How do you view trophy hunting (poll)

Yes, we do try to communicate to the public and society as a whole the ecological importance of each species and the need to conserve these but that kind of message isn't always well recieved.

Humans are predators but our species cannot effectively replace the top down trophic cascade on prey species that is characteristic of far older apex predators which have evolved specifically to occupy this niche and nor can we replicate the positive ecological effects of these predators that have already been mentioned.

Those kinds of people would never actually say this but in essence in their anthropocentric arrogance they simply want to be the sole and exclusive predator of game species and are unwilling to share that position with lowly felids or canids.

Finally it is worth mentioning that you typically do not see such attitudes in hunter-gatherer societies and very rarely in pastoralist societies as this is an attitude / set of values that seem to be endemic to agrarian and industrialized societies.

 

@Coelacanth18

Here's the IAPF website if you want to learn more.

Our Impact | Community-led Conservation

 

Actually I'm also confused about what is mentioned on the website too :

"Africa’s first armed, plant-based, all-women anti-poaching unit is revolutionising the way that animals are protected – and arresting poachers without firing a single shot."

What is meant by "plant-based" ?

Because what that seems to suggest to me is plant-based diets (as in veganism) and if that is what it is intended to mean then what does that have to do with anything ?

Moreover, how is it possible to make a claim that they arrest poachers without firing a single shot ?

It goes without saying that each circumstance of an arrest will obviously be different and some poachers will be armed and will not hesitate to fire back.

 

Thanks. It certainly looks like a positive development for that area, but I wonder how sustainable a charity-based revenue stream would be if it were long-term and across a much larger swath of the continent.

 

Maybe they not humans, but plants somehow disguised as humans? Or some sort of sentient alien plants? I mean, what else could "plant-based" mean?

 

Haha , could be a complex plant-based life form like the extraterrestrial algae sea in Solaris or the day of the triffids?

I had a bit more of a read on the founder and discovered what the meaning of "plant-based" is and yes it is apparently a reference referring to veganism.

Believe it or not the founder is a former Australian army sniper and Iraq war veteran turned private contractor turned radical vegan advocate and CEO of this anti-poaching unit.

 

Here is an interesting and unbiased video report on trophy hunting on Texas ranches. It is just under six minutes long.
The Cost Of Breeding And Hunting Exotic Species In Texas | So Expensive - YouTube

 

Here's a Nat Geo article on hunting ranches in Texas.

A behind-the-scenes look at Texas’ exotic game ranching industry

 

These are the killing contests I mentioned earlier.

 

Yes, it is shocking and a shame to see all of those dead mid-level mammal predators just thrown in heaps but I don't think it is by any means representative of how all trophy hunting happens.

 

In the US, allowing the recreational hunting of feral hogs has given some the incentive to transport some to new areas to establish populations for hunting.

Illegal release, transport of feral hogs a problem

 

Sadly, this is true. But imagine if no states allowed hunting of hogs - the populations would be a lot worse.

 

If feral hogs are transported to new areas, they will affect the ecosystems there.

 

I've got no problem with this discussion, but I'm not sure this is the right thread for it? Hunting of feral pigs in the United States isn't generally considered trophy hunting, nor does it seem relevant as far as conservation impacts of trophy hunting goes. It's more akin to either general game management or management of invasive species.

I'm not necessarily a stickler about staying on-topic, but in this case I think it's an important distinction. I'll suggest to a moderator about potentially splitting this into a new topic in case more people want to continue discussing it.

 

Yes I think you are right about that.

Perhaps it could be made into it's own poll ?

 

I'm not sure what the poll would be. It's a specific example and you could have many different takes on it, which may not be applicable in other contexts. I just felt that it was a separate enough topic that it was best to avoid confusing it with trophy hunting by continuing it here.

 

Yes why not.

I think that this thread has kind of explored perceptions of trophy hunting as much as it can.

 

I began thinking about this very recently, and because it relates to pro-trophy hunting NGOs, I figured this would be the best thread to place my thoughts in.

All the way back in 2019, on the online website Science where scientists can write articles for people to read, there was an article published by a group of conservationists arguing that banning trophy hunting or banning the importation of animal trophies would be bad for conservation for the "no trophy hunting, no incentive" reasoning. Those against trophy hunting took notice and wrote a rebuttal where they revealed a project run by Amy Dickman, one of the authors of the pro-hunting article, received funding from pro-hunting organizations. As a result, the people running the Science website became more strict on authors with potential conflicts of interest when they wrote opinion pieces.

Now for those who don't know, Amy Dickman is a wildlife conservationist who runs the Ruaha Carnivore Project based in Tanzania. This project exists to help local communities in the region coexist with predators. As for the funding this project has received from pro-hunting organizations, that only happened in 2013 and they contributed only 0.8% of the project's total funding. They haven't received funding from pro-hunting groups since then.

The reason I bring this up is because of human-wildlife conflict. This is something you hear about very often from the pro-hunting community and organizations and what they say is true. Human-wildlife conflict is one of the biggest threats to wildlife and it needs resolution. And yes, it's easy for foreigners to be upset over the death of a lion when they don't live with wild lions. But when you think about it, pro-hunting NGOs don't have any more business telling Africans how to live with predatory species than say, some random person in Texas somewhere. And I say that for two reasons.

1. Let's not kid ourselves, pro-hunting groups have lots of money, and while their contribution the Ruaha Carnivore Project was better than nothing, it's a pitiful contribution, especially when you consider they haven't contributed to the project since 2013. In truth, they should be financially helping the project more, not only to put their money where their mouths are on the very real issue of human-wildlife conflict but also as a way of thanking Amy Dickman for speaking in favor of trophy hunting multiple times in the past. Seriously, because she's defended the practice you'd think they'd financially help her out more for that reason alone.

2. The amount of support they gave the RCP, they would never show the same level of support, or any support, for an organization dedicated to aiding people in coexisting with predators in the United States. So while they're telling us about human-wildlife conflict in Africa, they again, should also put their money where their mouths are and help financially support projects such as the Wood River Wolf Project based in Idaho and People and Carnivores based in Montana.

In short, they use human-wildlife conflict as a way to get people on board with trophy hunting, but they don't actually do much of anything to help resolve the issues. Then again, why would they? If that issue was fully resolved, then it'd be more difficult to defend and get people on board with trophy hunting and massive lethal predator control.