sure where you got that, but the main reason wages are as low as they are is because of the endless waves of illegal immigrant labor, a status that conservatives provide de facto support to by their constant insistence on "securing the border" before we do anything else. They know, as everyone else does, that the border will never be completely secure, no matter how much money we pump into it. But by taking this stance, they play up to their base while at the same time assuring themselves of a ready supply of cheap illegal, easily exploitable labor. But I am glad to know you're a fan of unions.

I just wonder if you bothered to educate all of your local guides on the "realities" of how the U.S. is being brought down by endless waves of immigrant labor. It might not have been a good idea to do that while you were actually out in the wild with them, or you might have gotten an opportunity to prove how really manly you were.

I can appreciate how a lot of farm work is dangerous and I admire you for trying to raise a family and support them by so doing. To me, that's far more manly than going off to Africa to shoot birds. Doing a dangerous job because it's necessary, whether farm work or the hunts that the tribes in Africa go on to gather meat or thin out nearby predators, is admirable and manly. Making a big production of taking pot shots at animals who pose no threat to you is not.

[tlynn78]

Admittedly(Later on) , he is not a vegan-and he obviously supports a food production system/immigration policy where endless waves of immigrant labor keep slaughterhouse wages cheap. When I was a kid slaughterhouse jobs were good union jobs-waves of immigration killed that. Nice segue to the other topic, if I say so myself

I guess he prefers his "Defenseless Birds" killed by Somalis/Karens/Mexicans or whatever the latest wage-cheapening Ethnic wave is.

I'm not sure where you got that, but the main reason wages are as low as they are is because of the endless waves of illegal immigrant labor, a status that conservatives provide de facto support to by their constant insistence on "securing the border" before we do anything else. They know, as everyone else does, that the border will never be completely secure, no matter how much money we pump into it. But by taking this stance, they play up to their base while at the same time assuring themselves of a ready supply of cheap illegal, easily exploitable labor. But I am glad to know you're a fan of unions.

I just wonder if you bothered to educate all of your local guides on the "realities" of how the U.S. is being brought down by endless waves of immigrant labor. It might not have been a good idea to do that while you were actually out in the wild with them, or you might have gotten an opportunity to prove how really manly you were.

I can appreciate how a lot of farm work is dangerous and I admire you for trying to raise a family and support them by so doing. To me, that's far more manly than going off to Africa to shoot birds. Doing a dangerous job because it's necessary, whether farm work or the hunts that the tribes in Africa go on to gather meat or thin out nearby predators, is admirable and manly. Making a big production of taking pot shots at animals who pose no threat to you is not.

I swear I think you sometimes just grab random words out of a sack and through them at the screen. You do get that the only person claiming the Africa trip was for 'manly' affirmation purposes is you, right? You do understand that, don't you? Or did I miss a Spock post that said "Look how studly I am .. I killed animals, now my testosterone levels are off the charts!"?

[silverscreenselect]

I swear I think you sometimes just grab random words out of a sack and through them at the screen. You do get that the only person claiming the Africa trip was for 'manly' affirmation purposes is you, right?

You're right. Spock claimed he was doing this out of concern for those local villagers having enough to eat. Or, more accurately, that he and his fellow hunters were doing the locals a huge favor by providing them with meat and, for that reason, anti-hunting types who don't think there's a whole lot of sport in blasting birds with shotguns don't know what they're talking about.

Actually, I'd be kind of curious to know just what sort of enjoyment one gets by shooting an animal like this:



that is simply trying to get away from you as fast as it can (unless you're quiet enough to drop it before it has a chance to run). Perhaps there is some reason to do this other than to show what a powerful, manly guy you are when you've got a high powered rifle and that animal only has some skinny legs.

[BackInTex]

You're right. Spock claimed he was doing this out of concern for those local villagers having enough to eat. Or, more accurately, that he and his fellow hunters were doing the locals a huge favor by providing them with meat and, for that reason, anti-hunting types who don't think there's a whole lot of sport in blasting birds with shotguns don't know what they're talking about.

Here is what Spock said.

hunting provides value to the local communities for wildlife in vast areas that are not suitable for photographic tourism.

What Spock is saying is that the business of hunting tourism provides sustainable income to support proper wildlife management AND income to provide a living for the locals. He said that as a counter the negative arguments about hunting.

He did not ever say that is a reason he hunts. But don't let the facts get in your way of your agenda.

Here is what SSS said.

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.

What SSS is saying is that we should make Africa a purely welfare state. Just give them money or food directly. Obviously SSS sees the Africans as unable to support themselves, that they must be nurtured and taken care of by others.

I guess we could be like SSS and say that he likes to take cruises because it makes him feel superior to the staff that works on the ships. He feels superior to the maids, the bellhops, the porters, probably to the ship's captain even. You might even say he does it because it makes him feel manly, to be the boss and have the lesser folks wait on him hand and foot. And who cares if the ships sometimes dump their waste, his waste, untreated into the formerly pristine waters. He feels manly, in charge. The world would certainly be better if there were no cruise ships polluting the waters, and the air with their untreated diesel smoke. And don't get me started about the damage to the reefs of the world with the tourists the cruise lines bring into the seas. It would be better to just feed and clothe those staff directly and save the money spent on building the ship, refining and delivering the fuel, and all that fancy food that goes to waste at the buffet.

But that would just be silly.

[Spock]

I have been chuckling about something the last couple of hours. You have built this big Feminist "Faux Manly" theory about certain activities that men engage in-ie they do it to prove their "Manhood" or something.

However, as any woman here could probably tell you-Guys don't do that stuff to be men-they do it to be little boys again. As they say- "Big Boys/Big Toys."

I have been deer hunting with the same friend since 1978-when we were 12. We have never missed a year. How else can 48 year old men get together and "Build Forts" like they did when they were 8. We get to plan and strategize about them all year and now we just have better tools to build them with.

The biggest thing I was known for as a child (besides reading) was just taking off and exploring the woods.

I have never really conceptualized this before (thanks for juicing the thought processes). It is something you will never understand (but I think most here will) but the heart of the Africa trip for me is that I got to be a little boy again exploring a very big woods.

[BackInTex]

However, as any woman here could probably tell you-Guys don't do that stuff to be men-they do it to be little boys again.

I don't quite agree. I think we do things simply because they are things we enjoy doing. Not to prove anything or to be seen as something, just to enjoy the moment. I love the smell of the damp morning air when I camp. I love the smell of gunpowder smoke and gun oil. I love the challenge of putting a hole in a quarter sized bulls-eye at 200 yards just as some love knocking over 10 pins with a single throw of a bowling ball (I like that, too by the way) or hitting a golf ball within a foot of the pin from 175 yards away (I would like that, I think, but just getting on the green from 175 yards is good enough for me). When I achieve one of these things do I feel good about myself, do I feel like a champion? Certainly. Why would you never want to do things that make you feel accomplished?

We may act like little boys, to some, but we don't do it to be little boys, it just fun doing things we did as boys, even while we are now men, because those things are fun, at any age.

[silverscreenselect]

But don't let the facts get in your way of your agenda.

Well, there's plenty of facts to support my agenda, unlike Spock's anecdotes of how happy the natives were to see him bag some big game. Economists at Large did a study last year about the contribution of trophy hunting to the local economy, and the effects are minimal. They based their findings on research that included examination of the financial records of the hunting outfitters. Some of the findings:

--About 3% of the money spent by outfitting companies goes to the local economies. There's lots of fees involved, but they go to national governments, not the localities.

--As far as how much the locals love tourists like Spock,

Attitudes towards tourists were combined with a vigorous resentment towards tourist hunting in Simanjiro, which was longstanding, intense and widespread. Villagers felt that hunting was destructive, exploitative, and disempowering, and jeopardised
village [community-­based tourism] revenues.

--Although tourism does contribute to the local communities, most of the benefit is derived from non-hunting tourists, who are there primarily to view and photograph the wildlife. Of course, hunting makes it more difficult for these tourists to actually find any wildlife to photograph and makes African vacations less desirable.

--In Zimbabwe, where Spock was taking aim, trophy hunting accounts for only 3.2% of the total tourism revenue. Game sightseeing and photographic expeditions account for the vast majority. The only country to derive a significant percentage of tourist revenue from trophy hunting is Botswana, and that country has now banned trophy hunting. The highest percentage of GDP derived from trophy hunting is in Namibia, where it accounts for a whopping 0.27%.

-- And let's not forget that locals who can't afford the stiff permit fees and try to bag a few kudu to feed themselves risk stiff penalties for poaching if caught. In Zimbabwe, the penalties for Spock's targets range from $500 for a waterbuck to $5,000 for a kudu. And, since most locals can't afford to pay those types of fines, there's jail time as an alternative. So, there's plenty of resentment on that score as well.

The Economists at Large study also debunks an earlier claim that hunting pumped $200 million a year into the local economies by pointing out that none of the sources claimed for that study seem to exist.

http://www.ecolarge.com/wp-content/uplo ... lowres.pdf

You'll note that neither Spock nor BiT, as usual, supply any statistics to back up their claims. Instead, they seem to think that donating money that actually goes to help locals is worse than spending money that almost exclusively goes to central governments or foreign corporations, while breeding a lot of resentment among the locals (when they're not putting on shows to entertain Spock).

[Spock]

Congrats SSS-You googled an anti-hunting study. I guess that passes for Conservation Analysis-but I will get back to that later.

You are incapable of "Granularity"-EVERYTHING is a broad brush with you.

Everyone here likely recognizes that the "Faux Manly" stuff that you mention does occur and exactly where it is most prevalent. It is most dominant in the fatherless children of the African-American community. The "Great Society" and other welfare programs smashed the Black family. You own that world-that is your fault.

The behavior that you describe does not occur in families with, say, a deer camp tradition going back for generations where young boys(and girls) are exposed to a positive image of manhood and the continuity of life through time.

[Spock]

However, as any woman here could probably tell you-Guys don't do that stuff to be men-they do it to be little boys again.

I don't quite agree. I think we do things simply because they are things we enjoy doing. Not to prove anything or to be seen as something, just to enjoy the moment. I love the smell of the damp morning air when I camp. I love the smell of gunpowder smoke and gun oil. I love the challenge of putting a hole in a quarter sized bulls-eye at 200 yards just as some love knocking over 10 pins with a single throw of a bowling ball (I like that, too by the way) or hitting a golf ball within a foot of the pin from 175 yards away (I would like that, I think, but just getting on the green from 175 yards is good enough for me). When I achieve one of these things do I feel good about myself, do I feel like a champion? Certainly. Why would you never want to do things that make you feel accomplished?

We may act like little boys, to some, but we don't do it to be little boys, it just fun doing things we did as boys, even while we are now men, because those things are fun, at any age.

BIT-Yes, I know-I was gonna go the Enjoyment route at first-and you are more right than I am, but I was having fun with the "Little Boy" route and what women think of us.

[Spock]

Grab the popcorn people-because I have a lot of fodder in SSS's "Conservation Analysis." This should keep me busy and talking to myself (LOL) throughout the next couple of days.

SSS>>>In Zimbabwe, where Spock was taking aim, trophy hunting accounts for only 3.2% of the total tourism revenue. Game sightseeing and photographic expeditions account for the vast majority.<<<<

Once again, this whole granularity thing comes into play. It does not matter how little of Zimbabwe's total tourism revenue is from trophy hunting. What matters is the geographic distribution of that money.

Zimbabwe has a world-class tourist site with Victoria Falls. A huge percentage of their tourism intake is obviously related to that-with various day excursions from there to various "Touristy" game sightseeing expeditions. However, Victoria Falls tourism money does nothing to save wildlife on "Breakfast Farm."

You also have some high-profile national parks, such as Hwange that obviously account for the Vast majority of "Game sightseeing and photographic expeditions". Tourism money related to those parks does nothing to save wildlife on the vast areas outside of the national parks-such as "Breakfast Farm".

In areas with industrial tourism, like Victoria Falls, Hwange National Park etc-It is also likely that the vast flow of money has attracted outside investment. It is very likely that the tourist lodges in such places may be owned by Saudi or German (or whatever) investors and most of the money simply leaves.

[silverscreenselect]

Zimbabwe has a world-class tourist site with Victoria Falls. A huge percentage of their tourism intake is obviously related to that-with various day excursions from there to various "Touristy" game sightseeing expeditions. However, Victoria Falls tourism money does nothing to save wildlife on "Breakfast Farm."

Well, Spock, if you'd read the study, which I'm sure you didn't, you'll note that the numbers are roughly the same in every African country where trophy hunting is permitted, and they all don't have Victoria Falls. The money doesn't go to locals in significant amounts, it doesn't produce a proportionate share of the country's revenue and not even a reasonable return on the use of the land for the amount of the country's land area (I'm certainly not opposed to conservation, but economically it's not efficient, and, more important, the land could be put to better conservation use by banning trophy hunting entirely, in which case the increased tourist revenue from non-hunting would make up for any loss the locals might have due to the loss of a few hunters), and it breeds tremendous amounts of resentment among those locals who face substantial jail time if they actually try to catch and eat a few of those animals who are being carefully protected so you can take shots at them.

And, as I predicted, it will be a long time before we say any real evidence from you, BiT or any of the others on the actual economic benefits of trophy hunting.

In your case, "granularity" means ignoring statistics in favor of a couple of personal anecdotes that make you feel better.

[tlynn78]

And, as I predicted, it will be a long time before we say any real evidence from you, BiT or any of the others on the actual economic benefits of trophy hunting.

The differences between people always amaze me. Not everyone needs to search the 'net for studies that either prove or disprove a point. Studies are generally funded by people with an agenda. For almost any study one can find, there's at least one more that proves the opposing point. That's why personal, critical thinking is essential. Spock was there, on the ground, in the places you're discussing. Actual cash changed hands, from him and his ilk, to the individuals most benefited. The people who live there, every day. My critical thinking tells me those people, the ones who depend on game hunters for their livelihood, probably don't think the game hunters are doing it to prove their manliness, but even if they do, they don't care. They are being gainfully employed and are able to support their families. Precisely able to meet your own criteria for 'manliness,' directly because of game hunters. As opposed to, say, standing in long lines for hours each day for the approximately 2-5 cents on the dollar of donated funds (or more accurately, goods purchased with those funds)that actually trickles down to the people like those featured on those commercials.

[Beebs52]

And, as I predicted, it will be a long time before we say any real evidence from you, BiT or any of the others on the actual economic benefits of trophy hunting.

The differences between people always amaze me. Not everyone needs to search the 'net for studies that either prove or disprove a point. Studies are generally funded by people with an agenda. For almost any study one can find, there's at least one more that proves the opposing point. That's why personal, critical thinking is essential. Spock was there, on the ground, in the places you're discussing. Actual cash changed hands, from him and his ilk, to the individuals most benefited. The people who live there, every day. My critical thinking tells me those people, the ones who depend on game hunters for their livelihood, probably don't think the game hunters are doing it to prove their manliness, but even if they do, they don't care. They are being gainfully employed and are able to support their families. Precisely able to meet your own criteria for 'manliness,' directly because of game hunters. As opposed to, say, standing in long lines for hours each day for the approximately 2-5 cents on the dollar of donated funds (or more accurately, goods purchased with those funds)that actually trickles down to the people like those featured on those commercials.

Don't be going all logical on us (since that hasn't worked so far in this thread, shuh).

[Beebs52]

I love me some animals. I eat some animals. My dad was a bow and arrow hunter. Neither Jeff nor I own guns or bows and arrows, nor have we ever hunted.

Whatever the above adds to my comment I don't know-just background. Let's say we let all the animals roam free in whatever habitat they currently reside and let's let them cruise for more habitat and do animally sort of stuff to their hearts' content. When the deer population starts setting up satellite bedroom communities in your backyard, SSS, what do you propose to do? Possibly forest management which might include selective, controlled hunting periods, bag limits, like that? Which is, of course, what is done now...Or should we just live with the Bambis and the Thumpers and whatnot as is? Because there's a lot of croppiness and infrastructure out there that might not hold up so well.

[tlynn78]

I love me some animals. I eat some animals. My dad was a bow and arrow hunter. Neither Jeff nor I own guns or bows and arrows, nor have we ever hunted.

Whatever the above adds to my comment I don't know-just background. Let's say we let all the animals roam free in whatever habitat they currently reside and let's let them cruise for more habitat and do animally sort of stuff to their hearts' content. When the deer population starts setting up satellite bedroom communities in your backyard, SSS, what do you propose to do? Possibly forest management which might include selective, controlled hunting periods, bag limits, like that? Which is, of course, what is done now...Or should we just live with the Bambis and the Thumpers and whatnot as is? Because there's a lot of croppiness and infrastructure out there that might not hold up so well.

Just for the record, both I, and lots of people I know personally, have been hit by deer a heck of a lot more frequently than any of us have been hit by bullets. Mostly.

[Bob Juch]

I love me some animals. I eat some animals. My dad was a bow and arrow hunter. Neither Jeff nor I own guns or bows and arrows, nor have we ever hunted.

Whatever the above adds to my comment I don't know-just background. Let's say we let all the animals roam free in whatever habitat they currently reside and let's let them cruise for more habitat and do animally sort of stuff to their hearts' content. When the deer population starts setting up satellite bedroom communities in your backyard, SSS, what do you propose to do? Possibly forest management which might include selective, controlled hunting periods, bag limits, like that? Which is, of course, what is done now...Or should we just live with the Bambis and the Thumpers and whatnot as is? Because there's a lot of croppiness and infrastructure out there that might not hold up so well.

Just for the record, both I, and lots of people I know personally, have been hit by deer a heck of a lot more frequently than any of us have been hit by bullets. Mostly.

Those deer up there sound pretty predatory!

My development here is named Deer Run and the streets are named Deer Ridge, Deer Shadow, and Deer Hollow. I'll be we never see a deer though.

[Beebs52]

I love me some animals. I eat some animals. My dad was a bow and arrow hunter. Neither Jeff nor I own guns or bows and arrows, nor have we ever hunted.

Whatever the above adds to my comment I don't know-just background. Let's say we let all the animals roam free in whatever habitat they currently reside and let's let them cruise for more habitat and do animally sort of stuff to their hearts' content. When the deer population starts setting up satellite bedroom communities in your backyard, SSS, what do you propose to do? Possibly forest management which might include selective, controlled hunting periods, bag limits, like that? Which is, of course, what is done now...Or should we just live with the Bambis and the Thumpers and whatnot as is? Because there's a lot of croppiness and infrastructure out there that might not hold up so well.

Just for the record, both I, and lots of people I know personally, have been hit by deer a heck of a lot more frequently than any of us have been hit by bullets. Mostly.

Those deer up there sound pretty predatory!

My development here is named Deer Run and the streets are named Deer Ridge, Deer Shadow, and Deer Hollow. I'll be we never see a deer though.

We see deer maybe three times a month or so. Especially across the road along the ROWs, which is all residential. Dot is constantly surprised by these...deer? Who ARE they?

[Vandal]

We saw your letter in the paper, Tim:

[BackInTex]

We saw your letter in the paper, Tim:

I thought his name was Steve.

[tlynn78]

Just for the record, both I, and lots of people I know personally, have been hit by deer a heck of a lot more frequently than any of us have been hit by bullets. Mostly.

Those deer up there sound pretty predatory!

My development here is named Deer Run and the streets are named Deer Ridge, Deer Shadow, and Deer Hollow. I'll be we never see a deer though.

We see deer maybe three times a month or so. Especially across the road along the ROWs, which is all residential. Dot is constantly surprised by these...deer? Who ARE they?

Bahstids won't leave my flowers alone. Bahstids.

[Beebs52]

We saw your letter in the paper, Tim:

I thought his name was Steve.

I think he might be referencing moi, as in Kim, and what's really weird is that the cross street between our neighborhood and the deery one is Crown Ridge. Really. Close enough for deer signs, man. They are SO intrangisent.

[littlebeast13]

We saw your letter in the paper, Tim:

How about we move the roads instead.... aminals were here first!!!!

lb13

[Bob Juch]

Found it!

[Spock]

SSS Googled and Found>>>Attitudes towards tourists were combined with a vigorous resentment towards tourist hunting in Simanjiro, which was longstanding, intense and widespread. Villagers felt that hunting was destructive, exploitative, and disempowering, and jeopardised
village [community-­based tourism] revenues.<<<


On the topic of resentment. Kenya is the poster child for resentment towards wildlife. All my extensive readings on the topic and personal contact with knowledgeable individuals support that interpretation. I welcome any substantive info that indicates otherwise. Isolated examples found through Google are not what I am looking for.

Kenya banned hunting in the 1970's and forbids ALL consumptive uses of wildlife. There is simply no way that a local community in a non-tourist area can profit from the wildlife-It is vermin to them. They have no reason to preserve it.

The rural communities in Kenya poison their lions because they have no value. On the other hand-after my trip, a lion was shot on "Breakfast Farm", a local community where I hunted, by a trophy hunter. "Breakfast Farm" got thousands (maybe tens of thousands)of dollars for that lion-Lions are not vermin to "Breakfast Farm."

I saw the excitement of the Hunting Crew (most who live on "Breakfast Farm") when we saw a pride of lions one night. Lions were not vermin to those guys.

In the time since the 1970's, Kenya has essentially lost all its wildlife outside the national parks. It is GONE.

I have recommended this book before and I know that SSS won't read it-but others may be interested.

"Game Changer" by Glen Martin. Talks extensively about the Kenya situation.
http://www.amazon.com/Game-Changer-Anim ... len+Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am the biggest advocate here that local communities need to have a stake in the wildlife -either, in hunting or tourist areas, or resentment will build up. "Game Changer" also talks about the local wildlife conservancies being implemented in Namibia, which give a stake to local people in the hunting and thus lessen resentment.

I have seen firsthand, how African government corruption gets it hands on the "Big Hunting Money" that comes in-this being the government trophy fees and the problems that result from that. But, TIA,"That is Africa" and corrupt officials get their dirty little hands on tourist and PHILANTHROPIC money too.

I did not plan to hunt "Breakfast Farm"-The plan was to hunt government land-but corruption problems precluded that. But, God works in mysterious ways and I give thanks every day that I got to hunt "Breakfast Farm" for a couple of days.

I got to see firsthand the "Village Land" side of the Conservation Spectrum and, best of all, my trophy fee there did not go to a corrupt official in Harare-it went to "Breakfast Farm"-as did the meat.
------------------------------------------------------------
I am currently reading "Save me From the Lion's Mouth"-on human/wildlife conflict in Africa. It is not as good as "Game Changer"-but, maybe somebody would enjoy it.