| Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The many lies of hunters | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 6 2014, 05:19 PM (5,449 Views) | |
|
|
Jan 6 2014, 05:19 PM Post #1 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
I know I've been through this many times, but I'm curious. In Africa, trophy hunters always come up with the worst lies to defend their bloodlust. Which of the following do you think is the worst? #1. Killing an endangered species benefits it's conservation https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/1012429_496756473737986_1493011226_n.jpg (does that look like conservation to you!?) #2. It benefits communities (no evidence supporting that) #3. It detours poaching (when in reality it encourages it) |
![]() |
|
| Captain Phasma | Jan 6 2014, 05:28 PM Post #2 |
|
Captain of the First Order and Boba Fett 2.0
![]()
|
Hunting and killing an animals is fine, as long as you do it responsibly. But I do agree with you that it doesn't benefit communities, detour poaching, or is conservation. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Jan 6 2014, 05:29 PM Post #3 |
![]() ![]()
|
If said species is overpopulating in a certain area, like it happens with elephants in some parks, then it is conservation, as it saves the environment and the other species that depend on it (and I think we have been talking enough about the elephant thing in the past, right ?).
meat is often donated to local communities, which also benefit from the tourism and the work offer hunting generates. Not to mention the hunt of species that can make life harder to local people (leopards eat domestic animals or even people, buffaloes can spread diseases, bushpigs damage crops, baboons are just a*****es ...)
if it was for poachers there would not be any animals left even for the hunters. Hunters promote anti-poaching initiatives because that would lead to an improve of animals condition, which will then provide a resource for them (the impact well planned and regulated hunting has on animals is way lower than poaching). |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 6 2014, 05:31 PM Post #4 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
No offense Furka, but your either very good at trolling, or your SCI or NRA's puppet. |
![]() |
|
| Sheather | Jan 6 2014, 05:33 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Thank you for the set, Azrael!
![]()
|
Slender your heart is again in the right place but you're largely misguided. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 6 2014, 05:34 PM Post #6 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
I don't understand what you mean. Look people their is no scientific basis that says trophy hunting is a good thing. The merciless killing of endangered and threatened species will never be a good thing (with the exception of self-defense). If none of you can see that then I guess your all just SCI's puppets. Edited by Tyrannocanthosaurus, Jan 6 2014, 05:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Furka | Jan 6 2014, 05:43 PM Post #7 |
![]() ![]()
|
I don't think I am that good at trolling, and I've never heard of those two things you mentioned. remember that I'm against elephant hunt too, but I can understand it sometimes. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 6 2014, 05:45 PM Post #8 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
Understood, but I still think such barbaric practices have no place in the modern world. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Jan 6 2014, 05:55 PM Post #9 |
![]() ![]()
|
It was barbaric in the medieval times, when people would do anything to kill wolves, or during the colonisation of Africa, when a hunter could go there and shoot every elephant it saw during a safari (I have a book containing various hunting tales, and one mentions that). The laws and rules for hunting have greatly improved since then, to the point I find calling them barbaric quite ridiculous. Some could be improved I think (I don't know all of them), but they are far from being barbaric. Not respecting the rules, and hunting the way you want to, is barbaric. |
![]() |
|
| CyborgIguana | Jan 6 2014, 05:56 PM Post #10 |
![]() ![]()
|
I don't agree with trophy hunting either (at least of endangered species), but I can understand what Furka and Sheather are trying to say. I understand that you have the best intentions, but you have a habit of getting carried away. I should also note that you seem a bit confused as to what the definition of "barbaric" is. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 6 2014, 06:14 PM Post #11 |
|
Banned for being rude.
![]()
|
It's just my opinion that trophy hunting is disgusting. |
![]() |
|
| Mastodon28 | Jan 7 2014, 04:20 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Stabbing Woodpecker
![]()
|
That makes no sense. If the species is endangered, killing more animals of that species makes it even more endangered. |
![]() |
|
| paul78giszewski | Jan 7 2014, 04:32 AM Post #13 |
![]()
|
I understand hunting in Michigan where im from where there are no wolves, bear, or puma to keep deer numbers on track but I always felt the whole African hunting was such a crock. BS at its finest. These hunters always tell so many lies and claim to be conservationists. Truth is they enjoy hunting and killing animals period. Its even more sad that Africa in a lot of ways have sold out most of their wildlife for profit. |
![]() |
|
| Mastodon28 | Jan 7 2014, 04:39 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Stabbing Woodpecker
![]()
|
I don´t get how hunters and poachers can get away with claiming to be conservationalists while killing rare animals. Seriously, the governments of African countries should do something about it. |
![]() |
|
| Furka | Jan 7 2014, 05:30 AM Post #15 |
![]() ![]()
|
and then again, if it wasn't for hunters many areas would have lost much of their fauna. In Italy, many species who decreased a lot after the war, like the red deer and many patridges, came back thanks to hunters and repopulating programs for those species to leave hunters something to hunt. If an animal is valuable as a resource to someone, it's more likely to be protected than one which looks useless to most people (no one will defend a snake ...) as for the endangered species, only a few countries allow their hunt, and that's usually in areas where said animals are overpopulating their space (something I've already explained to Slender in the past, and I don't want to repeat again). |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pets & Wildlife · Next Topic » |

FAQ
Search
Members
Rules
Staff PM Box
Downloads
Pointies
Groups











