Hunting

[seanc1]

How does big game hunting in north America, Europe and Africa benefit nature and local communities?

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

Seriously, Google it? There is a tax on everything hunting related in North America that pays for everything from state forest to wildlife conservation programs. The sale of hunting license also goes to fund these things. I think you will find most hunters in the US are conservationist; we are not just out there killing for fun. Management of game levels is conservation it stops the spread of disease. Think rabies and raccoons no one hunts them anymore so who takes care of it Mother Nature does with disease.
In Africa the 50K you pay to hunt an elephant does not go to the outfitter it goes to the tribe in the area you took the animal and so does the meat

[Abraxas]

Originally Posted by ICANHITHIMMAN

Seriously, Google it? There is a tax on everything hunting related in North America that pays for everything from state forest to wildlife conservation programs. The sale of hunting license also goes to fund these things. I think you will find most hunters in the US are conservationist; we are not just out there killing for fun. Management of game levels is conservation it stops the spread of disease. Think rabies and raccoons no one hunts them anymore so who takes care of it Mother Nature does with disease.
In Africa the 50K you pay to hunt an elephant does not go to the outfitter it goes to the tribe in the area you took the animal and so does the meat

Well said. Hunting also helps reduce the damage to crops and property.

[Moltke]

Need information for your 11th grade research paper?

[yellowfin]

Every tool, accessory, and supply (guns, bows, ammo, arrows, clothing, packs, decoys/calls), and other expenditure for hunting (gas, lodging, food, leases, etc.) gives income and employment to all of the people who work in the industries that offer those goods and services. That's several billion dollars per state per year every year. I did an accounting project on it in school and it turned out to be one of the biggest industries in the southeastern states and likely to other states as well.

[NeoNeanderthal]

My degree is in ecology, and one thing i've learned is that all the predators that used to kill large game (small game too) were killed off by us. We've wrecked true hunters like wolves and grizzlies, while black bears and coyotes are thriving. These animals rarely take large game.

Basically, unless we as a species are willing to reintroduce the apex predators that we have killed, it is up to us to in some way cull the prey. Hunting is a good way to go because instead of costing the government or management agencies money it actually makes them money, and people get meat in return.

[yellowfin]

Generally speaking you don't want lots of wolves around in modern society.

[Moltke]

Save the whales... for hunting.

[SHIVAN]

Going completely off the cuff here, but all those nice cushy parks with rangers, and outdoor activities are subsidized in huge part by the taxes and fees paid by hunters.

Without hunters, conservation efforts would be sparse, if present at all. Teddy Roosevelt was an avid hunter; a diehard. He is also considered one of the forefathers of conservationism.

[NeoNeanderthal]

Originally Posted by yellowfin

Generally speaking you don't want lots of wolves around in modern society.

Thats one opinion.

Ecologically speaking, wolves (and other apex predators) co-existing with humans is neither good nor bad, they do perform a function though. If they are not there, then hunting can help to partially perform the same function.

Personally i think wolves have been shown to cause more good then harm. Many people might have a bad interaction or two with a predator throughout their entire life and assume that they should be annihilated. They don't see however the constant beneficial effect predators have on the entire ecological system which humans are a part of.

SHIVAN- "Going completely off the cuff here, but all those nice cushy parks with rangers, and outdoor activities are subsidized in huge part by the taxes and fees paid by hunters."

This is absolutely true. Fish and game and other organizations are nearly ENTIRELY dependent on this.

However, people need to remember it's not just the revenue of hunting that helps conserve. The actual act itself when properly managed is an act of conservation. (Killing overpopulated large prey animals when there are no other species to do so.)

[SHIVAN]

Originally Posted by NeoNeanderthal

However, people need to remember it's not just the revenue of hunting that helps conserve. The actual act itself when properly managed is an act of conservation. (Killing overpopulated large prey animals when there are no other species to do so.)

Yes, I completely understand that aspect, but it did need saying, thanks for clarifying.

The tree huggers think that having 50,000 whitetail in a 10 acre "habitat", surrounded entirely by four land roads, is natural and beautiful, right up until one of the does dies in their yard from starvation, or a young buck crunches the front end of the mayor's Lexus SUV.

[High Tower]

Originally Posted by NeoNeanderthal

Personally i think wolves have been shown to cause more good then harm. Many people might have a bad interaction or two with a predator throughout their entire life and assume that they should be annihilated. They don't see however the constant beneficial effect predators have on the entire ecological system which humans are a part of.

While true to a certain extent most farmers and ranchers would disagree. And I like beef better than venison so I have no issue with the current situation.

In a first world country, it will be a difficult sell to keep predators roaming around. Too many people like to see them in a zoo, but call the police if they see a wild animal in the wild. Alligators are a good example of this from my understanding.

[antlad]

Originally Posted by NeoNeanderthal

Thats one opinion.

Ecologically speaking, wolves (and other apex predators) co-existing with humans is neither good nor bad, they do perform a function though. If they are not there, then hunting can help to partially perform the same function.

Personally i think wolves have been shown to cause more good then harm. Many people might have a bad interaction or two with a predator throughout their entire life and assume that they should be annihilated. They don't see however the constant beneficial effect predators have on the entire ecological system which humans are a part of.

SHIVAN- "Going completely off the cuff here, but all those nice cushy parks with rangers, and outdoor activities are subsidized in huge part by the taxes and fees paid by hunters."

This is absolutely true. Fish and game and other organizations are nearly ENTIRELY dependent on this.

However, people need to remember it's not just the revenue of hunting that helps conserve. The actual act itself when properly managed is an act of conservation. (Killing overpopulated large prey animals when there are no other species to do so.)

This may be true in the lesser 48. Not so much up here in AK.
In fact we just opened up Ariel wolf hunting in parts of Southcentral because of the dwindling moose populations.

[Hwikek]

The problem with conservation is that it is often difficult to develop a baseline for what an enviroment was originally like. The short answer is you don't really know and just use nearby areas as a guide. Ecosystems also naturally undergo change over time which makes long term, over 100-300 years, conservation impossible; at that point you're really just trying to keep an ecosystem from changing from whatever it was before. Trying to influence biomes can produce unwanted changes that may end up causing more harm than good. The science of this is beyond complex and is also beyond what many advanced simulation systems can accurately provide details on. Currently there is no best approach to this problem and as environmental science and ecological studies continue it is unlikely that we will come up with a proper system. One the other hand, restoration is often a good approach.

[120mm]

In Europe, hunting is much less "bambi-ized" than in the US.

Wildlife, and even trees are seen as, and exploited as a resource, to be both cultured and harvested, for human use.

There is also an economy built around it.

Strictly speaking, European hunting laws are very regulated but completely sane. Fishing laws, believe it or not, go into full retard mode, with barbs on hooks being seen as "inhumane" and causing "undue suffering" to fish. Go figure.

Shifting gears, in my experience, the pro-predator people are insane. the so-called "natural order" was most probably a boom and bust cycle where predators would overpopulate, hunt prey nearly to extinction and then die off of disease and starvation. After predators became nearly extinct, prey would repopulate (or not, extinction was common long before man showed up, no matter what James Cameron says, check the fossil records, dumbass) and then predators would repopulate. Rinse, wash, repeat.

In modern times, predators have become rare, but rarely become extinct, which actually has a balance in and of itself.

The so-called "predator/prey balance" is a lot like tribalism versus civilization. Looney, greenie idiots seem to love both of them, but frankly, it sucks. And it sucks for predator, prey AND humans.

[120mm]

Originally Posted by Hwikek

The problem with conservation is that it is often difficult to develop a baseline for what an enviroment was originally like. The short answer is you don't really know and just use nearby areas as a guide. Ecosystems also naturally undergo change over time which makes long term, over 100-300 years, conservation impossible; at that point you're really just trying to keep an ecosystem from changing from whatever it was before. Trying to influence biomes can produce unwanted changes that may end up causing more harm than good. The science of this is beyond complex and is also beyond what many advanced simulation systems can accurately provide details on. Currently there is no best approach to this problem and as environmental science and ecological studies continue it is unlikely that we will come up with a proper system. One the other hand, restoration is often a good approach.

Here's one. How about we just decide what's most beneficial TOWARD HUMANS and quit wetting our panties about it?

It works amazingly well in Europe.

[longball]

Originally Posted by NeoNeanderthal

Thats one opinion.

Ecologically speaking, wolves (and other apex predators) co-existing with humans is neither good nor bad, they do perform a function though. If they are not there, then hunting can help to partially perform the same function.

Personally i think wolves have been shown to cause more good then harm. Many people might have a bad interaction or two with a predator throughout their entire life and assume that they should be annihilated. They don't see however the constant beneficial effect predators have on the entire ecological system which humans are a part of.

From a guy that used to make a living off of the land, the above bolded statements are just plain wrong.

[NeoNeanderthal]

As someone who used to teach survival, I lived off the land as well. However, I majored in Ecology so i have a bigger picture view of things.

Are you saying that apex predators are not beneficial to ecological systems? Pick up a peer reviewed journal once in a while, which is filled with studies conducted by scientists. Not liberal eco-hippies or conservative gun forum commenters. You'll see what i mean. Thinking that removing most predators from the world benefits humans long term, is inaccurate and short sighted.

My opinion on the matter isn't really an opinion at all, it is just a regurgitation of the overall consensus of the entire life science (biology, envi science ecology ext) community. I didn't come up with it, i'm not a scientist. I am not even qualified to determine what the deer population needs but I base my opinion on the scientific consensus. Not what my friends or relatives believe.

I understand that ranchers or farmers disagree with most scientists, because in their experience apex predators are harmful. That doesn't mean that they are overall harmful to the entire country/system/whatever. Policy should be (and to some extent is) based on what benefits the most people. In that sense, the loss of income by some farmers/ranchers when wolves are around is minor. It is considered, but this factor doesn't effect that many people. Especially since large scale operations have the ability to better cope with predation. It might suck to hear, but its the truth.

[longball]

Originally Posted by NeoNeanderthal

... Are you saying that apex predators are not beneficial to ecological systems? No, I am not. They, just like everything, have a place and are beneficial to SOME ecosystems. However, saying that their interactions with humans is neither good nor bad is again, just plain wrong. Again, in an ecosystem where humans and agriculture are not present apex predators ARE beneficial. In the ecosystem that we live in they are not beneficial UNLESS their numbers are controlled. Pick up a peer reviewed journal once in a while, Done that. A lot actually.which is filled with studies conducted by scientists. Not liberal eco-hippies or conservative gun forum commenters. The above two classifications of people have nothing to do with me, my views, or my first hand experience with ecosystems nor the interaction of people and predators and how it effects their/my livelyhood. You'll see what i mean. Thinking that removing most predators from the world benefits humans long term, is inaccurate and short sighted. I did not say we should remove them from the world but I also should have clarified my views in my first post. My fault.

My opinion on the matter isn't really an opinion at all, it is just a regurgitation of the overall consensus of the entire life science (biology, envi science ecology ext) community. No disrespect to the scientific community, as their studies and knowledge is invaluable to conservation and the way we live, but, give their bottom line an invese relationship to the density of predators in their ecosystems and their views would change. I didn't come up with it, i'm not a scientist. I am not even qualified to determine what the deer population needs but I base my opinion on the scientific consensus. Not what my friends or relatives believe.My friends and relatives have about as much influence on my opinions as the eco-hippies or conservative gun forum commenters above.

I understand that ranchers or farmers disagree with most scientists, because in their experience apex predators are harmful. The key here is "in their experience" which can also be expressed in this context as "their ecosystem". In the farmers "ecosystem" apex predators are not only bad, they can be devistating. That doesn't mean that they are overall harmful to the entire country/system/whatever. Is less money in the bank because they are paying more for meat they eat harmful? With the exception of those who do not eat meat I would think so. Policy should be (and to some extent is) based on what benefits the most people. In that sense, the loss of income by some farmers/ranchers when wolves are around is minor. It is only minor if you aren't the farmer depending on that income from those lost cattle, sheep, goats, or and/or pigs to feed his family. It is considered, but this factor doesn't effect that many people. Only the people who provide you with the food you eat, the ones on the "sharp end" of the agricultural spear. But who cares about them right? Especially since large scale operations have the ability to better cope with predation. It might suck to hear, but its the truth.

I would venture to guess that if you and I sat down and discussed this over a few beers we probably wouldn't be that far apart on our views of conservation but the last paragraph is where I have a big problem. Its obvious from your statements in red that you have no experience in the subject matter you are professing knowledge of. Regardless of your collegiate area of study, until you have more first hand experience farming and earning a living off of the land you have no business deciding what is "minor" to the farmer who is losing animals (income) to predation. What you just wrote was the equivilent of some guy getting on a shooting section of this forum and telling someone else how to shoot while having zero knowledge gained from actual experience themselves.

[Abraxas]

Originally Posted by longball

I would venture to guess that if you and I sat down and discussed this over a few beers we probably wouldn't be that far apart on our views of conservation but the last paragraph is where I have a big problem. Its obvious from your statements in red that you have no experience in the subject matter you are professing knowledge of. Regardless of your collegiate area of study, until you have more first hand experience farming and earning a living off of the land you have no business deciding what is "minor" to the farmer who is losing animals (income) to predation. What you just wrote was the equivilent of some guy getting on a shooting section of this forum and telling someone else how to shoot while having zero knowledge gained from actual experience themselves.

Very well said. I cannot wait to see where you end up in life brother. Just keep us little people in mind when you get there.