Interesting piece on 60 Minutes about endangered animal species from Africa that are thriving on Texas ranches by allowing hunting to occur. Naturally, the animal rights activists want to put an end to it and it looks like they are going to be successful. Does it make sense to ban the hunting of these exotic animals if it means possible extinction?
Very interesting video. I think it clearly shows the craziness of an extreme position.
There was a grass roots effort that resulted in the preservation of several species....and a possible framework for preserving many more species going forward. Rather than letting it continue to operate and letting the animals continue to thrive, it has become an issue for the federal governement. You need a federal permit to hunt the privately owned scimitar antelope in Texas??? The government will probably create a staff of 20 employees to issue zero permits for the next 5 years. Who would consider that a win??
Personally, I would never pay $50,000 for the opportunity to shoot a water buffalo....and then another small fortune to send it's head to a taxidermist. But I wouldn't tell someone else that he can't do it either!
If you really want to preserve the antelopes, open a preserve in Senegal (like she did)...I applaud that effort. But why try to stop the hunters from having their own preserves?? The Texas ranches don't hurt the animals, they help them.
I suspect if you asked that extremist, she would not agree with hunting the white tail deer, the pheasant, or any other animal in North America. I wonder how she feels about stepping on a cockroach?? The courts should be ashamed of themselves for this clearly mis-guided decision.
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
While I am not a hunter personally, hunters are some of the strongest advocates for keeping large areas of ecosystems intact.
I always find it amazing that how many people focus on difference rather than commonality.
The nature worshiping vegan and the NRA supporting carnivore both want land and animals to be preserved. Together they could make a much more powerful voting bloc if only they would focus on common ground (all pun intended) rather than their differences.
I would rather these guys hunt these animals in Texas than hunt the wild ones in Africa.
As an added note... while animal right people squawk about Sea World etc., the reality is that "Dolphin Safe Tuna" came to be as much because of shows like Flipper and places like Sea World as any other factor. Yes the animal lovers got out the word about the problem, but the reason people and kids cared was because they had a connection with dolphins.
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
Personally I'm a vegetarian and fairly strong on animal rights, and indeed for religious reasons I'm against hunting unless a person is in a situation where they genuinely need to hunt to support themselves and their family. Yet I also come from a long line of hunters on my father's side of the family; there's a reason my father is still a dead-shot well into his 70's.
The problem with schemes like this apart from just issues of animal cruelty (and yes, that is an issue if you're hunting for sport) is that the environment is artificial. Animals native to Africa are simply not native to Texas and the environments in Africa and Texas are decidedly different. There's a reason most larger animals won't breed well if at all in captivity, and an artificial game park is captivity-- full stop.
No if one makes a hunting preserve out of the natural habitat and the hunting is controlled, the issue of animal cruelty remains but at least the system becomes viable. The potential for abuse is my main concern.
As much as I frown when I see a bloodthirsty he-man go out the woods to kill others for fun, I think the average meat factory animal is all in all suffering a lot more than a hunted antelope in Texas.
Personally I'm a vegetarian and fairly strong on animal rights, and indeed for religious reasons I'm against hunting unless a person is in a situation where they genuinely need to hunt to support themselves and their family. Yet I also come from a long line of hunters on my father's side of the family; there's a reason my father is still a dead-shot well into his 70's.
The problem with schemes like this apart from just issues of animal cruelty (and yes, that is an issue if you're hunting for sport) is that the environment is artificial. Animals native to Africa are simply not native to Texas and the environments in Africa and Texas are decidedly different. There's a reason most larger animals won't breed well if at all in captivity, and an artificial game park is captivity-- full stop.
The piece notes that this has been going on in TX for half a century and has been a success so far. If it means avoiding extinction, why not allow for a new habitat if the native one is failing? While not an ideal solution, it seems like a worthwhile trade-off unless another alternative become viable.
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
eknauer wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Personally I'm a vegetarian and fairly strong on animal rights, and indeed for religious reasons I'm against hunting unless a person is in a situation where they genuinely need to hunt to support themselves and their family. Yet I also come from a long line of hunters on my father's side of the family; there's a reason my father is still a dead-shot well into his 70's.
The problem with schemes like this apart from just issues of animal cruelty (and yes, that is an issue if you're hunting for sport) is that the environment is artificial. Animals native to Africa are simply not native to Texas and the environments in Africa and Texas are decidedly different. There's a reason most larger animals won't breed well if at all in captivity, and an artificial game park is captivity-- full stop.
The piece notes that this has been going on in TX for half a century and has been a success so far. If it means avoiding extinction, why not allow for a new habitat if the native one is failing? While not an ideal solution, it seems like a worthwhile trade-off unless another alternative become viable.
It's not a "habitat"; it's a zoo. A habitat is a self-sustaining eco-system. These animals are not and cannot be self-sustaining in the environment.
Personally I'm a vegetarian and fairly strong on animal rights, and indeed for religious reasons I'm against hunting unless a person is in a situation where they genuinely need to hunt to support themselves and their family. Yet I also come from a long line of hunters on my father's side of the family; there's a reason my father is still a dead-shot well into his 70's.
The problem with schemes like this apart from just issues of animal cruelty (and yes, that is an issue if you're hunting for sport) is that the environment is artificial. Animals native to Africa are simply not native to Texas and the environments in Africa and Texas are decidedly different. There's a reason most larger animals won't breed well if at all in captivity, and an artificial game park is captivity-- full stop.
The piece notes that this has been going on in TX for half a century and has been a success so far. If it means avoiding extinction, why not allow for a new habitat if the native one is failing? While not an ideal solution, it seems like a worthwhile trade-off unless another alternative become viable.
New species may exterminate old spices, possibly leading to domino effects in the new ecosystem. I'm not a biologist, but I've understood these are things to be careful about. But if not, then yes, awesome, a zoo is better than nothing.
Personally I'm a vegetarian and fairly strong on animal rights, and indeed for religious reasons I'm against hunting unless a person is in a situation where they genuinely need to hunt to support themselves and their family. Yet I also come from a long line of hunters on my father's side of the family; there's a reason my father is still a dead-shot well into his 70's.
The problem with schemes like this apart from just issues of animal cruelty (and yes, that is an issue if you're hunting for sport) is that the environment is artificial. Animals native to Africa are simply not native to Texas and the environments in Africa and Texas are decidedly different. There's a reason most larger animals won't breed well if at all in captivity, and an artificial game park is captivity-- full stop.
The piece notes that this has been going on in TX for half a century and has been a success so far. If it means avoiding extinction, why not allow for a new habitat if the native one is failing? While not an ideal solution, it seems like a worthwhile trade-off unless another alternative become viable.
It's not a "habitat"; it's a zoo. A habitat is a self-sustaining eco-system. These animals are not and cannot be self-sustaining in the environment.
Do favor extinction over a zoo consisting of hundreds or thousands square miles with flourishing animal species that would otherwise be gone? What if hunting was banned but the land owners could profit from safari tours?
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
eknauer wrote:
whac3 wrote:
eknauer wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Personally I'm a vegetarian and fairly strong on animal rights, and indeed for religious reasons I'm against hunting unless a person is in a situation where they genuinely need to hunt to support themselves and their family. Yet I also come from a long line of hunters on my father's side of the family; there's a reason my father is still a dead-shot well into his 70's.
The problem with schemes like this apart from just issues of animal cruelty (and yes, that is an issue if you're hunting for sport) is that the environment is artificial. Animals native to Africa are simply not native to Texas and the environments in Africa and Texas are decidedly different. There's a reason most larger animals won't breed well if at all in captivity, and an artificial game park is captivity-- full stop.
The piece notes that this has been going on in TX for half a century and has been a success so far. If it means avoiding extinction, why not allow for a new habitat if the native one is failing? While not an ideal solution, it seems like a worthwhile trade-off unless another alternative become viable.
It's not a "habitat"; it's a zoo. A habitat is a self-sustaining eco-system. These animals are not and cannot be self-sustaining in the environment.
Do favor extinction over a zoo consisting of hundreds or thousands square miles with flourishing animal species that would otherwise be gone? What if hunting was banned but the land owners could profit from safari tours?
You're not getting my point. The only way to save a species is if it breeds and sustains itself. An artificial environment won't let the species do that. So I object because the system works in the short term but not in the long term.
Personally I'm a vegetarian and fairly strong on animal rights, and indeed for religious reasons I'm against hunting unless a person is in a situation where they genuinely need to hunt to support themselves and their family. Yet I also come from a long line of hunters on my father's side of the family; there's a reason my father is still a dead-shot well into his 70's.
The problem with schemes like this apart from just issues of animal cruelty (and yes, that is an issue if you're hunting for sport) is that the environment is artificial. Animals native to Africa are simply not native to Texas and the environments in Africa and Texas are decidedly different. There's a reason most larger animals won't breed well if at all in captivity, and an artificial game park is captivity-- full stop.
The piece notes that this has been going on in TX for half a century and has been a success so far. If it means avoiding extinction, why not allow for a new habitat if the native one is failing? While not an ideal solution, it seems like a worthwhile trade-off unless another alternative become viable.
It's not a "habitat"; it's a zoo. A habitat is a self-sustaining eco-system. These animals are not and cannot be self-sustaining in the environment.
Do favor extinction over a zoo consisting of hundreds or thousands square miles with flourishing animal species that would otherwise be gone? What if hunting was banned but the land owners could profit from safari tours?
You're not getting my point. The only way to save a species is if it breeds and sustains itself. An artificial environment won't let the species do that. So I object because the system works in the short term but not in the long term.
But if a short-term solution (so far, so good) is long enough to sustain these animal populations while a long-term solution in the native lands is worked out, why object?
Last edited Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:12 am (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
whac3 wrote:
eknauer wrote:
whac3 wrote:
eknauer wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Personally I'm a vegetarian and fairly strong on animal rights, and indeed for religious reasons I'm against hunting unless a person is in a situation where they genuinely need to hunt to support themselves and their family. Yet I also come from a long line of hunters on my father's side of the family; there's a reason my father is still a dead-shot well into his 70's.
The problem with schemes like this apart from just issues of animal cruelty (and yes, that is an issue if you're hunting for sport) is that the environment is artificial. Animals native to Africa are simply not native to Texas and the environments in Africa and Texas are decidedly different. There's a reason most larger animals won't breed well if at all in captivity, and an artificial game park is captivity-- full stop.
The piece notes that this has been going on in TX for half a century and has been a success so far. If it means avoiding extinction, why not allow for a new habitat if the native one is failing? While not an ideal solution, it seems like a worthwhile trade-off unless another alternative become viable.
It's not a "habitat"; it's a zoo. A habitat is a self-sustaining eco-system. These animals are not and cannot be self-sustaining in the environment.
Do favor extinction over a zoo consisting of hundreds or thousands square miles with flourishing animal species that would otherwise be gone? What if hunting was banned but the land owners could profit from safari tours?
You're not getting my point. The only way to save a species is if it breeds and sustains itself. An artificial environment won't let the species do that. So I object because the system works in the short term but not in the long term.
I would like to point out that in the video they talk about how 3 species were all but wiped out 30 years ago due to habitat loss in Africa. That some of these people in Texas used their land to make the species viable again. And that they are providing the animals needed to repopulate their native countries now.
These animals are in an environment very like the ones they naturally were found in and they are thriving. Most of these places are not like a zoo as much as a nature preserve, just one in a new "colony".
I suspect that if humans were wiped out by a plague next year that in 100 years you would find herds of these antelopes throughout the great plains. As fence degradation opened up the range again.
But for the sake of argument, how do you feel about "Trophy Ranches" that are for the hunting of Bison? They have those now too. They are native to this ecosystem. And they were all but extinct until efforts were made to preserve them. Part of that effort has been done to make them a viable species again was done by ranchers who sell the meat when they cull the herds and/or sell hunting rights.
I'll throw my hat in as a supporter of this kind of hunting preserve but I really dislike the way the issue is being framed.
Is hunting saving any of those species? Well, no. Obviously killing off a member here or there isn't exactly the best way to keep them going (barring overpopulation, but that doesn't appear to be the problem here). What's saving them is the other stuff, like the environment and probably the shortage of predators.
Alright, so the hunting is saving them because it provides an economic incentive to provide the things which are actually saving them. Yeah, ok. That's kind of its own problem that we're still in a situation where we need that form of incentive to get anything done though. I mean, if we bothered coming up with system where everything didn't need a price tag maybe we could save them and also not kill them out of boredom.
Probably worthy of a separate thread but it's late and I'm feeling ranty. Life goes on, at least for those of us not getting shot by Texans.
As an added note... while animal right people squawk about Sea World etc., the reality is that "Dolphin Safe Tuna" came to be as much because of shows like Flipper and places like Sea World as any other factor. Yes the animal lovers got out the word about the problem, but the reason people and kids cared was because they had a connection with dolphins.
On the other hand the growth of Sea World-like places developed a business of capturing thousands of wild dolphins, and is a terrible place for the animals. Flipper's trainer himself became an activist against marine parks.
The day I'll take my kids to see dolphins will be in the wild. Which isn't particularly hard or expensive to do around here.
I am a supporter of offering limited hunting incentives to raise the funds needed for maintaining the hunted species' habitat. I view that as a form of tourism just like the more regular picture shooting kind which, if well regulated, has less impact on the species and its environment than overcrowding with tour-buses filled with kodak moment hungry bwana's.
However, my support extends only for hunting in and perserving the species in their native habitat. The main reason for this is that protecting endangered species by protecting their habitat saves much more than just that one species. The single, vsible, cute, impressive and huntable species is a flagship of sorts. Aside from its intrinsic value for it's own preservation, its survival means the survival of litarally 10's of thousends of other plant and animal species IN ITS HABITAT (usually comprising scores of seperate ecosystems).
Since in Africa pressures on nature are huge and resources short, hunting flagship species is an excellent way to supplement required funds. Other sources are government subsidies, outside contributors (WWF et al) and regular tourist activities.
However once we move the flagship species out of its natural habitat the actual function of protecting habitat, and with it thousands of species and ecosystems, is lost. So this would be required if and only if the species in question has already become extinct in the wild. And even then preservation in Zoo's serves the same purpose without the overt animal cruelty, AND makes room for other flagship species to emerge that can still be preserved in their own habitat, with all the associated benefits.
So frankly, I'd say that moving some buffalo's (or whatever) to some texas desert for the purpose of preservation is pointless, and counterproductive in the greater scheme of things. Especially since texas is hardly a cash strapped third world nation so I am quite sure Texans can poney up the dough required to maintain those reserves without hunting, should they wish to do so. Hell, if the population (of the species) is doing so well you may actually save money, simply remove the fences and let nature takes its course. The standing record of unleashing imported species in native habitats is very good. What could possibly go wrong? (sarcasm intented).
In short: a bad and rather self serving idea, to be discontinued ASAP so as to free up funds for vastly more effective preservation measures elsewhere, in the native habitats.
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Venga2 wrote:
In short: a bad and rather self serving idea, to be discontinued ASAP so as to free up funds for vastly more effective preservation measures elsewhere, in the native habitats.
Edit: Spelling
Except it won't free up any funds to conserve anything. These ranchers will just go back to raising cattle or some other cash generating use of their land.
The hunters doing these "hunts" have extra cash but probably not enough to do genuine hunting safaris in Africa.
I am curious did you watch the actual news-piece?
I found it encouraging that these animals that were all but extinct in their native lands are being re-introduced because these "stocks" were able to breed back up to viable levels on the grass lands of Texas.
As one man who does do it for love and doesn't allow hunting in his land pointed out... he has the money to do it for all altruistic reasons. But the commercial success of these hunting reserves has been able to do significantly more for maintaining genetic diversity and building up the population than he could have done all by himself even with his independent wealth.
In short: a bad and rather self serving idea, to be discontinued ASAP so as to free up funds for vastly more effective preservation measures elsewhere, in the native habitats.
Edit: Spelling
Except it won't free up any funds to conserve anything. These ranchers will just go back to raising cattle or some other cash generating use of their land.
The hunters doing these "hunts" have extra cash but probably not enough to do genuine hunting safaris in Africa.
I am curious did you watch the actual news-piece?
No I did not. I am at work. I had a quick peek now, and from glancing the first minute or so of the docu (without sound) the first thing that stands out is that none of the animals shown are, to the best of my limited knowledge, facing exctinction. Certainly zebra's, wildebeests and buffalo roam the serengeti in great numbers. So I would need to see some backup of that fact.
Further, some on above mentioned the ammount of $50,000 for a head of buffalo. Assuming this is a figure from the video, that money will, I am almost certain, get you the same in Africa. Africa where, incidentally, you get a lot more preservational bang for your buck.
Quote:
I found it encouraging that these animals that were all but extinct in their native lands are being re-introduced because these "stocks" were able to breed back up to viable levels on the grass lands of Texas.
Examples? (apologies, but I really cannot watch the vid until I get home tonight)
Quote:
As one man who does do it for love and doesn't allow hunting in his land pointed out... he has the money to do it for all altruistic reasons. But the commercial success of these hunting reserves has been able to do significantly more for maintaining genetic diversity and building up the population than he could have done all by himself even with his independent wealth.
Great, but ignores completely my point that preservation in the original habitat protects genetic diversity untold times better because it protects thousands of species and not just a few big ones. Anything that takes resources away from that needs to be viewed with suspicion at least.
That said, you are right that I did not view the docu and may well be passing judgement too early. At the very least, the initiative could be used too save a single or a few species from outright extinction. The value of that when the original habitat is gone is up for debate, and a quite interesting one at that.
There is no such thing anymore as 'original habitat' that is not, to some extent or another, a managed ecology.
Humanity's footprint is just too big anymore. Any habitat for wildlife has to be managed by humans in order to keep it in balance, due to the pressures put upon it by human activity.
This means that all options for managing that ecology should be kept on the table. This means culling herds, controlled fires, bans on fishing rights at times in order to prevent overfishing, and anything else necessary to help keep the ecology in balance.
What is going on in the 60 Minutes video is no different from the 'recreational hunting' allowed by Kenyan rangers to help keep their wildlife under control while also raising funds with which to be able to afford that management.
The idea that there are 'wild' spaces anymore, totally untouched by human hands, isn't true anymore. More to the point, for the protection OF those spaces, humans must intervene.
This isn't a normative argument, its simply a statement of fact.
There is no such thing anymore as 'original habitat' that is not, to some extent or another, a managed ecology.
snip
This isn't a normative argument, its simply a statement of fact.
Darilian
Look, I agree, as a I said, that hunting is not an a priori bad thing and can be a tool in wildlife manageent.
But where you fly of the rails completely your appraisal of the 'facts'. What counts as 'wild' or not and what constitutues viable and natural habitat is entirely up for discussion and as inherently philosophical and normative.
There is a school of thought that ascribes the nomiker of 'nature' to even the most die hard culture followers such as the common street pigion. But in the case of wildlife in Africa we can MOST CARTAINLY speak of nature, and much of it in as original condition as can be. That humans had their impact on those systems does not invalidate that. Other species have invaded and changed ecosystems. Humans are not unique in that respect. And regardless of the level of human intervention, the ORIGINAL habitatats ARE more worthy of protection as a whole then the flagship species are on their own, in isolation. Stating that original habitats is a non-concept is really unhelpfull, and possibly hurtfull in the greater scheme of preserving genetic diversity by hanging on to as many species as we reasonably* can.
You're not getting my point. The only way to save a species is if it breeds and sustains itself. An artificial environment won't let the species do that. So I object because the system works in the short term but not in the long term.
Do the ranchers on these preserves have to manually inseminate the animals and/or bring in native African vegetable stuffs to feed the animals? That wasn't made clear in the video.
Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2012 4:03 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
You're not getting my point. The only way to save a species is if it breeds and sustains itself. An artificial environment won't let the species do that. So I object because the system works in the short term but not in the long term.
Do the ranchers on these preserves have to manually inseminate the animals and/or bring in native African vegetable stuffs to feed the animals? That wasn't made clear in the video.
Considering the effort involved in both endeavours, I highly doubt it. I also do not quite see what point that would serve.
And regardless of the level of human intervention, the ORIGINAL habitatats ARE more worthy of protection as a whole then the flagship species are on their own, in isolation.
QFT, this a textbook forest for the trees argument. You can save some maples and oaks by transplanting them in your backyard and lose the whole forest from where you took them.
I'm all for banning this sort of hunting (and all hunting, for that matter). If we wouldn't treat humans in a certain way, I'm also against treating any non-human animals that way. Killing for pleasure is a sickness. I can think of no reason such an activity should be allowed to continue, let alone be twisted into a positive.
No I did not. I am at work. I had a quick peek now, and from glancing the first minute or so of the docu (without sound) the first thing that stands out is that none of the animals shown are, to the best of my limited knowledge, facing exctinction. Certainly zebra's, wildebeests and buffalo roam the serengeti in great numbers. So I would need to see some backup of that fact. 
