Hunting and killing exotic animals can help save them

Little Joe says:

05:56am | 04/11/11

Cries from the ignorant bleeding hearts!!!

While I do not know the means of how or the means in which the animal was shot but I thought that I would throw in my two cents.

African National Parks receive very, very low funding and are defended by amazing people. These rangers protect the wildlife with their lives and many are murdered every year by poachers.

When I lived in Africa, many parks and reserves had shooting programs in which they had lists ...... long lists of people from America and Europe who wanted to shoot a lion, elephant or any wild animal. Deprived as it may seem, this is what these people wanted to do ..... and they are willing to pay lots of money to do it!!!! So when a ranger sees a dieing bull elephant or a fatally injured lion or lame giraffe or the park is overpopulated by a species, they get on the phone and invite these deprived individuals to come and kill the animals. This was done as humanely as possible. The money raised by these programs went to paying rangers, protecting species and educational programs.

As stated I do not know the manner in which this photograph was taken, but if it was taken through one of these programs ...... I would support it. I know that many others would rather this not occur. They would rather see animals die slow and natural deaths. But these ‘others’ may not lived in Africa and know the real and desperate poverty that exists in this world.

And I would also say this ..... if you do not want these programs to occur you are free to travel to Africa, pick up a gun and take up a post. I wish you well!!!

My FooI Ideas ..... ‘7,000,000,000 People’ and ‘A Pristine Environment is not always the Best Environment’ now come to mind.

Nathan says:

06:15am | 04/11/11

What about Rabbits than are pests, Kangaroos in plague proportions, Wild horses destroying land etc the list goes on.

To be honest there is nothing wrong with what he said about Africa, you are looking at the action as being unethical where as he is looking at the outcome as ethical different thought process that is all. If numbers increase what is the better option?

Have you been to Africa on a holiday? If not how are you helping, if this is a major source of tourism for them who are you to argue

Mahhrat says:

06:54am | 04/11/11

@Nathan, that’s fine, and absolutely culling plague animals is simply good environmental management. Two questions:

1 - Where does a giraffe or Ibex fit into that?

2 - Why does it need to be called a “Sport”?

Keith Drain says:

08:05am | 04/11/11

@Mahhrat: Nowhere in my article did I call it a sport. I believe hunting is hunting.
I’m not prepared to call hunting a sport IMO.
That said its just a silly argument, as it doesn’t change what hunting is.

Eric Gibson says:

08:35am | 04/11/11

I own and live on rural property in the heart of some of the finest agricultural lands in Australia. My biggest problem is the dogs and cats that are dumped in the bush by the very section of our society who condem me for being a shooter.

I am a hunter and I shoot these feral pests. I refuse to adhere to the local ordances that require me to poison these poor animals with 1080. I used to have eagles, black falcons and other birds of prey but neighbours poisoning programs have all but destroyed them as the poison does not break down in nature.

With regard to preserving our wild species, I have planted over 2000 native forest trees at my own expense to provide shelter and habitat for at least 2 colonies of kolas, Feed is grown and water provided for hundreds of macropods. I do not shoot or kill anything that is not native to the area.

I have committed many thousands of dollars to achieve this, trophy hunters spend similar “fees” providing money to both local and foriegn landholders to do what I have done on a much grander scale.

I hope that when I depart this world, I leave behind a paradise open for all to ecperience and enjoy. Are there any conservation groups out there with the same committment to preservation as hunters and trophy shooters; I think not!

Regards
BA Wallace

Mahhrat says:

08:35am | 04/11/11

@Keith, you didn’t mate, but there’ s an awful lot of “hunters” who do.

patsy says:

08:50am | 04/11/11

@Kim. Vegetarian are you?

jf says:

09:40am | 04/11/11

Kim says:06:17am | 04/11/11

“Surely there are more useful strategies for preserving wild species than this - what a lame excuse for barbarity.”

Surely. So, what are you doing Kim?

I have been on hunting trips with mates. They shoot feral pigs and kangaroos. These animals, in large numbers, devestate the ecology and need shooting. Shooting isn’t for me and I stuck to clay pidgeons. But I don’t judge my mates for shooting them. As to game hunting - I have to say I can’t imagine the type o fperson that shoots these animals and can’t imagine that I’d have much to talk to them about. However, they pay good money for the right to shoot these animals and a chunk of that money goes into preserving those animals.

neo says:

02:44pm | 04/11/11

I love target practice, but I think I would only shoot something I can eat afterwards, otherwise you’re killing for the sake of killing.

Mark W says:

06:05pm | 04/11/11

Humans have hunted since they took the first steps out of the trees. In the last twenty years or so it has become unpopular with some. Why?
It’s not barbaric it’s normal behaviour. What is abnormal is not to hunt, although most do it in the supermarket and still believe they don’t. Other countries enjoy the sport of shooting and hunting. Australian has become perverse in left leaning green ideoligy. I will call it a sport, similar to Golf. Golf you walk through a paddock chasing a little ball and hitting it with a club. Hunting you walk through a paddock chasing a Rabbit, clean kill, enviromentily friendly and fully organic meat for the table. Why do some believe that after 100,000 years of evolution suddenly in the last 20 years all has changed. It is not the hunter that is mixed up, it’s those who have fallen for political correct B/S they have been fed.

gravy says:

12:28am | 05/11/11

Not a hunter and never will be, i couldn’t killing an animal for ‘fun’, just the thought makes me cringe.

But honestly Kim what would you suggest instead of hunting to fund these national parks and programs that keep these endangered african animals alive? Apart from sentimental value and some tourism dollars, how else do you think its possible for these parks and creatures to hold any dollar value so the impoverished nations living in extreme poverty will actually keep these parks open and wildlife around? Do you really think the hard working rangers and conservationists would use these methods IF they worked/were avaliable instead of hunting?!

Also one thing i never truly understood is; what is SOOOOO terribly ‘inhumane’ about a clean shot and quick clean kill from an experienced hunter for a wild animal who has lived a good full life? If i was a zebra i’d prefer a nice quick shot to the heart instead of being taken down by a pack of african wild dogs/hyenas/lions (who will rip them to shreds and eat them while they’re still alive, from what i’ve seen from docos) ANYDAY!

And lets not even start on the millions of chickens/cows/pigs slaughtered for supermarkets, they die a much worse death than a quick bullet to the heart/head from a hunter.

Andrew says:

12:32pm | 05/11/11

Africa as a continent has a fast growing population with millions of people dieing every year from starvation and thirst and yet the worlds economy can do little to stop it. Animals in Africa are in pretty much in the same boat and through no fault of their own but due to our hand in habitat destruction find themselves in need of control to protect them from certain extinction. 
It would be great to be able to walk away and things would just look after themselves but sadly this is not the case due to the need for more food to feed the growing population. This means more habitat destruction and intern less food for the animals.
Hunters have put a price on the heads of these animals and given them a worth to the local villagers who have seen that they can now derive an income from them by looking after the habitat in which they live instead of clearing it for more farm land. This income can go to buying food and helping them to survive not to mention the fresh supply of meat from the animals hunted.

It is win win and is true conservation on not only a wildlife level but also human.

Cameron says:

06:27pm | 08/11/11

Guess what Kim, Hunting has been a hobby since the dawn of man, if your one of those ‘oh poor defenceless animals and plants that we eat, how could we!’ while humans kill how many millions of animals to eat a year, which we specifically breed to slaughter, dismember and eat. And lets not forget the TRILLIONS of animals and plants that die every year from other species! Most hunters shoot pests like rabbits and do animal populations a favor by keeping pests in check. Rabbits and foxes were actually animals brought over by England, upsetting the Australian native eco-system. Do your research instead of being a bigoted, blind commentator, unless you believe ‘plants have feelings and we shouldnt eat them’ kind of thing, then your too far gone.

Blaze Peter Freemantle says:

11:01am | 09/11/11

Haha yeah ok. Take the gun away “KIM” and are u still gonna be dealing with a defenceles animal? A lion? A elephant? a tiger? Nah, id think ud be ripped in half.

“PRESERVATION, EXTINCTION….. OH NO”

It baffles me. Its as if people assume that we’ve been here for a million years and assume we will be here in another. Animals come, they live out, and they die. Of natural courses. Yes we are natural. Yes choosing to go out and buy a gun and shoot a rhino is a natural death for the rhino. We are animals. All of us. Just because we have the capacity for conciousness and the ability to understand the idea of preservation doesn’t mean we should have to. It’s outrageous. How many species of life in the past, what ever way u look at it, have been extinct due to a “Apex predator”? What the hell do you think we are? We are simply living out and doing what us humans were designed to do. We created tools to survive. We created income for greed. We are naturally destructive.

We can kill everything. I mean everything. Then when we’ve done that we can kill each other. But i guarantee, when that million years has come a gone, a new species of life will be in our place, doing exactly the same thing. Conciously or not.

Dennis Maude says:

10:07am | 04/11/11

Nathan, recent history in Australia has seen so much legislation to restrict law abiding firearms owners.  It has been a great ‘political issue’ for the major parties claiming to get ‘tough on crime’, but the effects have been very detrimental to us as a minority group.

It is interesting to note, that criminals who already break the law are not likely to take notice of any new ones.

It has been shown by the greens, that holding the balance of power can have a measurable effect on the policies of the government and is worth pursuing in order to have some influence.

DJ says:

04:03pm | 04/11/11

We didn’t try to get into politics. Politics pull us out to the front and then ran us down.
How many incidents have occurred in Australia that involved mass shootings with a semi-automatic rifle that was registered and by a licensed shooter? From the research I’ve conducted I can only find 2 counts with semi-auto rifles and 1 with a semi-auto handgun. And the Port Arthur massacre ISN’T one of those.

Most gun crime is committed with black market or stolen firearms.

I would like a semi-auto firearm. Today I watch over 12 pest rabbits. I was only able to shoot one of them and work the action ready for the next shot before the rest of the rabbits had run and hidden themselves. With a semi-auto I would have been able to get at least 3-4 of these pest animals.

Let us trust in the licensing system to stop “rednecks” and “idiots”. I’m neither. I volunteer for the local fire brigade and first aid service. I practise safety first in everything I do. I do believe the legal right to own a firearm, in particular a handgun for self defence will reduce the amount of gun crime.

This has been proven in the USA by conducting surveys amongst the prison populations. Most prisoners stated that if they felt the potential victim may be armed they would move onto another location.

This has been further proven by analysing the crime statistics of states that have introduced concealed carry weapon permits. States that have CCW permits have seen reductions in crime rates and remain lower then states without CCW permits.

If the criminal thinks they may get killed, they are less likely to commit the crime.

In any case, that’s not the argument of the article. He has a very valid point. Another point he failed to raise, is that many of African game licenses sold are for animals that in that region are not endangered.
Elephants being one example. They have been so well cared for that they are in plague proportions in some regions causing damage to local towns and farms.

I have enough problems with pest plagues in my local area to think about fixing Africa’s problems, but I support the right of others to pay to do that. Knowing the money will help other species that actually need the help.

Kim says:

07:07am | 04/11/11

we don’t kill for fun when we eat meat

Al says:

07:46am | 04/11/11

Kim, but someone, somewhere killed the animal that the meat came from. Probably in an aboittoir.
You are just saying:
“because I get someone else to do my dirty work I am pure and innocent”

Erick says:

07:58am | 04/11/11

@Kim - “we don’t kill for fun when we eat meat”

Yes you do. Humans don’t need to eat meat to survive. In fact, many of us would be healthier without it.

We eat meat because we enjoy it. And all those meat animals are killed so we can have fun at the dinner table.

You are not as superior as you think you are.

Paul says:

09:33am | 04/11/11

@ Erick: University of California - Berkeley: ‘Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.

Without meat, said Milton, it’s unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.’

Erick says:

10:31am | 04/11/11

@Paul - Interesting, but irrelevant.

Humans of today do not require meat in order to live. We eat it because we like it.

Paul says:

12:37pm | 04/11/11

@ Erick: The author of the study went on to say,

‘Buffered against nutritional deficiency by meat, human ancestors also could intensify their use of plant foods with toxic compounds such as cyanogenic glycosides, foods other primates would have avoided, said Milton. These compounds can produce deadly cyanide in the body, but are neutralized by methionine and cystine, sulfur-containing amino acids present in meat.

Sufficient methionine is difficult to find in plants. Most domesticated grains - wheat, rice, maize, barley, rye and millet - contain this cyanogenic compound as do many beans and widely-eaten root crops such as taro and manioc.’

Lets hope we don’t end up exclusively eating, Zion hovercraft galley contents consisting of a single-celled protein and amino acid colloid as seen in the Matrix series of films.

Erick says:

01:51pm | 04/11/11

@Paul - I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said your comment was interesting. It’s a good insight into the evolutionary reasons both for why we enjoy eating meat so much, and for why hunters derive enjoyment from a successful kill.

Don’t get me wrong. I eat and enjoy meat myself. I’m certainly not opposed to people who hunt their own meat.

I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who sneer at hunters because “they kill for pleasure”, even though as meat eaters, they are no better themselves.

Richard says:

09:23pm | 04/11/11

Erick.  Millions of years of evolution provided me with canine incisors.  They’re wasted on celery sticks ole mate.

A true vegetarian by definition is not a practical reality in our modern world, as it is extremely difficult to exclude all animal derived protein from our diets.  That includes the fat your potato chips might be fried in and has to include milk, eggs, cheese and yoghurt.  Lots of people don’t eat red meat by choice.  They are not vegetarians, they are simply people who don’t eat red meat.  They don’t have a label.  Vegan is term invented by people who couldn’t cope with being called a vegetarian, like a bovine.

Vegetarians/vegans are good sport however.  A very pretentious lot I find.  They also tend to own cats which is the ultimate hypocrisy as far as animal conservation is concerned.  Cats make good hats BTW.

Erick says:

10:43pm | 04/11/11

@Richard - I’m not a vegetarian, though I have respect for those who are.

I’m just pointing out that it’s hypocritical for people who eat meat (like me) to condemn hunters.

Al says:

06:52am | 04/11/11

How about we just promote bow hunting (even with the magnifying sights it still takes skill to shoot a bow accurately)?
Of course a hunting kill with a bow is likely to be longer and more painfull for the animal as rather than relying on the impact force of the bullet it relies on cutting and penetrating vital organs with an arrow.
Still a great challenge though, isn’t that what you want?

marley says:

07:25am | 04/11/11

@Al - no, I’d rather limit hunting to hunting for food (or pest control) and forget the “sport” aspect entirely.

jeremy says:

07:43am | 04/11/11

If your grandma used a high powered rifle at distance I’m sure she’d both miss terribly and tear off her shoulder, marley. You don’t sound like used ever used a gun.

marley says:

07:52am | 04/11/11

@jeremy - well, grandma was actually a pretty good shot in her day…

Bob White says:

08:06am | 04/11/11

Marley, I take it then you have never hunted if you believe that? Also the hi powered rifle gives it a way as well, can you show me a low powered rifle and a hi powered rifle please? Just not what you read in the papers mate.

I do not know if it has been mentioned here that the animals shot in Africa are handed over to the villages for them to use as meat. This provides food for the tribe which leads to a reduction in poaching. Also provides the village with money.

Please do some research of your own , not just rely on greens or worse of all newspaper for your information? If you do the research for your self you can form an opinion based on facts, not half truths

Scott says:

12:07pm | 04/11/11

How about the Lyons etc, do you have an issue with them killing a Giraffe?

What about Tribes people do you have an issue with them killing a Giraffe?

marley says:

12:17pm | 04/11/11

@Bob D. - no, I’m not a hunter, and don’t pretend to be one.  I’ve done a bit of target shooting in the distant past, and know the difference between a .22 and a .308.  But that’s not the point.

As I said, I’ve got no problem with shooting feral animals or with hunting for food.  I have a problem with the concept of big game shooting, which, when all is said and done, is simply shooting something for fun.

Andrea says:

04:08pm | 04/11/11

You do realize that the scope is what helps to ensure a clean humane kill. Or would you prefer the hunters to take the scope off and risk hurting the animal unnecessarily. What a strange thing to say for someone who professes to care for animals. Do you really? Or is this just a matter of putting hunters down by any argument possible?

marley says:

06:31pm | 04/11/11

Argghhh.  Do you get my point? I am not putting down hunters who shoot feral or nuisance animals, nor hunters who shoot for food.  I grew up with and around people who shot ducks and deer or fished for salmon for food.  We needed to eat and we didn’t always have the money to buy steak (or mince).  I get all of that.

I just have an issue with hunters who shoot for fun and then boast about it as though shooting a giraffe requires great skill.

Sick of the BS says:

11:29pm | 05/11/11

@ Bob white: Yeah mate low powered = .22 and hi powered = .50 cal…..ask the Taliban what they preferred to be shot at by at range…

Khalid Sheik MoHam'd says:

08:36am | 06/11/11

Sick of the BS

I prefer to be shot at with 20 mm from range. Preferably in 2 second bursts consisting of 100 rounds per second. I prefer the high explosive and incendiary projectiles and like a bit of tracer to brighten up my night.

Cynicised says:

04:04pm | 08/11/11

I agree if you eat meat you should have no grounds to condemn hunters of feral animals. It’s the “nuisance” I dislike, especially when it comes to  kangaroos and wallabies. Has anyone ever stopped to consider why roos breed up to “plague” proportions? It’s really very simple, it’s because we’ve cut down all the trees! If you deforest, that land is often revegetated with grassland, which, in times of good rainfall provides abundant fodder for the mobs. In drought periods, roos will resorb excess foetuses like rabbits. Get it? If we hadn’t cleared so much land ( much of it unecessarily) we would not be having a problem with animals that are bloody native to this continent and have more right to exist here than we do!

MarkS says:

08:04am | 04/11/11

Many things disgust me personally, smoking for instance. But I do not go around calling smokers repellent & I certainly do not suggest that smokers need serious mental care. At least not all that often.

Why should what you find repellent be the definition of mental illness. I find the “I do not agree with you, therefore you must be mentally sick meme”, repellent, maybe you should be locked up for mental treatment. Sounds very Stalin to me.

ellcee says:

08:06am | 04/11/11

You do realise that it wasn’t Katter who shot the giraffe don’t you?

Freeman says:

08:22am | 04/11/11

You don’t have to understand why people hunt and your vision of people taking pot shots at animals shows ignorance. neither conservation hunting or feral animal programs are doing enough to eradicate feral animals.

BTW, I don’t think bob katter shoots giraffe.

Scott says:

09:24am | 04/11/11

What so if someone else kills the animal for you thats ok and justifiable for you. Correct me if I’m wrong please but don’t you get great pleasure from eating the meat you bought from a shop? I too don’t get hunting Giraffe’s etc not my idea of hunting at all, but I do hunt, I do kill to cull animals and I don’t use everything I hunt only because its not edible, but I do hunt for meat also it just depends on what needs doing on the farm at the time. I hope you understand that many many animals are killed on your behalf every year so you can eat your fruit and veg, cereals, meat, fish etc. It really cracks me up when people think they have the “Moral High Ground” - especially when animals are killed so they can have the things they have in their lives.

Michael says:

11:06am | 04/11/11

Onlooker, our wildlife services are the people who take “pot shots”, the proper hunters are the ones committed to a clean humane kill. I find attitude of those who think getting their meat from a butcher, makes them superior, extremely repellant, not mention ignorant.

stevem says:

12:22pm | 04/11/11

The problem in assuming that   “We have wild life services to get rid of feral animals”  is that it the assumption is just plain wrong. The amount of money governments have in the kitty to pay these mythical people is dropping every year, while the damage done to native wildlife and vegetation is cumulative and far more than any government program can hope to counter.

Using licensed hunters who are willing to pay for the privileged of hunting removes many more feral animals than government can hope to fund, while bolstering Treasury rather than depleting it.

Your idea of running around taking pot shots is equally uninformed. Hunters can spend hours stalking an individual animal getting into position for a clean shot.

At a time where supermarkets are forced to advertise that their meat is not full of hormones, game meat represents a more natural and healthier option than the factory farmed equivalents found wrapped in plastic at the supermarket.

Neil Davie says:

07:15am | 05/11/11

We have wildlife services to get rid of feral animals? Toting a gun! Pot shots! Shows just how brainlocked you are. If you had a clue you might be listened to by those who have a better understanding of wildlife conservation and the whole ethos of hunting, than you or your like minded urban friends. Yes I do know what I’m talking about. I’ve shot in Kenya and throughout Australia. I’ve hunted poachers with Richard Leakey and have seen first hand what damage lack of sustainable hunting can do to wildlife populations. The trouble with all the born again holier than thou Yanks preaching their dogma and the Vegan by choice Greenies, is the majority of them are totally clueless urbanites who listen to The Word of Bob and the Marxist Greenie teachers infesting our schools.These same Muppets then go out and buy a kitten, that will never see the inside of a vet clinic and will have two or three litters of kittens a year, that will go to more brain dead cretins, who will repeat the cycle ad infinitum. This results in thousands of unwanted cats and dogs dumped in the bush to kill wildlife, every year. It’s no use attempting to get you to see reason, because once you are Greenie brainwashed and indoctrinated, you are beyond logic.

Food Technologist says:

12:29pm | 05/11/11

onlooker it is unfortunate that there are many people who share your ignorance. Bob Katter didn’t kill a Giraffe by the way, but the hunter who did paid a lot of money to do so and it was sanctioned by the local Wildlife Service as part of the program to manage biodiversity. And such a large animal provided a lot of meat to the local protein-deprived community.
Until you have been to Africa and seen the management of native species in action you are not qualified to pass the opinion you have. I have been to Africa and was fortunate enough to provide meat for 300 natives living an working on the farm by hunting a variety of beautiful African Antelope species - nothing was wasted. Hunting is not ‘fun’, it’s far more serious and important than that and fulfils an instinctive need in those who are not deluded into thinking that buying your meat from the butcher or the supermarket somehow divorces you from the killing of an animal. Hunters are far more ‘in touch’ with the environment and the world around them than people who have never experienced hunting (you don’t have to kill something to experience hunting).
As a professional with 35 years of experience in the food manufacturing industry I believe I have a better understanding than most of the human food chain - and we are at the top of the food chain for a reason.
I’m sure that you do things that I would find repellant (smoking, golfing, etc?), but I wouldn’t dream of being judgemental - that’s your life, not mine - it is passionate hunters like me who are the greatest conservationists in our society. And we who are passionate are much better at “getting rid of feral animals” than anyone paid to do it as a job - we don’t “take pot shots” at anything.

Daylight robbery says:

01:09am | 05/11/11

My Nana used to neck her own chickens for the special occasion; chickens were’nt common then.  Its only been 5 decades when this was common enough prior to frozen crumbed bleached mush.
As for protected fish I may be prohibited or severely restricted to catch and eat I can sell my boat and by 80 thousand dollars worth at the fish markets tomorrow.  If I determine the value of that recreational fish, some 20 x the commercial value per kilo without tax deduction I provide tax revenue for the fishery management.
For those that think we may survive on Vegan only try growing vegetables where wheat is grown. How many wheat-bix do you do a day?  mmmmm pine-cones…

Keith Drain says:

08:07am | 04/11/11

Thanks mate, I really tried to present facts and not emotion.

malohi says:

08:53am | 04/11/11

” I was a regular guy - that’s because I am:”
Subjective

” owning firearms or hunting.”
The real point of the article, and whole debate really. The strawman hiding in the bushes. Hunting and gun ownership issues are not one and the same.

“so who are we to judge?”
Appeal to authority fallacy. I think you have come to the wrong website to think that propaganda groups will sway judgment here.

Here’s the rub, for all your “balance” you did not address these points.

You made no case for gun ownership, in fact you take away from credibility with your cognitive dissonance.

The problem taken with game hunting is that killing an animal for fun is innapropriate. You merely provided anecdotal evidence that there happen to be positive incidental outcomes.
If I set up a shed where people threw darts at puppies and it happened to stimulate the economy in the area and provided jobs for my puppy catching goons, would it make it any less detestable? Could I trot out the benefits and expect to be exempt from ill informed criticsm?
No, I would be a sick mo fo for condoning ratutious dart throwing at puppies.

At the end of the day you are a person who condones shooting an animal and killing it to show off, the quote you utilised employs the term “trophy hunting.” All the incidental benefits or ancillary uses of hunting do not detract from this fact.
Personally I do not care what animal you shoot, but you cannot be surprised some people look at you like a dumb redneck for doing so.

Keith Drain says:

09:21am | 04/11/11

Malohi

I didn’t make a case for gun ownership as I had an 800 word limit and I am in talks with the editors to write an article on that. Though evidence says licensed gun owners pose little risk to society.

This article initially encompassed both hunting and firearm ownership and was over 1100 words. I wanted to put it in but I went with the hunting side of things as it was a response to an article published here last week.

Inappropriateness is a subjective thing and I don’t think any one person can make that call.

I wasn’t using this article as a way to bring the firearm ownership debate. I will happily do an article on it.

Waz says:

10:04am | 04/11/11

@ malohi

1. You are clearly a fool. Subjective.

2. He never said that hunting and gun ownership issues are one and the same.

3. So you say you have a right to judge others who participate in a legal, morally upright pasttime providing food for himself and others, and working to protect a species?

4. He never tried to make a case for gun ownership. The article is about hunting.

5. Trophy hunting still provides food for people. However, you would clearly prefer theat the starve.

It is you who are morally bankrupt.

malohi says:

10:16am | 04/11/11

Inappropriateness is a subjective thing. Tory put up her view on it the other day.
I did not say it is inappropriate to trophy hunt. I don’t really care. but to assert that the act itself is made any more appropriate due to incidental benefits is dangerous logic.

For example can I kill the junkie down the street for the challenge? He will not contribute ever to society, he is a leech on society and he adds to climate change? Is it appropriate? I’m sure it would have benefits and I am not debating that, but it would be absurd to expect to be removed from criticism for doing so.
The utlitarian aspects do not exculpate the fact that I took a life for frivolous reasons. Now apply to animals…
I just hate the poor use of non sequiter arguments to hide what could have been said in one paragraph.

“I enjoy killing big animals, i like the thrill and the challenge. I have broken no law, mind your own fu**ing business.”

Instead you used this ridiculous, convoluted reasoning to poorly justify your actions. Seems more the case of cognitive dissonance because you know society condems frivolous killing.

malohi says:

10:34am | 04/11/11

1. A subjective assesment of the author by the author is not balance.

2. I know he did not say it, but why include reference to it at all in the article? It is the ubiquetous strawman used by hunters and pro gunners alike. The author has planted the seed that they go hand in hand, i am pointing out that the issues do not. Oh waht a surprise to find that there is already a pro gun article penned by the same author.

3. I never said that. but at the end of the day you have highlighted the strawman that discredits the article.
The initial critisism leveled by Tory was toward “trophy hunting” It is the act itself, a person firing a gun to kill an animal for the thrill of it which was condemned.
Not killing with intent to eat.
Not killing to protect a species.
Just because the act of killing for fun may incidentally result in food and protection does not exculpate the act of killing for fun or sport, the person still pulled the trigger for the purpose of fun/sport. Therefore arguing the benefits of the incidental outcomes does nothing to detract from Tory’s view the other day; but it has the guise of doing so; a strawman argument in its purest form.

4. see 2

5. See 3, with bonus strawman points for yourself, and a dunce’s cap.

I did not say the author was morally bankrupt. I just think he has not advanced any retort to the critisism levelled at his ilk. I have no problem with hunting for sport. It sounds challenging. I do not find it abhorrent or immorral and I do not think the author a bad person. Just a bad debator.

impossible soul says:

02:47pm | 04/11/11

@maholi.

3. Yet you made two strawman arguments yourself (the second more extreme than the first) and accuse the author of making strawman arguments? Or is calling an argument a strawman argument another strawman argument?

straw-ception.

Andy D says:

03:31pm | 04/11/11

Malohi,

Feel free to kill the junkie down the road, but only if you are going to eat him like any responsible hunter would do.

malohi says:

06:37pm | 04/11/11

@IR
Strawception, what a witty portmanteau, sums up the progression of this thread perfectly.
For that my friend I shall eat crow. Well played sir.

Pete says:

07:47am | 04/11/11

yep agreed Rex, no need to shoot the animals that aren’t feral…but the ones that are, go for it…

Sickemrex says:

08:41am | 04/11/11

I can see the need for culling roos at times too, but I don’t like doing it. I also agree with previous posters that it’s not “unnatural” to enjoy hunting. And it has nothing to do with penis size, I don’t have one! If you can’t abide the thought of hunting, don’t eat meat.

Chris says:

11:01am | 04/11/11

Gobsmack, you got most of your facts wrong. The Bison was originally targeted to take away the Indians food, then for the skins and to reduce competition with cattle. Tigers were shot in large numbers when the Europeans arrived in India, because there were large numbers of tigers, and they were killing workers and stock. Later the English rulers made large Tiger reserves to protect their habitat to ensure the Tigers survived. Once Indians were back in control of their own country they opened up the Tiger reserves to the people to use, and they wiped out the tigers food and then poached the Tigers to earn money. Tigers were in no way endangered until hunting was banned and their habitat destroyed. Look at the numbers, and how Tiger numbers have plummeted for the last 50 years. If hunting was the problem why are their so few Tigers today after more than 50 years of no legal hunting.

It is also not about hunters protecting wildlife and farmers wiping them out. The point is that the land is owned or managed by the local people and they need to earn an income to survive. By using legal paying hunters they can earn the money from wildlife and preserve it, otherwise the wildlife are a liability. Stopping paying hunts has the largest effect on the local population as they need to survive off their land. When decisions are made in cities, or even worse in other countries the effect on local people is severe and this leads to the animals then being exterminated so the people can earn an income in a different way.

gobsmack says:

11:21am | 04/11/11

@Chris
I thought I was taking a fairly neutral stance on the issue of hunting.
eg:
“The modern sophisticated hunters can be allies with the conservationists in lobbying (and paying for) the preservation of wilderness.”
My point there was that if hunters want to keep on hunting (and want their children to hunt) then it’s not in their interest to completely wipe out the animals they hunt.  I contrasted that with an earlier approach (which I called a “free-for-all” and on which you have placed more meaning than I had intended) where no regard was given to the sustainability of hunting particular species.  Perhaps the carrier pigeon would have been a better example.
Returning to your point, I agree with the author that in certain cases regulated hunting can, paradoxically, enhance the survival prospect of certain species.

Scott says:

01:00pm | 04/11/11

@Gobsmack, I take it you are a vegan then? Going by your comment about the “Slaughter of a helpless animal”. as we know farmed animals are also helpless and also get slaughtered for our benefit.

As for the tigers being hunted - most of that was a result of peoples beliefs in the tiger penis giving enhanced sexual prowess, I would Imagine that was the real reason for the tiger being in the predicament its in today not as you claim as some sort of trophy. Don’t get me wrong I’m sure there were plenty killed for that reason too and no doubt for many other reasons including live stock protection, protection of humans, loss of habitat etc don’t forget to ad those into your argument, that way we get a more balanced view on why something is so.

gobsmack says:

02:59pm | 04/11/11

@Scott
Nowhere did I mention “trophy”.  That is a figment of your imagination.
If you read both my posts instead of trying to pick an argument you would see that I’m not against limited and regulated hunting.
The fact is that with the invention of powerful and accurate hunting rifles came the ability to kill large numbers of big animals in a short space of time and in the 19th and early 20th century that is what happened (for whatever reason).  I was trying to make the point that that scale of killing was unsustainable.
No I’m not a vegan, I eat meat.  In my first post, I stated there are a range of “emotional views”.  Personally, I probably wouldn’t shoot an animal (although in previous employment I’ve killed chickens with my bare hands).  That is an emotional viewpoint.  Being a pragamatic person, I have no qualms about tucking into a steak as long as someone else does the killing.  If I was starving I probably would kill a cow, but I wouldn’t be getting a hard-on while I was doing it.
That does that clear things up?

Little Joe says:

08:06am | 04/11/11

I have eaten elephant, springbok, giraffe, hippo, gazelle and zebra in Africa. I have eaten kangaroo, dugong, crocodile and emu in Australia.

Freeman says:

08:06am | 04/11/11

As a hunter of rabbits and foxes, I can’t see the justification of breeding animals to shoot them and I can’t see that you will convince anyone of the need to shoot a giraffe.

Keith Drain says:

08:17am | 04/11/11

Hi Mahhrat, I’ll try and do my best here:

” “Hunters eat what they kill…” - so he ate that Giraffe?  I’ll accept that YOU (and your friends) eat what they kill.  It is certainly not true of someone who goes hunting a Hippo.”

The hunter may or may not have but I can assure you that the meat did not go to waste, the people of the surrounding village almost certainly came and butchered the giraffe for meat. I’ve never tried it but I have heard it tastes very nice so there is a good chance that the hunter ate some of it.

““When it comes to people hunting in Africa, often a journalist will post a picture of a hunter who has shot an African game species and then crucify the person in the photo, labeling them a “redneck” or “psycho” or “f***wit”.

That’s because very often they ARE.  There is a very vast different between hunting meat for your table, and travelling across the world to shoot an “exotic” species.  I don’t go to England to buy my bread.”

No, that is a stereotype. I’ve never hunted overseas, but just because you don’t understand it, it doesn’t automatically qualify people as any of those things.

“...those dollars that the hunters pay to shoot an individual animal go straight back into conservation programs…”

Can you possibly back that up with some facts?  C’mon mate, I want to be on your side, but jesus on a bike that’s a long bow to draw.”

Check out Louis Theroux’s African Hunting Holiday Doco for a non-hunters view, the quote I used was some of his closing comments from that.
Here’s a news article from NatGeo about a study that found trophy hunting helps African people and wildlife:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html

I addressed most of your comment, the other stuff would have taken too long to explain but I ask you to actually sit down and think about it. Sure there are some real wankers out there that hunt, there’s also real wankers out there who are car lovers, horse lovers, animal rights activists etc. Don’t let the actions of a few (the ones you only ever hear about in the news) cloud your view of the majority. The majority of the people who I know hunt are great people.

dodgy says:

08:25am | 04/11/11

The animals that are shot in Africa go to the tribes and families of the trackers employed in the hunt. They are eaten. Yes, even giraffe and hippo.

Mahhrat says:

08:42am | 04/11/11

@Keith, thanks for replying, that’s a good effort.

I have thought about it.  I’ve never shot myself, more out of a lack of desire than anything else, but I would should I need to for purpose of survival etc.

I’m largely carnivorous, but I find the idea that people will eat meat but are squeamish about butchering their own to be absolute hypocrites.

The point I’m (badly, I admit) trying to make is that appealing to people who have already judged you, right or wrong, isn’t going to work.  You need to change the behaviour of those undesirable elements in the hunting community and then model the behaviour you want promoted.

You’re doing the latter admirably, and for that you have much respect, but you need to police your own brass, so to speak. 

Remember too, while we’re discussing Bob Katter and his mates, that Bob’s a politician, a trade widely (and rightly) believed to be full of people that BS for a living.  Maybe he shouldn’t be lumped in with all the Juliars and rAbbots, but he is.  Which is the point: people categorise (even me, may my tongue turn black). 

Rather than asking us to treat your colleagues better, perhaps the ideal is to make your bad colleagues BE better.

Rohan Musch says:

09:06am | 04/11/11

Mahhrat i saw your latest reply and its good to see their are some open minded people on this site. I would suggest you try to get out to your local range and give target shooting a try. who knows you might enjoy it

Vicki PS says:

10:07am | 04/11/11

@Mahrat:  ” I find the idea that people will eat meat but are squeamish about butchering their own to be absolute hypocrites.”  Why?  I freely admit that I’m squeamish.  When I have occasionally come across a badly injured animal in our yard, I’ve had to ask someone else to kill it for me.  I doubt that I could slaughter my own meat.  I don’t see how that makes me any more hypocritical than someone who gets faint at the sight of blood, or nauseated if required to clean up vomit or faeces.  I don’t grow my own vegetables or milk my own cows, either.  Squeamishness doesn’t necessarily imply false delicacy or fastidiousness.

John Smythe says:

10:15am | 04/11/11

Mahrat, I don’t have the link handy, but in defense of Keith’s point, Bob Parson of GoDaddy fame also has a video footage of his experiences in Africa. I can’t remember if he, personally, was hunting, or if he just came by after some hunters downed a bull elephant that (I think) was terrorising local villages. The footage continues to show that the villagers, and this is not just the nearest village villagers, others came from other villages as well, and the whole elephant was used. No waste involved.

(Not directed at you Mahrat) there are a lot of ignorant bleeding heart people in Australia all too willing to force their 2c on someone without either researching or taking responsibility for the subject they will talk down to you on. This topic has shown some of those people already.

Yes, there are some people who are gun crazy and want to just go kill things and leave them. In the same sense, there are some gun crazy people who are more than happy to go on a shooting spree of people as well. Neither are good examples of responsible gun owners/hunters. So this tired argument of finding some bad examples to wash over the entire argument is pretty pointless.

Keith’s article identifies there are sensible and responsible approaches with benefits not just to the person enjoying the hunting, but also to surrounding environment and people as well. This is what should be focussed on.

@BA Wallace/Eric Gibson above….well done mate, and good to see that the “approved” version of eradication (poisoning) is NOT a good and humane, nor environmentally responsible approach!

Mahhrat says:

10:29am | 04/11/11

@Rohan, I probably would.  I’ve only fired four guns in my life:  the air rifle at the carnival, a .22, a 12 gauge that damn near took my shoulder off, and a smallish rifle (don’t know what it was) but used for possum.

I never missed until that last rifle, because I didn’t know how to aim properly with the scope on it. 

Shame: I used to work for the ADO and was sick the weekend they had “civvi” day on the range.  Would’ve got to try my hand at a Steyr and a 5.56. 

It’s more a desire thing: I’d rather shoot up online that off it

Neil Davie says:

08:25am | 05/11/11

A Steyr is 5.56 cal and you didn’t miss much

Fran Smith says:

07:23am | 04/11/11

@ Watcher - I assume you have been a vegan all your life and have never eaten anyhting KILLED by a human.

Nilbog says:

07:29am | 04/11/11

Only animal worth hunting is the most dangerous game of all…

Watcher says:

08:03am | 04/11/11

Yes I have Fran Smith, I have eaten domestic animals slaughtered humanly and purchased from a supermarket or butcher shop..that is another thing entirely from running out with a gun shooting it and skinning it myself!! If I had to do that I would become vegetarian. What makes you think your life is more important and of more value than any other animal?

Keith Drain says:

08:22am | 04/11/11

Such a close minded view from a meat eater.

You think your life is more important then a cow’s, chicken’s or sheep’s. You just chose to detach yourself from the process to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
I don’t think you should eat any meat if you are going to be ignorant of the process required for you to eat it.

Take a shower, the hypocrisy on you wreaks to high heaven!

Erick says:

08:36am | 04/11/11

@Watcher - “What makes you think your life is more important and of more value than any other animal?”

Perhaps you can answer that question yourself, since you are happy for animals to be killed so you can eat them.

After all, you don’t need to eat meat in order to live. You eat meat for pleasure, and therefore those animals are killed for your pleasure.

At least hunters do their own dirty work, and don’t pretend to be morally superior like you do.

Scott says:

08:51am | 04/11/11

What so killing is acceptable and justifiable so long as someone else has done it for you? Mate that’s just pathetic. Your luck that there are “Hard” men and women who have the guts to do what you apparently aren’t capable of doing for yourself! pathetic really. I your lucky you weren’t born in the stone age ol’mate you’d have died very quickly with such a limp wristed attitude to life, you’d best pop of down the road for the manicure and visit all the big brave boys at the latte lounge, then swing by wollies where some “Hard” person has had the guts to do what you apparently could do, pick up a piece of killed meat (apparently thats more human?) strangely enought they get shot in the head with a steel shaft or electricuted and throats cut (which is the part that kills them) not the electricution as such that just renders them brain dead.

May I suggest you watch a great series thats on at the moment on ABC2 call “KILL IT, CUT IT, USE IT” that way you will have a better understanding of what your food actually goes through before you get it in a lovely celophane rapped tray. The only real difference between what hunters do and what you do weekly is we get of our butts and actually go out and get it from the wild, you you let someone else do all the hard, dirty work, whilst looking down on us for doing the same thing for our selves - people like you make me sick, you are so disconnected from reality and whats involved in producing your food for you and your family - you truly are a joke, you should get out there and gather your own food and only then will you truly understand the sacrafice that an animal has made for your benefit. Get connected mate and stop being a sook and taking cheap shots from the sideline, stop being a spectator and start participating.

Keith Drain says:

09:38am | 04/11/11

Great points @Mahhrat, I like that you questioned me because you wanted to know more rather than have conclusion drawn already.

You are right, I am writing to people who have already judged hunters. I think we do try to make others better and I think it all comes down to the fact that a lot of people’s perception of hunting isn’t right to begin with and I feel that’s our problem.

But thank you, I believe your posts have been some of the most thoughtful and fair I have read here today mate. You’re the sort of guy I like to sit down and have a beer with and a good chat about this stuff. Thanks.

Mahhrat says:

01:48pm | 04/11/11

@Keith, next time you’re in Hobart, sure.

I’m on gmail.

Ren says:

06:04pm | 04/11/11

Watcher: One animal was born a prisoner in a factory farm, bred for the sole purpose of being eaten, with no hope of escape, ever. Another animal lived Free all its life until one day BANG, it didn’t exist anymore. Which was most humane?

PW says:

11:26pm | 04/11/11

It’s not the actual killing of animals that is obnoxious, it is the reason for doing so.

A person working in an abattoir or a chicken farm does their job and is contributing to feeding the populace. Nonetheless it takes a certain type of person to perform work like this. Not something I’d like to do. Many animals kill other animals for food, it is precisely as our maker intended, and humans are certainly no exception.

I can even live with farmers shooting roos and other animals that threaten their livelihood, provided that is the true reason they are doing it.

Likewise, if mice or cockroaches are invading my home, I need to kill them not because I enjoy it but because I wish and need to live in a home that is free from such critters.

It is the killing of animals for the pleasure it brings that rankles, whether they be a pest or not. There IS a difference.

gravy says:

12:51am | 05/11/11

Watcher; if you have actually seen what happens in these wonderful ‘humane’ slaughter houses you would reaslise that they are in fact NOT that humane.

Yes it is true most of the time these farm animals die relatively fast and are ‘shocked’ to prevent ‘pain’; but you don’t think of the discomfort and trauma of first being trucked across hundreds of km’s in a hot packed truck, then to the pushed and prodded along the kill line, hearing the screams and the smell the blood and death of your herd mates dying whilst waiting your turn, and eventually having the deed done to you while you shit and piss yourself. Yep very humane, ignorance as they say is pure bliss…

Erick says:

07:55am | 04/11/11

Both involve killing animals for human enjoyment. After all, we can live without eating meat.

How can you say it’s really different?

Al says:

07:56am | 04/11/11

Sorry, there a very few hunters who ‘kill exotic animals for entertainment’, it is just too expensive and many have no desire to hunt these exotic animals (it is usualy the tossers who think it makes them look tough).
I grew up in the bush, went hunting all the time (rabbit, goat, pig etc) and guess what, all these ended up as food.
So I killed off a portion of feral animals (and yes I mean feral as opposed to wild or domesticated) and used them for meat. Instead of killing a docile animal with virtualy no risk to the killer (such as in an aboittoir).
And no, I never used a rifle in my life.
Oh, and have you ever looked at the level of training for abottoir staff (particularly the lower classifications doing the dirty work), you would probably be surprised at how little training there is (a few hours usually).

KimR says:

01:32pm | 04/11/11

Both are providing income and food for people. Abattoirs are scary places for animals and their anxiety levels are heightened before they are killed. A wild animal however has been living a free natural life unaware of the bullet travelling at ~3000 feet per second towards them that kills them in a matter of moments. Not an elongated, drawn out lead up to death from a crowded domestic animal. Indeed, how can you compare the two. If i were an animal I’d like to have a free uninhibited life until the very end, not one of a domesticated food animal.

gravy says:

12:59am | 05/11/11

People who say that its humane and better for an animal to get slaughtered in an ab by wonderfully skilled trained staff really need to do some research and realise that what these cows/pigs/chickens go thru is anything BUT humane.

The amount of fear/stress that is in these places is extreme, watching/smelling/hearing others die whilst being caged and prodded and pushed along the kill line is enough to turn most people sick. Its a very hard pill to swallow once you see for yourself what the animals have to go through. Not to mention the life caged (seen how barn chickens and pigs live? Makes you want to puke) and then being pushed into a hot packed truck to travel to their slaughter…

I’m not a hunter nor am i a vegetarian, but being informed about what these animals go thru and the processes involved will make you truly appreciate and better understand where food comes from and how it affects the lives of other humans/animals.

PS buy organic/free range when you can, it makes a big difference to the quality of life, though i can’t promise it will be a nicer death…

Keith Drain says:

08:29am | 04/11/11

I think I represent most hunters and shooters mate. Yes there is bad in every bunch and I mean in EVERY bunch of people.

There hasn’t been a homicide by a licensed shooter in years so the police checks and licensing systems must be doing something yeah?

The data for licensed shooters being safe and non-violent is extremely well supported by the http://www.aic.gov.au/
You aren’t basing your arguments on evidence you are basing them on opinion and your opinion is wrong. Just look at the facts on firearms homicide then look at how many licensed shooters in the last few years have actually been charged with violent firearms offences.. The number is low to none.

It’s all there on the AIC website. If you choose to ignore the evidence then that is your problem not mine.

Whilst shooting can be dangerous. The vast vast vast majority of shooters are safe and responsible people. Yes accidents happen but not as much as it they do in motorsport, contact sport or other sports and past times.

Scott says:

09:08am | 04/11/11

Maybe we should just poison everything instead, would that may it a more palatable solution to you?

The funny part I find in your statement and some what of an oxymoron is you obviously don’t like seeing things being killed yet I bet you have a can of flyspray or poisons of some sort lurking around the house that you use to KILL but somehow thats ok - you can justify that style/sort of killing for What Reason? You are only too willing to go to Wollies or such and buy meat thats killed on your behalf? no issues there I take it, even though it was Killed? whats the difference on gets killed by a bolt through the head one gets killed with a bullet through the head bugger all difference really both end up dead! or maybe you are happy to see them electricuted such is the case with chickens, lambs, pigs etc, then they get a knife in the neck and arteries severed, I assume you are happy for that to happen so long as you aren’t the one doing it. You gutless lazy bloody so and so, have the guts to at least harvest your own food and really get connected on a more spiratual level than the disconnected way you harvest your own meat now via a fridge at a shopping centre, your a joke sport, you haven’t got the guts to do it yourself. PATHETIC REALLY you carry on about killing animals whilst all the time eating something that was killed for your own personal use - YOUR A BLOODY JOKE MATE. Go straight to the Latte Lounge with your man bag, pathetic little human you are, then you can swing by wollies and pick up your kill all pre wrapped in plastic, all nice and sanatised in your mind no doubt, ignoring all the time that it was once a living breathing beatiful little baby once apon a time just enjoying life before you decided you wanted to eat it. We do the same thing only difference is we get out and havest it ourselves, we are the same sport, just one of us has the guts to do it ourselves, time to come down of your high horse!

feralhunta says:

11:05am | 04/11/11

The problem, one which this piece clearly overlooked, is that of those unethical “fuckwits” who kill for sport only. No intention of eating their kills, just killing for fun (now that is an oxymoron, for the rational at least).
i am a hunter,a killer of defenceless furry things.i love a good rabbit ,roasted,stewed or stir fryed.i also primarily target cats.those things that peaple like most of you find comfort in around your home and seem to enjoy letting go in the wild or dont care enough about to have sterilised.sometimes it is saddening, other times it is funny as hell.sometimes it even takes a bit of tactics and thaught to get a clean kill.cats are very cunning animals.i prefere to get clean head shots with every animal.i dont shoot animals for fun,but i enjoy what i do.i have seen video of american hunting of bear,i wouldnt do it myself but i dont judge those who do.if bob and his mates want to spend rediculas amounts of money to hunt exotic animals,then thats his business,not yours.if you think your in the right,then put your money,time and life where your mouth is.

Scott says:

01:48pm | 04/11/11

I think you will find that most of those exotic animals hunted are indeed used by the villages that live near or within the parks they are hunted, very little ever goes to waste. The only time it does is if a poacher kills an elephant and needs to get the tusks and disapear before the game wardens etc catch upto them. Hippo’s and Giraffe etc are highly prized by villages infact, not my idea of food but each to their own I guess, I’m sure they look at us wondering how we could eat some of the things we do as well. LOL

Kipling says:

02:30pm | 05/11/11

Clearly I need to clarify something, at NO point in my comment did I suggest or even allude to people not killing things ever. It is ludicrous consequently to suggest otherwise.

@ Keith, thanks for your response, my comment was not intended to be a referral about firearms offences (in particular homicide as you highlight). I have no intention of discussing that either as my focuss was meant to be more on ethical treatment and, at times, killing of animals. Further, since it might not have been clear in my comment, I acknowledge that there are hunters who maintain ethical practices when hunting animals. My point was the people who do not follow ethical practices consistently are a problem for those who wish to continue hunting and consequently have firearm ownership. Responsibility is the key part of my comment.
Also mate, I realise it is nice to think you represent most, however, that is an assumption.
Please understand, I am not opposed to people enjoying their recreational activities, however, just like motor sport and/or rugby league, when people are injured or killed the ENTIRE sporting body needs to bare the burden of responsibility and make changes in the hope of minimising or removing future incidents.
Just like “not all hunters are baddies” ideas, not all people opposed to firearm ownership, or more pointedly, concerned about the ethical treatment of other species are imbeciles. 

@Scott. Please mate, try to ensure you are armed with some basic reading and comprehension skills before attempting to join an adult discussion in the future. Your opening was a bit of a hint that you had completely failed to comprehend that which I wrote yet managed to be offended by it none the less. To follow up such an idiotic opening with base assumptions not supported by anything that I wrote and then present an obnoxious and abusive rant based on your own erroneous assumptions merely served to confirm the accuracy of my comments. Please try to refrain from claiming to have guts when you hide behind anonymity to go on a personal attack (it’s called ad hominem) and completely fail to address anything I actually wrote. In short, your comment pretty much equates to an epic fail.

@Feral, mate, you kill it and you eat it. I don’t have a problem with that at any level.
As to Katter’s “mates” feel free not to judge them as is your right, likewise, I will reserve my right to make my judgements about them.
I am curious though by your closing statment, are you suggesting that I stand in the way of the hunter’s bullets? Surely not, that would be RIDICULOUS….As to time and money I actually already do…

MarkS says:

08:06am | 04/11/11

Nobody is forcing you to do it. Just asking that you do not stop them.

Anna C says:

10:14am | 04/11/11

MarkS, people can do whatever the hell they like I have no intention of stopping them.

hot tub political machine says:

08:31am | 04/11/11

“I think ther is merit to the argument that such managed game hunting is sustaining exotic species”

- There may be theoretical merit in the argument, but in practice conservation is a losing battle. Whatever hunters are doing for conservation is falling well short of improving the threat to species.

Keith Drain says:

08:34am | 04/11/11

Wow Bob,

I was going to respond to you and address your arguments one by one but you are talking shit. Sorry but you are. You argments are not reasoned and they don’t bring any evidence to the table whatsoever.
Your response does not justify a reply better than this as you have made up your mind with an unrealistic view on hunters and the world in general.

How the hell is the holocaust related to this in any way shape or form? Bad example.

Peter garret says:

08:41am | 04/11/11

Bob you have never taken the time to research what is happening in Africa with the money hunters bring in have you? I will not even try to change your mind from what you have read in newspapers or by listening to the greens.

I will just ask you to do some research for yourself on what happens in Africa please? You may find that the villages actually do eat giraffe and hippos.

I have to wonder why every animal lib has to bring penis’s and have no trouble saying they would like to kill hunters into their argument??

Cheers,
Peter

Bob says:

09:19am | 04/11/11

@Peter yes I have done all the research I need to do. As for being a green or animal lib person, if that floats your boat sure. As for African tribes eating giraffe, you are right, they do. However they don’t hunt them as a way of life nor as a rule, nor do they, with any animal they hunt, hunt them for “sport”, there is just a slight difference, which I hope you might be able to see.

@Keith as I suspect you missed the point. Your argument for shooting small furry animals is as pathetic as the one for those who argue the holocaust never happened.

A one sided view when taken in isolation has no validity at all, this is your case.

I’m happy that you think that the money you contribute makes some sort of difference. As I say, keep the animal alive and just donate your money. You don’t need to get something in return, but you wont do that will you! There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest it does, not one bit.

If my talking shit boils down to a lack of evidence, then I fail to see where your talking shit provides any evidence at all.

Could you please provide the figures to back up how the “game hunting”, “sport hunting”, and “trophy hunting” or whatever you want to call it in Africa or anywhere for that matter has saved any endangered animals, created a more sustained habitat, and provided better ‘welfare’ for animals. It may have contributed to some jobs - pay the locals to drive the 4WD and cater to your needs, yet this wasn’t the crux of your piece.

You claim, that the animals survival fosters, I don’t see anything to say it does, nothing at all. You can argue that the culling of some animals in some situations can help a population from starving itself due to over population, or helping to prevent the outbreak of disease etc., however I fail to see where the lions, hippo’s, giraffe, elephants ... the list goes on ... would benefit from this “sport” of yours.

If you talk shit, then you will be expected to back your shit up. I don’t see the evidence. So back it up, enlighten us all. Maybe you and Peter could get all the figures together and do another piece for Monday morning detailing the full economic advantage, the full social advantage, the full environmental advantage and the full animal benefit advantage. Then all us left-wing, tree hugging, Green loving people will shut-up, if that’s what you want to call anyone who thinks ‘your shit don’t hold water’.

As for unrealistic, there is nothing of the kind. You are advocating that those who eat meat have the so called “blood on their hands” syndrome and therefore are complicit in all the bullshit hunter speak of, my penis is small so I need to shoot small furry animals to show how big and tough I am. You want to show how tough you are? Then put your gun down, take out a sharpened stick and go and hunt, otherwise, fuck-off with your sycophantic bullshit about it being for the welfare of animals.

So, if this is not the case, then show, prove, provide the evidence that this hunting in Africa has saved one animal? In fact the shooting, and I presume killing of the animal is ... get where I’m going with this? ... is a dead animal, not a saved one. You can talk all the shit you like about it being breed for shooting, ohhh what a challenge that must be, yet it doesn’t negate the fact that the animal is dead, Get it? D E A D! Not a saved one.

If your views are so unpalatable to the rest of society, as you obviously think they are as you can’t just ask The Punch to publish a 100 word piece from you saying: “I hunt because I can. I hunt because I like to. I hunt because I like to kill things with no challenge nor reason.” Instead you dress it up as animal welfare.

As I say, with welfare like this I don’t think the animals appreciate your help.

Bill says:

11:39am | 04/11/11

@ How the hell is the holocaust related to this in any way shape or form?

Godwin’s law

Food Technologist says:

09:36pm | 05/11/11

Bob as Keith said you have obviously formed an opinion that is set in concrete and is impossible to change - but you are dead wrong.
“Here’s another idea, why not just donate the money to the wild life park? Do you really need to kill the animal to put its head on your wall? It’s a small man’s penis syndrome.”
So you would just let all of the animals live without management? You really need to do some actual research. Right now in South Africa there are 20,000 Elephant and numbers are maintained at that level by daily culling to promote ongoing biodiversity. If numbers were allowed to increase unchecked (as in Botswana at the moment) the Elephant would eat all of the food within daily walking distance of water sources and ALL of the other animals would die a slow lingering death from starvation (as they have in Botswana). With 20,000 Elephant there are about 3500 new Elephants each year and in order to maintain the status quo hunters (controlled by the Wildlife Service - in a similar fashion to the NSW Game Council) kill Elephant at the average rate of 10/day so that all of the other species continue to exist. This is unpalatable to you and your ilk I know, but people continue to grow in numbers around the world and encroach further on the natural environment of these “exotic species”. You do realise that the Africans view Elephant the same way that we view Kangaroos? They’re not “exotic” in Africa.
Daily, committed hunters contribute to the conservation of many species by conferring value on them (trophy fees) so that the locals don’t kill them out of hand because they “are threatening their livelihood”. And they enjoy doing it.
Also I think you need to look up the meaning of cognitive dissonance - your uneducated use of big words makes you look like a goose.

Simon says:

07:51am | 04/11/11

ask the locals

Toki Wartooth says:

08:04am | 04/11/11

@Simons

Asked the local lions, they said it was too tough and they didn’t like the neck bones.

Keith Drain says:

08:35am | 04/11/11

Who eats a giraffe?
Pretty sure Africans do mate.

Simon says:

08:47am | 04/11/11

put down the bong toki

Wynston Cruso says:

03:39pm | 04/11/11

What do the gators think of you eating their nuggets? Or do you find uses for the rest of the gator as well?

Neil Davie says:

11:42am | 05/11/11

Giraffe is delicious. Lean, delicate, fat free. You should see the size of the Rib Eye (Eye Fillet ), makes fantastic Biltong. Best meat I ever tasted was Impala with spit roasted wild Guinea Fowl a close second. The locals were fighting over the meat from the Giraffe, it is eaten in every African state they are found in. But try getting an East African to eat a Crayfish. Good Luck.

Keith Drain says:

10:17am | 04/11/11

That’s not hunting mate, that is pest control, pure and simple.

Also I really don’t think comments like these add to the debate or have any value.

Kipling says:

06:28am | 07/11/11

In point of FACT Keith, that piece uses the very term HUNTING… How curious.

I suspect you see this as “unhelpful’ because it shoots great big holes (pun intended) in your contention that “most” hunters are good guys that help the animal population.

Of course that said, I am unsure of which Sydney burbs have pig problems…

Kelly says:

08:14am | 04/11/11

@chris deal - brilliant!

hot tub political machine says:

08:27am | 04/11/11

If hunters are really the ones funding conservation – they clearly aren’t paying enough. Clearly many species are still at risk or in danger and it doesn’t seem to be getting any better. Time to stump up more hunters…..a lot more.

Joe Smith says:

08:31am | 04/11/11

go back and hug a tree you dread headded hippy idiot and actually go and reead and research the topic in between getting stoned.

hot tub political machine says:

09:02am | 04/11/11

Ah Joe, wind up merchant or genuinely believing ad homs make an persuasive argument?

Brad says:

08:31am | 04/11/11

Photo tours have a more negative impact on the environment than hunting, but lets not let facts get in the way…

http://bit.ly/sGncIh

Mr A Dad says:

08:57am | 04/11/11

Not if they are run properly @Brad and they certainly have less impact on the animals as they stay alive. But lets not let that fact get in the way.

Let me dot point it for you:-

1.  you shoot an animal with a camera the animal lives;
2. you shoot it with a firearm it dies.

Brad says:

10:36am | 04/11/11

@Mr A Dad,

If you actually watched the video I linked, you would see a panel of experts discussion conservation, one of the topics was the impact on the environment to support photo safaris vs hunting, it starts around the 10 or 11 minute mark.

I’d dot point it for you, but the effects of Industrialization is a big subject with far more grey areas than “It dies” vs “It doesn’t die”. I guess you’d have to look at the whole picture to understand that not everything is black and white like you believe.

Keith Drain says:

08:40am | 04/11/11

iansand,

Mate you only ever hear of the bad ones. There are some bad ones but they get all the press.

I’ve met a lot of shooters, some yobbos but the overwhelming majority of hunters and shooters a really nice people who are responsible. This stereotype of us being rednecks and yobbos is just that a stereotype it is not a true representation of who hunters and shooters are.
The media is really good at reporting on the negatives and making stereotypes out of nearly any group of people (unless those people suit the media’s agenda.).

iansand says:

08:57am | 04/11/11

No doubt that is true Keith.  But the yobbos are there and they are how shooters are perceived.  You can’t just say “Ignore them”, because they are the people who non-shooters perceive as representing shooters If you want your recreation to be respected you have to find a way to de-yobboise it.  That is your problem, not mine.

Rohan Musch says:

09:16am | 04/11/11

Inasand, actually no it is your problem. I don’t go around thinking all labor/greens voters have no brain or economic sense and shoudl therefore not be allowed to vote. I have a number of good mates who are in fact very good at economics (its their area of work i would hope they are good) I judge these people based on them not on the groups they associate with. If we all started doing the same it would be a better world

iansand says:

09:48am | 04/11/11

Rohan Musch - OK. I will devote the rest of my life to improving the image of shooters.  Halleluia.  Calloo, callay.

On second thoughts, I couldn’t be bothered.  If the shooters won’t make the effort to improve their image why should I?

Yosemite Sam says:

09:51am | 04/11/11

iansand - you say hunters need to de yobbo-ise our sport,  we are working on it ! We don’t get a fair go in the media which has been busy trying to stereotype us as mass murderers just waiting to go off on a killing spree. It’s utter bullshit. Our own government statistics prove that.

You state “The problem with hunters is that too many of them are drunken yobboes blasting away at anything that moves, shooting valuable livestock and endangered species”
No doubt it happens - but what percentage are you talking about ? 1%, 50% or 90% carry on in the way you describe ?. They are the stories that the media love because they help sell papers and ad time. The real story is of no interest to the media so you, the general non hunting population don’t know any better.  You have no idea how many yobbos vs ethical hunters there are. If you had an accurate overview of the reality of hunting and hunters I think your opinion would be a little different. Don’t form your opinion on what you are fed by the media !

hot tub political machine says:

09:52am | 04/11/11

Iansand hits the nail on the head there. The noisy wacky people get the press and the attention. It may well be unfair but its how it is. So what can hunters do to improve their image? I’d suggest some of their funding moves in the world of politics have been unhelpful .

Perhaps arguing for stricker regulation of all to control the yobs in the ranks?

An interesting comparison is with paintballers. Paintballers used to get a very bad rep for being rednecks too. One of the things the industry did to improve its reputation was change the language. “Paint ball” instead of war games or skirmishing. Its now always a “Marker” and never a gun.

Perhaps some cosmetic changes like that would help. For example, advise hunters in your magazine that it is bad for them as a group if people go around posing next to animals and glorifiying themselves over the corpse

Dennis Maude says:

10:12am | 04/11/11

iansand, you do know that the drunk roo shooter scene in Crocodile Dundee was fiction don’t you mate?

When and where do ‘most Australians’ come across these ‘drunken yobboes’?

iansand says:

10:39am | 04/11/11

Guys - Denial is a bad first step.  The image is out there.  It may be wrong.  It may be right.  But if you want respect it is up to you to change the message.

As htpm says, some of your representatives are not helping.  The Shooters Party in the NSW parliament are taking positions on hunting and fishing that many people think “WTF - these guys are cowboys throwing their weight around”.  I am one of them.  Most people don’t want people with high powered weapons in their national parks, for example.

ronny jonny says:

12:47pm | 04/11/11

iansand,
We have been hunting in our National Parks in Victoria for years and it hasn’t caused too much drama at all. I regularly hunt the parks and rarely see anyone except for very rarely, another hunter. Apart from the main camp sites near big rivers and the hiking trails the parks are basically empty, feral infested and neglected. The government seems completely unable to manage these vast places so if it wasn’t for hunters keeping a bit of pressure on the ferals the parks would be completley rooted. We also do fair bit for track maintanence and search and rescue. I have pulled many a day tripper from bogs who would otherwise have been spending a cold lonely night in the bush. I see only positives from having hunters in our National parks. I should qualify that by saying I mean hunters and not drunk idiots from town blasting off shotguns half the night. Real hunters who love the lifestyle do not make pricks of themselves, there is too much to lose if you get caught and we are very aware of public perception. I know many, many people who hunt in the high country here in Vic and none of them will tolerate fools misbehaving with guns.

Keith Drain says:

08:37am | 04/11/11

Wow DH, I assume with a comment like that the DH is initials for Dick Head?

Rohan Musch says:

08:56am | 04/11/11

I always see these comments come out of people who don’t agree with hunting/firearms. Thank god these people probley couldn’t get a firearms licence, gotta show that you are a fit and proper person after all and comments like these leave you well out of that area.

Shane says:

04:18pm | 04/11/11

Dear Punch editors,
Is Keith Drain the best shooter you could come up with? His stupid responses to those that disagree with him (including calling one a dickhead and telling another they were talking shit) really isn’t helping his “no, we’re not all ignorant fu*kwits” argument.
If you can find one, perhaps you can engage another, less foolish shooter to mount an argument.
Cheers.

Andy D says:

05:33pm | 04/11/11

Seriously Shane, DH advocates the murder of all hunters and you get bent out of shape because Keith Drain calls him a dickhead?!

Chris says:

06:52pm | 04/11/11

DH labelled himself as Dick Head, what do you think DH stands for.
I also agree that someone who says “easier if we started shooting people”, is a dick head.

Keith Drain says:

10:03am | 04/11/11

Thank you Sarah,
Its comments like yours that make me glad I wrote this.

Thanks again.

Freeman says:

09:14am | 04/11/11

Perfect summary

Keith Drain says:

10:06am | 04/11/11

Brizben,

You are missing the point. Hunting in Africa (it will only work in Australia for crocodiles) gives animals that previously had no value to the locals a value so there isn’t wholesale killing of the animals to near extinction.

Kill a few to save the species.  I know its counter-intuitive but it does work!

Brizben says:

10:52am | 04/11/11

I get your argument.

I think the clear example of hunters replenishing stock would be Barra fishing in Qld impoundments. You go to the Lake, catch a Barra and money from your fees go toward breeding thousands of fingerlings.

But a Giraffe? They take a lot longer to breed. I think the African wild life argument is harder to make.

Keith Drain says:

12:37pm | 04/11/11

Its far easier to make mate. Just do a bit of reading:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html

Brizben says:

04:21pm | 04/11/11

So when are you making a start on the local feral cat and dog problem Mr Drain?

Food Technologist says:

09:47pm | 05/11/11

Brizben I can’t speak for Keith, but if he is like the other dedicated hunters I know he contributes to the control of all ferals at every opportunity. I’ve personally killed many hundreds of feral cats and dogs (amongst other species) in 45 years of all too infrequent hunting. How have you contributed?

Trapper says:

09:44am | 04/11/11

Apparently giraffe tastes alot like beef, as a former chef i am really interested by this. The article is the one I know as well and they sat beside the watering hole becuase to stalk an animal with a bow is very hard and infact dangerous in that circumstance (if they wanted a lion for instance) this way is reducing that risk, there is still insurence in africa after all hehe

Keith Drain says:

09:57am | 04/11/11

Dan,

I wish you were right but I don’t think you are.

Tourists only go to certain parts of Africa, the national parks hunters don’t hunt national parks. So with habitat destruction everywhere around the national parks you will only have animals in the parks and not throughout the continent.

Tourists don’t make the wildlife valuable like hunters do.
Hunters give wildlife a value where there wasn’t any before. Hunters are the reason why there are breeding programs of these animals and why habitat isn’t detroyed to ensure the wildlife flourishes.
Whole ecosystems thrive for the small sacrifice for a relative few animals per year.

It may not be perfect but it seems to be a solution where both the wildlife and the people thrive and survive.

I won’t ever hunt in Africa I have no desire to but I can see the conservation benefits of it.

Keith Drain says:

09:51am | 04/11/11

What a load of bull.

No we can’t outrun or outswim them but we outwit them with our intelligence.

Serial Killers? Really. Absolutely pathetic and wrong comments OverTheHill.

Keith Drain says:

09:51am | 04/11/11

What a load of bull.

No we can’t outrun or outswim them but we outwit them with our intelligence.

Serial Killers? Really. Absolutely pathetic and wrong comments OverTheHill.

Rohan Musch says:

09:24am | 04/11/11

and until you grow up and accept there are other views outside of your own out there SK and over the hill I think we should just remove your voting privledges.

Rohan Musch says:

09:24am | 04/11/11

and until you grow up and accept there are other views outside of your own out there SK and over the hill I think we should just remove your voting privledges.

SK's Lover says:

09:25am | 04/11/11

A very intelligent and well-reasoned response…

I assume you encountered severe complications at birth and were involved in numerous accidents throughout your adolescent years.

Bless you and may God have mercy on your soul.

Daniel says:

09:38am | 04/11/11

What a charming individual! Did your mother drop you on your head as a child SK? It’s the attitudes and comments like yours that make it easier to continue as a hunter and shooter.

Why would we bother to justify ourselves to such a rabid attack?

Keith Drain says:

09:46am | 04/11/11

I’m glad I got up your nose.

Have a good weekend.

Al says:

10:17am | 04/11/11

So how about bows, and spears and traps.
All of these can be used in hunting WITHOUT a gun.
And the majority aren’t even required to be registered OR licenced, unlike guns.

Eric The Red says:

11:03am | 04/11/11

What a nasty piece of work you are, Gee I hope I never get as bitter and twisted as you SK.

SK says:

11:56am | 04/11/11

To all you who answered my input, Thank-you!!, you showed just exactly what MORONS you are, comments made just show what MORONS are out there calling themselves hunters. I would hate to put firearms in your hands because with the mentality shown by your comments GOD knows who you would be pointing your weapons at and just what sort of ACTIONS some of you would take because someone objected to your moronic attitudes. We are supposed to be a civilised society but with the likes of those who are writing here I shudder to think of what is to come. I imagine that if all you hunters were to just join a gun club or archery club you would get just as much, if not more satisfaction shooting at cardboard targets. You all make it very clear from your comments that you are not much better than white supresamist.

GregM says:

12:05pm | 05/11/11

WTF is a supresamist??

Only the Govt. should have guns - now That is a scary idea!!

Keith Drain says:

09:47am | 04/11/11

Great comment Justine!
I agree wholeheartedly

Neil Davie says:

12:11pm | 05/11/11

Brilliant comment Justine. There are still many parts of Australia, where hunting and fishing puts more than half of the food on people’s tables. During the depression, shot and trapped Rabbits fed a large number of Aussies. You were spot on with the ignorant city dwellers who know absolutely zero about real hunting ethos and respect for the animal you have killed. As for Australian traditions. 50 years from now, there won’t be any Australian traditions.

Keith Drain says:

10:13am | 04/11/11

No, the guides usually have to purchase tags off of the government.
That said even if you are right, the land is still being preserved and the animals are still being bred.

reddragon says:

11:00am | 04/11/11

@ Daniel, From my limited research - if the game park is outside of Africa the answer is yes. Within Africa it is generally (but not exclusively) so.

As others have noted, money flows to locals who act as guides and trackers and the meat goes to these folk as well. Somewhere there will be an ‘entreprenuer’ taking a slice whether as a land owner or just as a facilitator. Either way, as also pointed out eslewhere on this blog, the locals have more interest in keeping out poachers and protecting the animals.

Have a cruise through the comments above. Some of the posters have provided quite detailed answers toyour questions.

Chris says:

11:38am | 04/11/11

There is both kinds. In many areas the government controls and sells a certain number of permits. Private Game reserves get most or all of the return on their land, but they need to to get an income. You seem to be implying that the owners of game farms kill as many as they can and are not concerned about sustainability. Game farmers have usually sold all their cattle and bought in wild species and need to manage these so their numbers either increase or remain stable to give a annual income. They manage their own animal populations and decide on the number they should remove, to either increase or decrease the population. Their livestock, which are wildlife instead of cattle are managed to ensure numbers are sustainable. If they did not get a return they would run cattle and eradicate the native animals.

Eric The Red says:

10:56am | 04/11/11

I agree 110% Shenanigans, I grew up in the bush and have done the same thing myself. Those who throw shit at people for protecting their livelihoods have never had to see lambs with half of their guts torn out (and still alive ) by foxes or domestic dogs gone ferral. I’d shoot the bastards for free and maybe even enjoy doing doing it. Now watch the never beens blow up over my comment.

Al says:

11:33am | 04/11/11

Eric the red:

The realy funny thing I saw growing up was the farmers with collections of dog collars.
They had harvested them from domestic dogs that were on his property attacking his stock.
He made a game of matching “Lost - poor beloved gentle Bluey” notices with the dog tags.
I actualy think he had the right to destroy them, but I am sure others will read it and state ‘he killed peoples pets! How horrid’ (despite the fact the ‘pets’ were the first to attack his stock).

Neil Davie says:

01:15pm | 05/11/11

You are a tad off the pace Shenanigans on you HP rifle statement. e.g. a standard .22 LR fires a rimfire round at a muzzle velocity approx 1300 FPS, depending on the manufacturer and configuration. What is normally referred to as a High Powered weapon, is much more robust in construction, especially at the breach to contain the enormous gas pressure. They are usually chambered with centre fire cartridges and upscale the MV considerably. e.g. a 7.62 SLR (.308 Winchester ) has a muzzle velocity of 2800 FPS. 5.56 Steyr 3000 FPS. Well and truly more than double the .22. The striking power of 7.62 round on target from an SLR is awesome. Everything else you say, I agree with 100%.

prosperity says:

11:12am | 04/11/11

If you can’t take your own appendix out, you don’t deserve an operation.

Al says:

11:56am | 04/11/11

prosperity:
That is a realy pathetic response.

What I think Brendan was trying to get at is this: If you can’t accept the responsibility for causing the death of an animal so you can eat meat then you shouldn’t be doing it.
It is a bit like using an electric vehicle in Australia and claiming it is for the enviroment when you get the electricity from a coal fired power station. Out of sight out of mind, removing the responsibility for the process neccasary to provide you with the product you are using.

Brendan says:

12:18pm | 04/11/11

@Prosperity, you’re an idiot. Stop posting.

Keith Drain says:

10:55am | 04/11/11

Well actually,
Predators do tend to be more intelligent than vegetarian animals.

gus says:

12:37pm | 04/11/11

for example crocodiles

Keith Drain says:

11:17am | 04/11/11

Justine,

If you want to write for my site http://www.huntandshoot.com.au please contact me through the contact page there. I would love to have you write some stuff for us!

malohi says:

12:46pm | 04/11/11

There is a difference between those who kill for enjoyment and those who do it for other reasons. It is the mental element of an act, the mens rea.
It is not a strawman. It is in fact the difference between mandatory life imprisonment for murder and possiblyno punishment at all for manslaughter both arising from the same set of physical acts.

The question is; Is it morally right to kill something solely for recreation?
The incidental outcomes of such killing, and the other situations in which killing can be beneficial are irrelevant to this issue.

Your comment it seems, is the one riddled with strawman arguments.

St. Michael says:

01:45pm | 04/11/11

“There is no reason to surmise that the thousands of ethical and responsible hunters the world over are sadistic deadbeats because they revel in the environment, the challenge and finally the taking of the target species.”

The killing, Justine.  Call it what it is.  It’s not “taking” the target species.  It’s ending its life.  Distancing yourself from the reality of what it is does not assist your argument anymore than pro-abortionists trying to say “The Silent Scream” does not describe what happens in the termination of a pregnancy.

Keith Drain says:

11:19am | 04/11/11

Dan,

Please provide evidence for this comment:
“Hunters tend to have high opinion of themselves and think everyone else is soft. Some hunters are professional but MOST are drunks with guns blasting into the night at anything with glowing eyes.”

If you can’t prove it then surely you are making it up. You make it sound like a fact, but you are wrong and you cannot back it up with any data to show you are right can you?

Justine says:

11:34am | 04/11/11

Many migrants come from a fine hunting tradition and would like to maintain those interests in Australia.  Hunting, game on the table and large family celebrations are inextricably linked and serve only positive outcomes.

Your negative stereotyping of the licensed firearms owners in this country are foolish in the extreme, betraying a complete lack of understanding of the character and other checks that are required and regulations that severely punish any association of alcohol and firearms. 

If similar restrictions were applied to the road, many who make a practice of sledging hunters would be able to get and keep their car licence..  Maybe sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander as well.

However what was really objectionable in your post was your crude and wrong, typecasting of lawful hunters as ‘thrill killers’.  In fact many who hunt are migrants and are enjoying their cultural traditions.  Aside from that, all would have to have passed strict licensing laws.  But could some of the critics pass the same character and legal fitness hurdles one wonders

Dan says:

01:21pm | 04/11/11

@ Justine - they can leave their traditions in their home country and learn/respect the traditions of the new country they choose to live in.
I said nothing of licensed gun owners/collectors (they all don’t hunt you know). I’m talking about hunters.

@ Keith - ” If you can’t prove it then surely you are making it up”

I grew up in the bush Keith. I didn’t take any pictures or keep notes but I know what went on. Hunters are not saints (you may be but the ones I knew were not). I knew some real hillbillys mate and I saw with my own eyes. I’ve seen Emus blasted because it was fun when there were no roo’s around, Joeys bashed onto bullbars, small feral pigs wrestled and knifed. I used to get called a wuss for not being part of the “thrill”.
I admit this was back in the eighties and nineties so maybe things have changed (dramatically), but I doubt it.

Do whatever you like just don’t expect everyone to admire your views.
(why don’t you join the army?)

H says:

03:27pm | 04/11/11

Spot on DHV, Fishing, recreational, sport or commercial, When a fish or an entire net full is taken from the water, the fish are LEFT TO SUFFOCATE! slowly dying whilst being held up in front of a camera or kicked about the boats deck into the hold below. how is this morally superior to a hunter shooting an animal with an instant kill?

Should hunters chase down the chosen animal and suffocate it with a plastic bag to be more human like fishermen?

John Smythe says:

11:41am | 04/11/11

Completely agree with Sarahh. Especially on the interaction part as well.

Keith Drain says:

12:25pm | 04/11/11

Thanks Sarahh!

Keith Drain says:

12:26pm | 04/11/11

Clay pigeons have feelings too!

Ben M says:

12:38pm | 04/11/11

Steven,
Would such an action prevent crop predation , animal overpopulation or provide a hunter with a meal of wild meat ?
At some point herds and the places they live need management . Surely a hunter , paying his licence fees etc [ revenue that is returned to wildlife management ] would be better suited to such a task , taking his game in both manner and number that has been suggested by the animal biologists who look after such matters ... Looking worldwide to the places where wild animals flourish there is a common theme ... the animnals are protected in there environs because they are worth more than if they and there environs were otherwise ... Namibia has thriving , free range game herds , the USA has returned there elk herd numbers to pre Columbus days ..... and the wonderful country and habitat of these beautiful animals and places is protected because of such .

Keith Drain says:

12:43pm | 04/11/11

du,

I don’t hunt in Africa, if you read the article you would know that.

Please if you are going to comment at least have the decency to read the article first.

Keith Drain says:

12:44pm | 04/11/11

If we are facing facts, you would realise there is no hell!

Keith Drain says:

12:44pm | 04/11/11

If we are facing facts, you would realise there is no hell!

Keith Drain says:

12:45pm | 04/11/11

Properity,
I don’t think you should have to kill your own meat in order to eat it but I think you should not judge those who hunt.

BenM says:

12:48pm | 04/11/11

I trust that you ensure that all your food is completely free range and that all animals are allowed to eat and share the crop with you ?

Probably not ... Roos get shot off wheat paddocks , and ducks off rice paddocks ... by the tens of thousands .....

You eat rice and/or soy ? Your product is responsible for the devastation to thousand upon thousands of cares of native habitat destruction ? irreversible , never to be seen fragile ecosystems totally devastated ......... and so many animals starving , thirsting and dying because of it .....

As such I’d sugeest that whilst you may feel morally superior , you are still involved in the killing of animals ... just because you do not enjoy it , nor partake in it yourself does not leave you any less responsible for death of wild animals any more than me , albeit I delberately kill my my own meat

Richard says:

01:19pm | 04/11/11

BenM, your point is irrelevant - all of us by our mere existence are likely to have caused indirect harm or death to animals.  I do what I can to minimise this, and I certainly do not do it for the “pleasure” of it.  That’s my point.  If you are lucky as you grow up you will realise that there are very few absolutes in this world.  There is a spectrum of potential harm caused to other living beings and my feelings of superiority come from being at the opposite end to you.  A feeling which I continue to enjoy, along with the reassurance that the quality of your response would indicate we are at opposite ends of other spectrums like genetic hygiene, spelling capabilities and no doubt countless others.

Scott says:

01:29pm | 04/11/11

@ Richard, you may well not have killed an animal directly but you sure as hell have benefited from their death just as much as everyone else, as for whether you are morally superior, well I guess it is lunchtime!

Trust me ol’mate plenty of animals have died so you and others could have the things you use everyday without actually realising you are indeed using an animal for your own gratification.

COWS ARE USED IN THE MANUACTURE OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
HOOVES = The foam used at Airports to put out plane fires
HORNES = High End fashion - those lovely buttons
COW GUT = The strings in Tennis Rackets
COW BONE = Fine Bone China Approx 50% is cow bone!
COW SKIN = Car seats, Shoes, Belts, Handbags, Coats and all associated leather goods

PIGS ARE USED IN APPROX 180 DIFFERENT EVERDAY ITEMS INCLUDING:
Soap, Toothpaste, Shampoo/Conditioner, Body Lotion, Anti Wrinkle Cream, Bread (the hair protein is used in the flour enhancer), Butter (Gelatin) Concrete, Train Brakes, Cheesecake, Tiramasu, Fine Bone China, Paint, Sandpaper, Paint Brushes, Meat Glue, Beer,
Wine, Fruit Juices ( They are all filtered through the Pig Gelatin) Cigarettes just to name a few.

So as you can see you too are benefiting from those who are man enough to do what apparently you are lacking in ability to do, aren’t you very lucky that there are indeed some real men and women who can deal with it in a more intelligent and less emotional way!

HAVE A LOOK AT THE LINK BELOW FOR MORE DETAILS
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/christien_meindertsma_on_pig_05049.html

iansand says:

01:30pm | 04/11/11

Richard - There is a fairly pronounced divide in people interested in conservation of African wildlife.  In very broad terms, those conservationists on the ground in Africa are in favour of schemes such as the one outlined.  People who are not in Africa, again as a broad generalisation, are not.

Make of that what you will.

Ben M says:

01:44pm | 04/11/11

Richard , spelling inacccuracies aside [ point well taken ] I wonder as to you genetic hygiene comment ? Despite its obvious personal and insulting nature I remain curious as to its meaning ...  , what are suggesting ?
I often wonder during animal rescue operations , roadside animal identification etc , why it is that there are so few others about engaging in these difficult and often very “unhygenic ” practices with me ... when obviously the welfare of animals and their environs is apparently so high on peoples priority ...

Or is this just not part of their “spectrum of potential harm ” ..

Richard says:

02:19pm | 04/11/11

Scott, see my comment below.  Nothing you point out, all of which I would estimate are quite correct changes my point.  It’s about a spectrum of treatment of animals.  If judging that people are “real” by their heightened willingness to kill animals is part of your value set, I am glad that I I am not, in fact, your mate. 

Ian, I know this is the case but like John below I think it is a shame that this is the best option.  I actively donate and raise funds for charity which do not rely on others people wanting to kill defenceless animals for pleasure to achieve conservationist objectives.

Ben, see my comments above.  I am impressed by all people who work to assist animals and given my opportunities I do what I can to do likewise, so if this is something you do, then kudos to you (lthough curious you did not mention this before).  My point is that I don’t actively try and kill animals, I minimise the extent to which I contribute to their death to the extent reasonably possible and I certainly don’t take pleasure in killing animals.  The genetic hygiene comment was probably unfair, so I apologise.

iansand says:

03:42pm | 04/11/11

Of course it is sad.  In an ideal world we double the amount of land (at least) and have happy, prosperous people gallivanting among safe, contented wildlife, strewing rose petals in their paths.

But that ain’t the case.  It is Africa.  A place that for whatever reason (kleptocracies come to mind) is almost irretrievably mired in poverty and disadvantage.  If I was in charge of an African country the preservation of wildlife would be pretty low on my scale of priorities, well below providing the most basic services for my people.

What these hunters do is provide both cash for the country and a strong economic incentive to preserve the cow elephant that brings the cash in.

In my ideal world the hunters would see the error of their ways and pour countless thousands into conservation without whatever strange jolly they get from killing something.  But that ain’t going to happen either. 

So we are stuck with an unfortunate but pragmatic solution.  Accept the death of a few critters for the greater good of the species.

Ben M says:

01:15pm | 04/11/11

Exactly Ronny Jonny ! Well said .

Keith Drain says:

01:37pm | 04/11/11

I don’t have children nor did I mention them, nor did I claim it was un-emotive.

You are proposing a world where no-one eats meat, it is clear you are anti-hunting. Your dogfight example is weak IMO and I do believe that Hunters do like to ensure a quick clean kill.
Finally your claim of “thousands of ducks are left wounded” is unsubstantiated and the actions of the anti-duck hunters are dubious at best.

Hope bob wins says:

02:13pm | 04/11/11

Geoff, i think he may have done that to show that he is just like everyone else out there. I know its one of the things I have strugled with, getting across to people that I work, I have a missus and am a uni student no differnet to joe blkow down the street in anything except that while his hobby is stamp collecting mine is hunting feral animals and enjoying time in the bush. (and yes I have a stamp collector down the street)

The Walrus says:

03:29pm | 04/11/11

Geoff, shouldn’t you disclose your longstanding affiliation with the animal rights/anti-hunting lobby?  You’re not exactly an objective or impartial commentator…..

stevem says:

04:15pm | 04/11/11

Geoff you state: “While some hunters profess to wanting to kill animals quickly, that’s a modern and fairly unusual attitude historically”

Rubbish. Hunters have always tried to do that. It has always been the primary goal. Having to deal with an enraged, wounded animal or tracking a wounded animal for hours has never been a good thing. Thinking about an animal suffering may be a modern idea, but a quick kill has always been important.

Geoff Russell says:

08:47pm | 04/11/11

My mistake about the children, I misinterpreted “family”. Your mistake about the “un-emotive” you made the claim in a previous comment. 

The claim about “thousands of ducks left wounded” is substantiated by EVERY study of duck shooting ever published. For example, Humburg et al “Shotshell and shooter effectiveness: Lead vs steel shot for duck hunting.” observed 1,270 shooters fire 10,587 shots in 4,219 attempts to bag a duck.  They saw 502 ducks drop from the sky but escape.  Over the course of a season, at this rate, there would be tens of thousands of crippled ducks in Australia.  An even bigger study of over 2,000 hunters in 3 geographic regions of Canada saw even higher rates cripple rates. Need I go on? Researchers in Australia went and caught ducks and x-rayed them for embedded pellets. They found 9.2% of the entire sample had pellets embedded in their body. ALL these ducks had been wounded by shooters and most would be over and above the cripples (downed by escaped) mentioned earlier.

Winchester tied thousands of ducks up and shot them with perfectly aimed shotguns during the 70s. Even with perfect aim at optimal distance, shotguns DO NOT kill reliably.

You haven’t explained why the dog fight example doesn’t exactly parallel what duck shooters argue. Please explain the difference. Just saying something is weak doesn’t cut it.  I have provided evidence for my claim. Please do likewise.

Why did you say that my claim was unsubstantiated? Who told you that? Did you check? Have you read any of the research? Even a single paper or do you get all your information from talking to other shooters?

I am tired of shooters claiming that wounding and cripple rates are unsubstantiated. I would like an apology please Mr Drain, you are wrong and if you know anything at all about duck shooting you would have known you were wrong when you made the claim.

Keith Drain says:

02:18pm | 06/11/11

Geoff,

You have provided numbers not evidence. Evidence is a peer reviewed paper or a review of several studies. You don’t even provide links.
By you saying “A study” means squat you have an agenda. So I am not prepared to say you are right or wrong.
I have an agenda to but at least I ask the reader to do their own research on hunting.

Plenty of others know more about it than I so go and argue with them, you clearly have a vested interest on duck hunting, I do not so don’t try to turn the argument in this article when duck hunting didn’t get a mention. I didn’t pick the photograph that was the editors here at The Punch.

I would love to further have this debate but duck hunting is something I have little interest in and I will acknowledge that I have only done a little bit of reading on it due to the fact that I have never been able to make the personal choice of duck hunting or not as it is illegal to recreationally hunt ducks in NSW.

The main things I have read about duck hunting is the atrocious and illegal behaviour of anti-duck hunting activists so without doing a tonne of my own research I am not going to believe what one of them is saying about evidence.

Finally,

Are you opposed to all types of hunting or just duck hunting?

What Ever! says:

10:45am | 07/11/11

Hey Geoff!
How many peer reviewed scientific journals have accepted your dodgy shotgun wounding model?
Answer Zip Zero! ... A defunct software newsletter doesn’t count!
Your model is like a toilet…. put shit in and get shit out…
You need to get over yourself… You can not push your vegan animal rights agenda on to everyone.

Geoff Russell says:

11:47am | 07/11/11

Here’s a link to the US study. Its a huge study by competent researchers and properly reviewed.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3781729

The Canadian study, you will need to get from a library ... as I had to. It was even bigger.

My affiliations with Animal Liberation are on my “The Punch” bio and pretty well known. My shotgun model is redundant, always was. The field studies and Winchester work is perfectly adequate evidence. When ever a model contradicts the data, then sure, go with the data. But my model was perfectly consistent with the data.  It was accepted and peer reviewed. MapleTech was a high quality specialist journal published by Birkhauser with an editorial board full of very well qualified people. They realised the controversial nature of my work and gave it more than a quick glance.  It was thoroughly reviewed. But it was always designed to EXPLAIN high wounding rates, not to prove them. The proof is in the field studies and the X-ray studies.

Do I oppose all recreational hunting? Yes, but not always for the same reasons. There are definitely different levels of cruelty involved in different kinds of hunting.  The conservation issues vary also.  But I have an ethical objection to killing for food when there are easier and healthier alternatives.

I thank Walrus in particular for lying so openly and transparently.

Keith, will you read the US study?
Will you goto a library and get the Canadian study?

When you have read them, will you give us your estimate of duck shooting wounding rates and also of cripple rates?

Richard says:

01:32pm | 04/11/11

Ben M, I infer from your comment that you believe that hunting exotic animals for a fee helps conserve them because part of the funds charged go to preservation initiatives.  Please feel free to enlighten me with how donating the equivalent amount of the fee as opposed to paying the fee AND killing the animal would better.  You might start by looking up the definition of sophistry and thinking about what it means in this context, because it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.  I was not disputing that some part of the fees go to animal preservation - I was making the point (quite clearly) that this was nothing more than rationalisation for just liking to kill animals.  If you were really interested in animal preservation, you would just donate the fee and leave the animal alive.

Keith Drain says:

01:40pm | 04/11/11

Richard,
Nobody said the hunters didn’t enjoy hunting, its just that the system works because all interested parties benefit including the wild life.

Rick says:

01:51pm | 04/11/11

Keith the system may work to a point, but you can’t argue that it’s the best system for animal conservation. If the endangered animals were native to countries who could properly fund their own conservation programs, I doubt conservationists would have much time for recreational hunters.

Richard says:

03:43pm | 04/11/11

Keith, I am not too sure that all the wildlife benefits in the same manner as they would if the money was donated without the need to kill one of them.  The animal that is killed doesn’t really benefit now does it?  Either you are daft or you are being intentionally disingenuous.

gravy says:

01:45am | 05/11/11

“Please feel free to enlighten me with how donating the equivalent amount of the fee as opposed to paying the fee AND killing the animal would better.”

I’m no expert on this issue, but from what i can gather its because very unfortunately conservation donations do not…

!, Create jobs for locals as guides who take the hunters around etc
2, Create a dollar value for the individual animals to be preserved which in turn leads to…
3, Create incentive for locals to deter poachers from killing unsustainable numbers of the animals
4, Make local tribes profit/benefit from the conservation effort, therefore helping them to support the conservation cause instead of it not being involved and therefore not caring.
5, Creating incentive for locals to preserve the land for wildlife due to profits, instead of using it for other purposes ie farming

Basically conservation donations while being awesome and help preserve some animals and land; it just doesn’t do as much on a tribal level and doesn’t help the local tribes benefit. Conservation works a lot better when the local population sees a direct benefit to their lives from it, instead of the money just going into parks and animals (as good as that sounds).

For example it makes more sense for local tribes to poach unsustainable numbers of the animals to sell on the black market (or not care about poaching cos it doesn’t affect them) or use the land for farming because conservation donations don’t actually help to feed their families in a country where poverty is rife and people are desperate. While on the other hand hunting revenue creates more jobs, provides food and gives them a very big incentive to preserve land, deter poaching, employ sustainable practices so they can survive on the income and prosper; all whilst keeping the wildlife alive.

PS - I’m not a hunter and never will be

Keith Drain says:

01:42pm | 04/11/11

How sad is it that you cannot form a simple argument and have to resort to ad-homonym attacks on people?

You guys live in this idealist world where you think everyone lives like we do, Africa is a poor place people don’t think like you or I do so if you stopped hunters going to Africa to hunt you would cause more damage to the wildlife than allowing them to hunt there in the first place.

I don’t understand why its such a hard concept to grasp?

John says:

02:59pm | 04/11/11

Well Keith, it’s not a hard concept to understand - hence why I didn’t say anywhere in my post “I don’t understand this arrangement”. What I did say, is that it’s a sad state of affairs that these African Nations are in such ecomonic circumstances as to need to rely on “donations” from Hunters to be able to fund conservation programs. It’s okay (just okay) that they’ve managed to manipulate the situation into a slightly better deal for the greater population (putting aside the whole “some animals need to die to save the rest” situation), but clearly a better option for the animals would to not be hunted at all. As I said, the fact that the Hunters’ money is being used for conservation isn’t a feather in the cap of the Hunters - I’m sure most would be happy to continue hunting there even if the money wasn’t used to fund conservation.
Also, I suggest learning how to spell ad hominem if you wish to use it in written conversation.

marley says:

07:12pm | 04/11/11

OK - I’m not a big fan of shooting giraffes, but so far as I know, they’re not an endangered species.

Al says:

02:02pm | 04/11/11

Photographs don’t taste good when barbecued!

Neil Davie says:

11:30am | 05/11/11

The big problem in areas like The Okavango in Botswana, there are too many large herbivores and they are literally eating themselves out of a home. Taking a photo will only serve to show future generations what used to be a prolific wildlife area, before the Elephant, Hippos, Giraffe etc destroyed it. You need to see what a couple of hectares of native fig trees looks like after a herd of Jumbos has decimated it. On top of this you also have animals encroaching on human habitation and farmland. Many people are killed in Africa every year after encounters with Elephant,  Hippos, Cape Buff, Rhinos etc. that are destroying their Maize crops.  Now you can either cull the animals or cull the people. Which is it Peter? You can’t have it both ways. The cost to a hunter to take just one Elephant is around $80.000.00. About half of this goes to the local people as wages, infrastructure, education and housing, the rest to the guide, spotters, Government, accomodation, trophy preparation and transport. The locals also get the meat. Bushmeat makes up about 40% of an average African diet. The other alternative is to just cull them, with the only value to the economy, being some free meat for locals and scavengers. You live in an area that used to be home to native wildlife. How about the authorities move all the people out of your suburb and hand it back to nature, because animals are more important than people?

Peter says:

10:32am | 07/11/11

@Neil, actually, I am in agreement with you.  Like I said, I’ve been to the Okavanga and big game hunting is a really important to keeping those areas preserved and paying for themselves.  I know exactly what you are talking about, and I agree.

My question about “why kill” was more of a throwaway line, because, personally, I don’t get what is so “fun” about killing something.  Killing should always, always be out of necessity, in my view.  Not for fun.  It is beyond my understanding that you would get personal joy out of killing another living creature.  Satisfaction, perhaps, if you were doing it for a good reason, like feeding your family or culling a out of control population of elephants, but Joy?  Fun?  Pleasure? These are things I can find elsewhere, without hurting someone or something else.

Chris says:

03:42pm | 04/11/11

The whole point of the article is in reply to another article which implied how terrible it was to shoot animals such as Giraffe. This article gives the facts. It is irrelevant weather a hunter hunts to protect species or not , as the fact is, the paying hunter does pay for conservation, weather they want to or not.
The Louis Theroux documentary was only one type of hunting and possibly the only type they could film. It would have been imposable to show the majority of hunting with Louis, a camera man and other hangers on trying to stalk an animal. They probably would not have even seen an animal, and that would not have made good TV.
As for locals not eating not wild game, that is ridiculous.  Most areas hunted are very remote, they have few shops and no refrigeration. The only way to get fresh meat is to kill it themselves or have a rich foreigner do it for them so they also get a trophy fee. It is a win win situation for local people.
The local people earning an income and getting meat also prevents poaching. Without hunting and what it brings the locals have no reason to protect wild animals and will take up poaching as there are very few jobs or other ways of earning an income in these areas.

gravy says:

01:55am | 05/11/11

Yeah its not nice to shoot animals for fun, it takes a different breed of person to enjoy the kill i think; but is it better to not ‘trophy’ kill exotic animals for fun and allow their habitats to be destroyed and entire wildlife populations to go extinct because nobody wants to pay to keep them alive?

People keep banging on about donating money but donations do not create a market, they do not provide incentive for ONGOING preservation which costs a lot of money and manpower, and unfortunately in today’s world unless its worth $$$ it ain’t going to stick around.

Its an evil but it is the lesser of two evils. At least the hunters are willing to pay big money to conserve these habitats and wildlife even if it might not be their intention (although to me it makes no sense for them to want the habitat destroyed because it reduces the animals to kill, makes more sense to make it sustainable so the fun shootin times can roll on), and creating a dollar value on these ‘assets’. All the while the rest of us sit back on our moral high horse and feel good about our lack of bloodlust whilst doing nothing to help the cause…

Keith Drain says:

01:53pm | 04/11/11

Obviously people aren’t donating enough to Africa to ensure the preservation of the wildlife so they need too look at other means.

No one is saying hunters hunt in Africa to conserve the animals. I’m saying hunting in Africa is conserving them, it is giving the animals value where before there was no value.
Hunters hunt for a variety of reasons and without them we would have seen many species in Africa extinct.

gravy says:

02:02am | 05/11/11

Donations are just that, donations. They don’t create a market and a dollar value on individual animals which is what in the end (quite sadly i might add) save them as a species. Donations do not provide locals with jobs and provide incentive for them to value the animals and deter poachers etc.

Conservation is an ongoing and never ending process, there is only so many donations coming in and it is very limited and unfortunately unsustainable as a means to keep the animals alive and habitats intact. Hunting (as harsh as it is) makes the conservation of the wildlife and habitat sustainable because it creates jobs, creates actual dollar value for the animals and habitat, and encourages sustainable practices from the locals because they can directly benefit from the process of game hunting. It is for this reason and this reason ONLY that i support hunters and their rights to shoot exotic non pest animals.

Neil Davie says:

11:56am | 06/11/11

Donations do not help solve the overpopulation of animals encroaching on human habitation, eating maize crops people rely on for food during the entire year. This results in animals and villagers being killed in this competition for available food. With value added to animals in a tangible cash formm they can now buy their Maize from an area not overpopulated with herbivores and grow a crop like Pineapples that most Africal wildlife won’t eat. Sell their Pineapples and buy Maize. Animals still alive, Villagers safe from incursions. Now you can either cull the people or the animals Michael. You can’t have it both ways. But afer seeing some of the Rabid posts in here, I think some of these people would opt for moving the villagers to one of the slums and leave their homes for the animals. I wonder if they would be so keen if the Government here told them that they were giving their town back to the wildlife and they were to be moved to housing camps set up in the poorer districts of our capitol cities.

John Smythe says:

03:49pm | 04/11/11

well said! and what time is the BBQ?

headwerkn says:

08:51pm | 04/11/11

Nicely put.

There is no rule that says everyone has to like hunting, but those who consider themselves vehemently against it need to consider that position is contrary to 100,000 years of biology, evolution, heritage and culture. Hunting is part of the human condition, and while aspects of modern living have diminished its importance for many, it is no less relevant.

It is an irony that those who protest hunting also protest loudly for pure, organic foods with a low environmental impact - exactly what hunting provides. I also wonder how many ‘of those sorts of people’ would maintain their rage at traditional Aboriginal hunting practices too?

Those claiming that anyone who enjoys hunting is a “redneck” - you’re only making yourself look stupid. Not all hunters are semi-literate toothless hillbillies from the country - in the same way that not all environmentalists are dirty, unwashed, militant left-wing communist hippies on the dole. I come from a suburban middle-class family, work in a professional field, wasn’t raised around guns…. yet I now hunt and enjoy it greatly. Hunters range right across the socio-economic and political spectrums; many are urban professionals…. in fact, you’ll find that the few hunters who partake in ‘big game’ safari-style hunting in Africa, Russia or America tend to be doctors, lawyers, business owners and other professionals - they’re the only ones who can afford to spend $10,000+ on such trips.

Oh, and to those who question hunting’s place as a ‘sport’, clearly you’ve never actually tried it yourself. Hunting isn’t easy. You might have a rifle but the animal you’re chasing has senses and speed far greater than you. Getting within a clear shot’s range undetected is half the challenge.

Dusty!! says:

04:12pm | 04/11/11

Yes KIKA i enjoy shooting feral pigs and other vermin to help rid them from this beautiful country but keep in mind that those same vermin suffer a quick and painless death as opposed to the native animals that they target for their food source!

Keith Drain says:

04:18pm | 04/11/11

No one is saying any such thing. Hunting is enjoyable to a lot of people. Though hunting with a gun is only one type of hunting.

You haven’t thought about it enough nor do you have any real world experience to be making these judgements I’m sorry.

stevem says:

04:51pm | 04/11/11

I accept that dare. The actual killing of the animal is the least enjoyable part of the exercise. For example I spent an entire weekend to remove one feral goat from a state forest. Getting out of the city and deep into the bush is a great start. Locating a mob of goats in the wild is never easy, and getting to within 30m is a great challenge. Twenty pairs of wary eyes, all trying to spot you. Twenty incredibly sensitive noses and ears, all alert to your presence. One mistake and it’s all over. Crawling through the bush and rocks took about 4 hours, every small movement enough to send them scurrying off, never to be seen again. Finally there is the positioning to make a well aimed shot.

The actual killing is somewhat of an anti climax. There’s more of a relief I didn’t screw it all up at the last moment. It’s like a tacky plastic trophy from some sporting event. It symbolises what has lead to the achievement, but is not the reason for entering the competition. The time in the outdoors, the game of hide and seek with the quarry is the point of the exercise.

Nobody wants a feral goat. They cause a vast amount of damage to delicate ecosystems and now there is one less of them, and my freezer is full of lean, chemical free meat.

Craig says:

08:43pm | 04/11/11

I did some hunting only today. Sat around for 3 hours, hidden as best as I could, just waiting for my prey , sorry, dinner, to come along. Bang! Got it, It fought fiercly, for ages, but I just waited for it to tire out, Then reeled it in, ripped the hook out, and threw it in to the bucked, to swim around until it died. Fishing… Great Mate!

marley says:

06:37pm | 04/11/11

Look, this is a well written article, I totally agree.  But that doesn’t mean that Tory’ article wasn’t well written as well. People have different views about hunting - and while I don’t have a problem with the kind of hunting the author does, I do have a problem with shooting giraffe.  That’s my point of view, and as valid as your, Keith’s, Tory’s or anyone else’s.  That’s life - intelligent, well-informed people can differ.  We all need to live with that.

Trapper says:

07:59pm | 04/11/11

Marley I have no problem with well written informative articles, as you say people differ as long as those people who differ are able to accept that others have different views and don’t go about trying to stop lawful activities of others (dark army). But to say tory’s article was well written is out and out lieing. There was swearing, emotive language and no substance to it. I actually prefered (which is streching because i thought it was not much better) the article put out by kate ellis’s partner a few days later saying basically the same thing but without the swearing and with more substance to it. What it does show however is that the lefty’s are getting scared of katter and the fact that his party has a good chance of governing in its own right in queensland after the next election

Gutim says:

05:04pm | 04/11/11

I hunt for meat, I put thousands of dollars into rural towns when my friends and I go away on a trip, we get enough meat for 4 of us for 3 months. to me the chase and thrill of the hunt as well as the end result is great and I see allot of country many of you will never see.

How ever the killing of the animal is the part I like the least, I respect them and hunt ethically and make sure its a swift and clean death. ever seen an animal die in the wild? starve to death, festering wounds from falls and fights with other animals?

of course you have not, you live in a magical dream world, where you clearly know right from wrong and can dictate to us mere mortals how we should live our life’s, over population leads to starving animals that take weeks to die, but in you’re world this is somehow morally superior to what we hunters do, you would rather an animal is slaughtered en mass in abattoirs than the cleaner alternative that I practice

John Smythe says:

05:05pm | 04/11/11

glad to see even handed moderation here. fantastic!

Richard says:

05:10pm | 04/11/11

Dude, hunting (and gathering) was how mankind evolved. Hunting is our heritage. Look at nature, it is violent: that is the real world. This artificial civilisation we’ve built ourselves, to separate us from the harsh cruelties of nature, its an illusion!

Do you go out into the wilds in Africa and say to a majestic lion, “being a hunter definitely makes you a fuckwit”? Of course not! To hunt, to kill, to eat, this is the way of nature. If you don’t like it, you’re the fuckwit, because you’re refusing to accept the true nature of this physical existence we are bound to. The only way to escape the necessities of life, the necessity to hunt, kill and eat, is to die.

So go on then egg, fuck off and die.

Jessica says:

05:16pm | 04/11/11

egg,
So it can be safely assumed that you do not have any relevant facts or worthwhile comment to contribute.

Dusty!! says:

05:22pm | 04/11/11

Charming- you use gutter language to try and denigrate.
It must drive you insane to realize that if it wasn’t for the rich white honky’s putting money into safari expeditions thereby giving the communities a source of income and a reason to protect the habitat of these animals, then the pressure from the landholders to clear the virgin growth for farming would have reduced the numbers or wiped out entire herds… but hey, as long as you feel morally superior who cares about the end result…. right ??

Guns make food says:

05:30pm | 04/11/11

I am shamelessly proud of shooting exotic pests in Australia and putting them on the table. Bullets beat poisoning and disease in ensuring a quick and humane death for species like rabbits and foxes. I would also like to highlight the recent MacQuarie Island pest eradication project, where 2190 protected seabirds died as a result of eating the carcasses of poisoned rats and rabbits.

Or think about the raw terror of domestic cattle, sheep and pigs, who spend their lives confined and herded around by humans, only to die in terror after hours of waiting at an abbattoir; even under the best possible considerations for their welfare.

How do rabbits usually die in Australia? The two most common diseases are myxomatosis and rabbit calicivirus, both deliberately introduced a control agents. In the former, a rabbit takes anywhere between two days to two weeks to die; blinded, feverish and with breathing difficulties. In the latter, agonising organ failure and internal blood clots cause coma and death in about 3 days; survivors can still starve due to irreversible damage to their digestive systems.

Just because you cannot see it happen doesn’t reduce the institutionalised suffering that accompanies livestock farming or pest control efforts. Since I have the choice, and the ability to end an animal’s life cleanly and instantly with a bullet, I will; and got no regrets at all.

Ernst says:

01:39pm | 06/11/11

Please open your other eye… You might learn something.

Neil Davie says:

11:57am | 05/11/11

Yep. And the brain dead , useless, oxygen thieving bastards on the bus, who threatened to report the gentleman for his attempt to put the animal out of it’s misery, should feel well pleased at their ability to prolong this animal’s suffering and ensure that it died a slow agonising death. Greenies to the last. These people are just vile detritus.

Keith Drain says:

09:37pm | 04/11/11

No mate,
I didn’t choose the title. My title was: I hunt and shoot. So what?

I pointed out that the “killing” part was redundant!

MacP says:

02:04pm | 05/11/11

Hey Tory, thanks for clearing up the headline matter.

As for “it’s not the ABC” your correct but it could be Las Vegas with all the misdirection. For example;

1. “It actually wasn’t a ‘counterpunch’ in the end because it wasn’t a direct rebuttal of what I wrote. ”  WTF? Walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and you call it ........ not directly a duck.

“Last week The Punch published this piece which is critical of Federal MP Bob Katter and his financial backers, who had been photographed posing with ‘extinct in the wild’ and exotic animals, including a giraffe. This is a response to that article.” So not a counterpunch, just a response to that article? rofl

2.”(and the other names you’ve posted under)”. What are you insinuating? I have only posted under this name in this thread. I have used other aliases in different articles as the mood took me. IIRC I used Bob Hatter in one response to your aforementioned article as it amused me. It’s yet another redundancy, but you appear to have thrown it in to suggest some sinister decepetion and yet again misdirect readers from the emotive language and bias you brought to an article that “is a responce to” your article (but not a counterpunch).

3. “And re. emotive and editorial bias, it’s not the ABC, mate, it’s an opinion site! ” Yes it is, and you shared your opinion in the prior article, now Keith Drain was hoping to share his without your overlay. It’s dirty pool.

I appreciated your response and clearing up the Headline question. I hope you take another look at the bias, it would be to your credit to acknowledge an unintended consequence of the editing process.

MacP (Amongst other handles, but not in this discussion - lol)

Keith Drain says:

01:56pm | 06/11/11

Hey Tory,

If you are talking about the name of my site, the reason its called hunt and shoot is that hunting and shooting are different things. IE: you can target shoot but you don’t hunt targets.
I choose to identify hunting as on foot, tracking and stalking the animal and shooting is usually done from a vehicle using a spotlight.

Hope this clears up why its called The Hunt & Shoot Network.

Chris Allen says:

03:26pm | 05/11/11

The real state-of-the-art armed madmen are encouraged and rewarded not by hunters but by the journalists whose breathless reporting and emphasis on ‘arsenals’ and ‘meticulous planning’ shows lame minds a way to achieve great fame. The fashion of ‘making a difference’ in journalistic education is expressed in politicised reporting that encourages imitators, by the same unintended incentives that the guidelines on suicide reporting protect against.

Real soldier says:

11:56pm | 04/11/11

No its more like unlike the hippies like those at the occupy protests and duck army we have jobs to do to you know make a living and pay for stuff such as our houses and childrens school fee’s instead of letting the government provide for us. Grow up

Real soldier says:

11:53pm | 04/11/11

Thats not military in the slightest, looking at it its called real tree (the picture is not he best) it is commercially available camoflage, if any military used that they would be laughed off the battlefield instead of being shot.

Neil Davie says:

10:45am | 05/11/11

LOL, Funny how all these clowns resort to bagging the Military as soon as they see any type of woodland/snowscape pattern hunting attire it’s always ‘Military Camouflage”. Guess we’ll just have to stop wearing DPUs and buy hunting attire to fit in with their warped vision of the world.
Certa Cito

stephen says:

07:58pm | 05/11/11

I wasn’t bagging the military ; I was critical of those who shoot birds and want to be seen as heroes.
The uniform is, as you might know, an aspect of feeling and subsequent behaviour.

Keith Drain says:

02:03pm | 06/11/11

Hi Leslie,

Thanks for the compliments.
I have offered to write more but we’ll see what happens.

If you want to read more of my articles and great articles by our writers visit http://www.huntandshoot.com.au

stephen says:

11:52pm | 04/11/11

So why.
So what that you’ve been a bloody exponent of the kill.
I don’t give a hoot how experienced you are.
Name me one reason why those who perhaps didn’t make 2 grand a week from killing, should excuse your profession ?

You’ve got a hunting background ?
Go tell it to the Mountain.

Rohan says:

09:25am | 05/11/11

Giraffe are not almost extinct. don’t make stuff up to try to win the sympathy vote unlike you at least keith stuck to the facts

The Walrus says:

11:09am | 05/11/11

Geoff, shouldn’t you be honest about where you’re getting those numbers from?  Would that be the flawed, widely discredited model that you yourself came up with, and that the animal rights lobby have been dishonestly promoting for years?  The simple truth is that there is no up to date, Australian research (on Australian game bird species) to support your arguments.

Geoff Russell says:

02:21pm | 05/11/11

Walrus, I’ve said exactly where the numbers come from (see above) ... field observations of shooters in the US and in three regions of Canada.  Of course there is no up to date research in Australia ... why do new research on something that has been researched to death and is thoroughly well understood.  The figures I gave DO NOT rely on my mathematical modelling ... not that that modelling was ever discredited, it was and remains consistent with the field research.  You guys think that if you tell the same lie long enough and often enough people will believe it.  So why do you think Australian research is required? Do you guys all shoot better than the US and Canadian shooters? Do you think northern hemisphere physics is different? The shooters in the US study were good ... very good. And they knew they were being watched ... the observers were right behind them. Any shooter not wanting to be watched was excluded. They were the best of the best.

The Canadian study was of a more normal crowd. I didn’t give the reference before: “Monitoring Hunter Performance in Prairie Canada” Nieman et al.  Transactions of the 52nd North American Wildlife Conference. Vol 52, 1987.  In this research the shooters didn’t know they were being watched ... so the research could compare the number of ducks shooters admitted crippling to the number the observers saw.  What can I say ... the observers saw twice as many cripples as the shooters owned up to.  About 6 cripples for every 10 birds bagged.  And that doesn’t count the flying wounded.

EVERY piece of major duck shooting research has shown high rates of crippling and wounding. 

I’m still waiting on Keith. Either he’ll admit he was wrong or not. I’m guessing “The Walrus” won’t admit being wrong either.

Keith Drain says:

02:26pm | 06/11/11

Stop trying to turn the debate Geoff, we aren’t talking about ducks.

I don’t duck hunt, I didn’t refer to duck hunting once in my article and I won’t address you about duck hunting in this article’s comments again.
I also replied to your first post but this will be the last you hear from me about duck hunting.

What Ever! says:

02:41pm | 07/11/11

How come 100+ animal rights activists only found a handful of wounded (stolen) ducks on the Opening day at Lake Buloke Geoff… Time to get your hand off it and stop the BS… Your numbers don’t add up because you are a liar! There were 1000’s of duck dinners taken home that night… By your calculations you should have had thousands of wounded birds to shoe the media… it didn’t happen (and it doesn’t). The only thing that made its way to TV that night was the one stupid protester taken to hospital due to her stupidity!

palone says:

01:42pm | 05/11/11

Hey Pax baby. Who is that “someone”, that resilient “someone” who gets “bashed, mugged, raped, or murdered several times every week”? He/she must be getting heartily sick of being picked on. Bloody humans!
I’m sitting hear with a VB in hand reading these comments, and worrying about how debate has been stifled over the past several years by the pro/anti factor. No-one listens to ‘the other side’. For most, there is no ‘other side’.
And wasn’t the article that started all of this giraffe-talk
concerned with a shooting in the Northern Territory? I may be wrong but I’ve seen no reference to N.T., only Africa.
Perhaps there has been a subsequent story that I missed. If so, mea culpa.
Personally I love a decent sized giraffe steak. With a long-neck. Cold.

daffy says:

08:11pm | 05/11/11

Ah love a good bit of duck - thanks for reminding me to go and get ready for the next duck cull.

stephen says:

10:48pm | 05/11/11

Buy the breasts at Coles.

Sear the skin with chinese 5 spice, salt and pepper, then add 2 tablespoons of butter in a heavy saucepan, then cook skin-side down till crispy.
Cover slightly.
Turn, and cook for 3 minutes.
Then put duck in oven for 20 minutes at 120 degrees.
Then drain fat and baste baked potatoes in oven.
(That’s the same oven daffy ; don’t go over to your neighbour’s).
The sauce is up to you, but i suggest a low carb :
soy, then add lemon juice, honey, garlic, olive oil and then thicken on a skillet.

Enjoy.
And watch out for the bones.
Or don’t.

Neil Davie says:

01:59pm | 06/11/11

@ stephan. Thanks for the recipe, just soved dinner tonight.

Keith Drain says:

02:23pm | 06/11/11

I still can’t buy it Sharon,

You still have an impact on animals and eating meat is not wrong. (I promise you animals die for you to live in some way shape or form)

At least you have guts enough to try to minimise that, I respect that. But with that said I don’t wish to ban you from eating vegies or killing thousands of insects by driving a car or riding on public transport.
I respect that you want to minimise your impact on animals but please respect the fact that others don’t want to live the way you do.

Chris Allen says:

11:01pm | 05/11/11

I wouldn’t shoot a giraffe either, but your comment doesn’t explain why ‘big five’ should matter so much - neither is a buck a big five, but they are perfectly valid game for meat, skin and horns - as well as a very exciting hunting experience no doubt. Your post appears to construct a fantasy rather than reflect reality . There is plenty of evidence that the giraffe was fully utilised by the surrounding villages, so while I dont like the idea of shooting giraffes I must assume that the permit was issued to prevent overpopulation as is certainly necessary at the parks I visited in Hwange, Chivero, and the Vic Falls game park areas. 

It is to be shot anyway; the meat is fully used; and several thousand badly needed US dollars come into the economy and partly fund wildlife management.  The thrill of bollocking someone on the internet for some imagined moral failing could hardly compare with the thrill of just living real life in Africa, I am sure.

Neil Davie says:

10:25am | 06/11/11

Bloody well said Chris. I spent 9 months in Kenya, hunting poachers part time. I’ve seen first hand the attitude of the people turn extremely hostile toward poachers, it is now viewed as stealing from them. Poachers are just killed, the tribes show no tolerance, especially the Masai. I’ve also seen up close and personal, the money that comes into these communities, that is paying for education, food, water, modern equipment for farming community cooperatives. I hate uninformed members of the “Cute and Fluffy” brigade, totally brainwashed by Greens and Lefty teachers, condemning people and practises they they have only a base knowledge of. Court held and sentences passed from their position of high moral virtue, around the cafe table, sipping Mochas at their local yuppy shop. If they spent one day with the Kikuyu and saw the difference in the health and circumstances of the people compared to 20 years ago, they might change their minds. But then again, reason and logic seem to be foreign conceptsto these people, as the English language seems to be for Tory Shepherd and her colleagues, who have great difficulty with adjectives. It’s a bit like trying to explain logically, the reasoning behind why you had to take the matches away from a screaming 18 month old child. No. No. No. ad infinitum.

Chris says:

11:07am | 07/11/11

Humans are hunters by nature; your vegetarian ideals are a socially constructed deviance.  Children grow stunted without animal products and only modern industrial food production can compensate for the unsound dietary balance.

Just as it is natural for chimpanzees, dogs and quolls to hunt for concentrated animal nutrition, it is natural for man to hunt.  We are an adaptable species and cope well with earning our living in concrete jungles, but happiness and right living can include hunting - for joy in the outdoors, meat for the table and engagement with prey species. Its a pleasure more intense and purer than that of the idle urban tourist, like all the less traditional outdoor adventure sports. 

Australia’s hunting ethic has been perverted by self-righteousness so that only pest control is seen as ‘legitimate’ but in reality meat hunting for sport and even trophy hunting have a sound ethical basis.  Its good to teach that it be done in line with modern values to reduce cruelty and manage populations sustainably.

The self-righteous moral posturing of urban activists is foolish and ignorant, and stands in the way of building a sustainable interaction with the natural world.

Rederick says:

03:49pm | 07/11/11

As a student and reservist it is hardly a choice between hunting for fun and ample available meat, without hunting I simply couldn’t afford to eat meat very often, not when rabbits from the local butcher are $20(!) a kilo. It’s hardly justification to kill animals to prevent them from encroaching on our environment, many animals, especially feral ones, breed out of all control and then die off in massive numbers once they overload available resources. Sensible hunting can help to control that.

One need not be a military sniper to guarantee a clean kill or at the very least a quick follow up shot. Just practiced and willing to put the effort in. Which I’ll freely admit some hunters don’t. But the vast majority are just ordinary people who are putting food on the table and helping the environment.

The ad hominems are par for the course with the internet I’m afraid but hardly one sided as you seem to suggest. In short I don’t hunt for fun but I hunt nonetheless and shall continue to do so.

Chris says:

07:48pm | 07/11/11

I am a different Chris to the one who posted at 12:07.
Kipling, Your claim of “the ONLY reason this needs to occur is because of human expansion, industrialisation and/or urbanisation”, is based on nature being perfect. Nature is not in perfect balance as some people think. Animal populations boom and bust and this can lead to extinctions, and habitat damage. Humans evolved on earth as part of the environment and will always be in nature. Managed hunting can actually improve how natural systems work, by stopping the boom and bust cycle.
I dont know how we can “to own up to those who undermine their practices by being unethical, cruel and irresponsible.”, if we dont know them. There are many unethical, cruel and irresponsible people in existence, but I usually only see them on the news and they always seem to live in cities, and do not hunt.
One of the main points overlooked is that game farms running wildlife also provide habitat for other species. If people did not hunt on those private game farms they would be cleared, wildlife exterminated and they would run cattle only.
The biggest misconception is that hunters hunt to kill. Hunters dont hunt to kill, they kill to have hunted, urban people disconnected from the environment can not understand this and no argument will convince them..