Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my (scientific) opinion, hunting for the biggest strongest wild animals simply BECAUSE they are THE biggest strongest TOP animals in the group is … yes … unethical … It is biologically harmful to the population and therefore not a good idea ...
The evidence has been presented that trophy hunting improves the population, and the "quality" of the population.
Are you not aware of that evidence, or do you simply reject it, perhaps because of your expertise from being a "biologist?"
The evidence has been presented that trophy hunting improves the population, and the "quality" of the population.
Are you not aware of that evidence, or do you simply reject it, perhaps because of your expertise from being a "biologist?"
I am aware that there is a lot of $$$ involved in Big Game Trophy hunting in places like Africa … and a huge emotional stake for the guys who love it …
The facts of population biology are what they are … and no responsible population biologist thinks that an unnatural removal of the top individuals -- strongest, healthiest -- of a population is of net benefit to the population …
In the case under discussion -- that of "Cecil" -- I know of no information about that individual lion that has shown that FAILING to take him out of the population would have been somehow detrimental to the lion population in Zimbabwe … NONE ...
In my (scientific) opinion, hunting for the biggest strongest wild animals simply BECAUSE they are THE biggest strongest TOP animals in the group is … yes … unethical … It is biologically harmful to the population and therefore not a good idea ...
TaxPhd beat me to it. It has been PROVEN by decades of data gathering all over the continent of Africa, trophy hunting DOES NOT harm the population, and actually helps increase it. Everything else is nonsense in your post, because it doesn't matter. Your "scientific opinion" included.
TaxPhd beat me to it. It has been PROVEN by decades of data gathering all over the continent of Africa, trophy hunting DOES NOT harm the population, and actually helps increase it. Everything else is nonsense in your post, because it doesn't matter. Your "scientific opinion" included.
Again … I guess we can breath sighs of relief that The Great White Hunters arrived in Africa in the nick of time, saving the magnificent wildlife there from otherwise certain doom …
I am aware that there is a lot of $$$ involved in Big Game Trophy hunting in places like Africa … and a huge emotional stake for the guys who love it …
The facts of population biology are what they are … and no responsible population biologist thinks that an unnatural removal of the top individuals -- strongest, healthiest -- of a population is of net benefit to the population …
In the case under discussion -- that of "Cecil" -- I know of no information about that individual lion that has shown that FAILING to take him out of the population would have been somehow detrimental to the lion population in Zimbabwe … NONE ...
I think you overstate your case, as I'm certain that you don't know the beliefs of every "population biologist."
But let's assume arguendo that what you state is true. If you are honest, you would have to admit that the beliefs of those biologists must take a backseat to the evidence. That populations are stronger in locations where trophy hunting is regularly practiced isn't conjecture, it is fact. So, what dominates here? The beliefs of biologists, or the reality of the animal populations under discussion?
Again … I guess we can breath sighs of relief that The Great White Hunters arrived in Africa in the nick of time, saving the magnificent wildlife there from otherwise certain doom …
Nice straw man. Haven't you got anything better? I would expect that a trained biologist would not engage in logical fallacies. . .
I think you overstate your case, as I'm certain that you don't know the beliefs of every "population biologist."
But let's assume arguendo that what you state is true. If you are honest, you would have to admit that the beliefs of those biologists must take a backseat to the evidence. That populations are stronger in locations where trophy hunting is regularly practiced isn't conjecture, it is fact. So, what dominates here? The beliefs of biologists, or the reality of the animal populations under discussion?
That this is even debated is quite astonishing.
As noted so often (in many posts, above), in countries that reap huge $$$ from fees, etc., involving trophy hunting, those countries go out of their way to try to interdict poaching, which is entirely indiscriminate and often markedly wasteful of animal resources …
So, yes, I can accept the fact that countries which protect wild animal populations from excessive poaching probably do host generally healthier wildlife populations, but NOT because of some magical benefits bestowed by the hunting of "trophies," per se …
As noted so often (in many posts, above), in countries that reap huge $$$ from fees, etc., involving trophy hunting, those countries go out of their way to try to interdict poaching, which is entirely indiscriminate and often markedly wasteful of animal resources …
So, yes, I can accept the fact that countries which protect wild animal populations from excessive poaching probably do host generally healthier wildlife populations, but NOT because of some magical benefits bestowed by the hunting of "trophies," per se …
It's about "ecology," you see ...
So, the positive benefits to the herd are 100% a result of controlling poaching? I would be interested in reading the research that leads you to that conclusion, as I'm sure that you aren't just making it up. . .
So, the positive benefits to the herd are 100% a result of controlling poaching? I would be interested in reading the research that leads you to that conclusion, as I'm sure that you aren't just making it up. . . :roll eyes:
I recommend that you do some basic general study of "ecology" …
Probably the best book I've seen for a general audience:
Paul Colinvaux, "Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare: An Ecologist's Perspective." (1978, Princeton Univ. Press) … It is now an older book, but totally top flight. … Last time I checked, still in print … Go for it … or not ...
I recommend that you do some basic general study of "ecology" …
Probably the best book I've seen for a general audience:
Paul Colinvaux, "Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare: An Ecologist's Perspective." (1978, Princeton Univ. Press) … It is now an older book, but totally top flight. … Last time I checked, still in print … Go for it … or not ...
Ordered on Amazon, and I look forward to reading it.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I don't believe that it will support your conclusion (that benefits to the herd are 100% the result of controlling poaching) but I will report back on what I've learned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
