View Full Version : Hunting
How does big game hunting in north America, Europe and Africa benefit nature and local communities?
ICANHITHIMMAN
01-11-12, 11:05
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
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.
Need information for your 11th grade research paper? ;)
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
01-11-12, 12:49
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.
Generally speaking you don't want lots of wolves around in modern society.
Save the whales... for hunting.
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
01-12-12, 09:57
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.)
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
01-13-12, 09:05
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. :dirol:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
02-01-12, 11:31
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.
... 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.
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.
NeoNeanderthal
02-01-12, 19:03
Your right i have never lost income due to predation. I do grow/hunt/gather most of my own food, however my state is blessed in that we lack overpopulated deer, (we also lack wolves too) and i have the freedom to purchase my food if i lose a crop, as my income comes from other sources. I know this does not compare.
It isn't that I am insensitive to the issue, i know that people have not just lost income but lost their business due to it, which affects entire families. I dont not blame people for wanted to remove something that is infringing my their families wellbeing. Of course the state could do a better job reimbursing farmers from losses do to conservation efforts- but thats not really the issue we are talking about.
All i'm saying is that farmers and ranchers are a minority, policy should take them into account but should focus on the helping the majority of people. If it is found (statistically) that the majority of people would be harmed from reintroduction or protection of wolves and other apex predators then don't do it. But base policy on this, not a minorities bad experiences.
I work for the state and sometimes issues come down the pipe that negatively effect my ability to provide for my family, and it pisses me off. I feel i should be considered. But i don't expect policies to be made that benefit me and a few other people while long term negatively effecting more people.
...All i'm saying is that farmers and ranchers are a minority, policy should take them into account but should focus on the helping the majority of people. If it is found (statistically) that the majority of people would be harmed from reintroduction or protection of wolves and other apex predators then don't do it. But base policy on this, not a minorities bad experiences...
The problem is that they are the minority that keeps the rest of our country fed. Less product/profit for the farmers=less food for everybody else (or more money for the same amount of food). In my book that's bad for the majority and enough reason to take care of those folks. That is however, just my personal opinion and is worth exactly what y'all are paying for it.
mallowpufft
02-16-12, 21:49
Big game hunting benefits... well, around here it's mostly medium but there are a whole lot of folks whose primary protein comes from what they kill. That's money saved that keeps them in their house.
A lot of folks around here also donate the meat to local food banks.
For me it supplements my food supply and small game/furbearers are money in the bank.
If I can get a good pelt off a 'yote it's worth 30-50 bucks. If I get a buddy to make a bag or hat out of it it sells for 80 and we both get 40 bucks in our pockets.
Big game hunting benefits... well, around here it's mostly medium but there are a whole lot of folks whose primary protein comes from what they kill. That's money saved that keeps them in their house.
A lot of folks around here also donate the meat to local food banks.
For me it supplements my food supply and small game/furbearers are money in the bank.
If I can get a good pelt off a 'yote it's worth 30-50 bucks. If I get a buddy to make a bag or hat out of it it sells for 80 and we both get 40 bucks in our pockets.
I'm all about eating the fresh stuff. My wife and I both hunt, and while we're always on the lookout for a trophy, we also don't pass up an opportunity to put some high quality meat in the freezer.
My next question is, how the heck do you skin a coyote? I never tried it but I think that's one of the only animals I would have a tough time sinking my skinner into. :bad:
loganp0916
02-16-12, 23:12
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
^^This^^
And one good sized deer will last a family a while. And think of the hog problem in the U.S. they need to be controlled before they destroy the population of animals that are native to the region that these hogs are invading.
mallowpufft
02-17-12, 18:31
I'm all about eating the fresh stuff. My wife and I both hunt, and while we're always on the lookout for a trophy, we also don't pass up an opportunity to put some high quality meat in the freezer.
My next question is, how the heck do you skin a coyote? I never tried it but I think that's one of the only animals I would have a tough time sinking my skinner into. :bad:
I suck horribly at it. My buddy John Boy (i shit you not, that's what everyone calls him) is amazing. He makes possibles bags out of one hide that has the head (sans skull and eyes, obviously) intact on the flap. He sells them at trapper gatherings.
Think of it as a cross between a squirrel and a deer as far as skinning it goes. A few big sections and the legs and head are tricky as hell, at least for me. Not quite as easy as a bear that you just unzip and peel off from the fat.
I much prefer squirrels for ease. Just make one slit between the tail and the butt hole then step on the tail and pull on the back legs.
Toss the guts, quarter it and put it in the crock pot with salt and pepper. Makes some tasty gravy. Dang it, now I'm hungry.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.