- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Animal rights campaigners outragedover cheerleader hunting pics
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:25 am to Salmon
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:25 am to Salmon
I agree
But older bull elephants start practicing infanticide so they have to be killed for a large fee but with Chinese poachers there won't be an elephant left by the end of the day.
Cape buffalo and hippos kill more dumb people than get killed each year, lion and the other big cats I don't get it. It's trophy hunting I never understood it still don't.
But older bull elephants start practicing infanticide so they have to be killed for a large fee but with Chinese poachers there won't be an elephant left by the end of the day.
Cape buffalo and hippos kill more dumb people than get killed each year, lion and the other big cats I don't get it. It's trophy hunting I never understood it still don't.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 7:55 am to Jarlaxle
I eat what I kill. Sport hunting is stupid IMO.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:31 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
I don't see how hunters can save the resource from the poachers. It's a numbers game and unfortunately the conservationist won't win. Too many desperate starving people too offset the hunters. Not to mention the lack of understanding on behalf of the poachers. Let's face it, it takes a certain amount of sophistication to understand game mgt. And I don't think the indigenous people get it.
You're right for the most part concerning the indigenous. It will take a cultural change for them to understand, which as we have seen in our on country is hard to do.
The hunters can't stop poaching completely, but they can reduce it through the money they pay to hunt and meat they provide. The money can help provide more resources for conservation efforts and the meat is a way to earn goodwill from the locals.
Helicopters with thermal cameras would be the way to go since the majority of the poaching occurs at night. Those boys would shite their pants with a chopper bearing down on them.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:54 am to Swoopin
Can no one explain to me what I was asking about?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 8:57 am to Swoopin
quote:
Can no one explain to me what I was asking about?
The hunters can't stop poaching completely, but they can reduce it through the money they pay to hunt and meat they provide. The money can help provide more resources for conservation efforts and the meat is a way to earn goodwill from the locals.
Money buys weapons and vehicles to patrol and gives villagers incentive not to decimate populations rather take a few and leave the rest to produce another crop.
If the locals understood that since they control the supply, the can charge whatever they want for it. So only harvesting a few a year would drive the price up of whatever they're selling, and they still get to collect the money for the hunt
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 9:03 am
Posted on 7/2/14 at 9:55 am to Jarlaxle
That is some serious coin being spent on these trips......and if you ever watched any lion hunts they are dangerous even with a guy with a gun next to you.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 9:59 am to Cracker
quote:
lion and the other big cats I don't get it. It's trophy hunting I never understood it still don't.
Redneck blood lust. There really isn't an explanation other than arrogant pride.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:01 am to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
Redneck blood lust.
Seems like people have totally lost sight of what this used to mean.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:02 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Seems like people have totally lost sight of what this used to mean.
Simmer down, Rog. It was a joke. We know she isn't an Alabama cheerleader.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:03 am to DownSouthDave
quote:
Typical liberals, can't see the forest for the trees.
Seems that word has lost all meaning here as well..
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:05 am to pointdog33
quote:
The hunters can't stop poaching completely, but they can reduce it through the money they pay to hunt and meat they provide. The money can help provide more resources for conservation efforts and the meat is a way to earn goodwill from the locals.
Money buys weapons and vehicles to patrol and gives villagers incentive not to decimate populations rather take a few and leave the rest to produce another crop.
If the locals understood that since they control the supply, the can charge whatever they want for it. So only harvesting a few a year would drive the price up of whatever they're selling, and they still get to collect the money for the hunt
money going to conservation is important, BUT what is really important is that the hunting fees place an economic value on the animals. For the locals, if they see a Cape Buffalo is valued at $1000 or an Elephant is valued at $10,000 they think about those animals as assets not as a nuisance to their crops.
If you ban hunting, then the value of the animal goes down and their is no incentive for conservation. See Kenya for an example of what happens when you ban hunting. Animal numbers in that that country have steadily dropped each year since hunting was banned in 1977.
See the graph below. Which country banned hunting in 1977 and which one allows hunting?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:09 am to MAROON
quote:
See the graph below. Which country banned hunting in 1977 and which one allows hunting?
Don't confuse the subject with facts.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:09 am to eng08
quote:
Damn, daddy must have some $.
that was the first thing I thought.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:19 am to MAROON
Good information right there. Go post that to OT thread
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:21 am to MAROON
I would like to see the graph prior to 1973.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:21 am to MAROON
quote:
See Kenya for an example of what happens when you ban hunting. Animal numbers in that that country have steadily dropped each year since hunting was banned in 1977.
See the graph below. Which country banned hunting in 1977 and which one allows hunting?
Actually, if you look at the trend, they were dying at a higher rate prior to the 1977, where you see the plot start curving toward the right. Also, after 10 years, you can see the numbers began climbing.
I really don't think that graph supports your argument as the numbers were falling most dramatically BEFORE hunting was banned.
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:24 am to pointdog33
quote:
Good information right there. Go post that to OT thread
Could it be that it took them 10 years to ramp up enforcement efforts, after which the population started rebounding slowly?
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:28 am to Galactic Inquisitor
I think the graph shows that combined efforts are the answer to conservation. Enforcement and management are the key.
Kenya still lost 82K elephants 12 years after the ban while Zim was adding elephants.
Kenya still lost 82K elephants 12 years after the ban while Zim was adding elephants.
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 10:34 am
Posted on 7/2/14 at 10:31 am to pointdog33
I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
This post was edited on 7/2/14 at 10:32 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News