Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2005 9:30:34 GMT -5
I got kinda creeped out with all the stuff in the Sunday Star (as well as some other recent blurbs that have had a bit of a negative vibe with regard to hunting). I think the anti-hunting movement is starting to step up it's agenda. When you see front page coverage on the state's largest paper's Sunday edition and it shows hunting in an iffy (at best) light, it really makes me sort of sick. It feels like we are fixing to get attacked boys and girls.
There was even a sort of negative article in the sports section by the so called outdoors writer...I think it was a bad day for hunting at the Indy Star.
|
|
|
Post by parrothead on Oct 24, 2005 9:37:20 GMT -5
I saw that and read it. That guy is making a killing. A 3 day hunt $3900 and he had 40 people booked for this year=156,000. Not a bad part time job. It did make it look bad thought. The one guy was happy as a two p_ cker puppy to kill the buck that he did. 100 deer on 100 acres of land.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 24, 2005 9:54:33 GMT -5
I got kinda creeped out with all the stuff in the Sunday Star (as well as some other recent blurbs that have had a bit of a negative vibe with regard to hunting). I think the anti-hunting movement is starting to step up it's agenda. When you see front page coverage on the state's largest paper's Sunday edition and it shows hunting in an iffy (at best) light, it really makes me sort of sick. It feels like we are fixing to get attacked boys and girls. There was even a sort of negative article in the sports section by the so called outdoors writer...I think it was a bad day for hunting at the Indy Star. I think that a lot of the pro-hunting went when Don Mulligan left the Star.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 24, 2005 10:02:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by outdoorswithdon on Oct 24, 2005 10:30:43 GMT -5
Thanks for noticing, guys. I was sickened by both of the aricles mentioned. The first time they cover deer season is in a negative story on the front page. Don Mulligan www.outdoorswithdon.com
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 24, 2005 10:39:19 GMT -5
"Skip" needs to get th real story about "trophy hunting" in Africa.
It is a boon to the native economy and it PROTECTS the game there.
Before the natives had no reason to protect the game. Now tha they are getting paid and recieving the meat form the "trophy animals" they are watching them for poachers.
The American "trophy hunters" couldn't bring back the meat is they wanted to. The USDA wont allow it.
BUT... the public's perception of "trophy hunting" is that we shoot an animal, cut off it's head and leave the rest to rot in the fields.
Until that perception is changed we need to go easy on this promoting "trophy growing and trophy hunting"..
The DNRs catch enough flack from the ARFs for managing herds to "provide targets for the sportsmen/women" without the ARFs having ammo that says" Now the DNRs are managing trophies for the hunters."
We need to be very,very careful..
|
|
|
Post by hotshot on Oct 24, 2005 11:19:42 GMT -5
my email: cut and pasted .... Skip, Your article seemed to focus on Africa. You touched the topic but proved your ignorance. In the countries where safari hunting take place it is big business. The fees charged are for the hunt, not the canned shot. The animals are in the wild, not fenced in. The meat, due to some obscure U. S. law is not allowed in the states, only the head and hide. The meat is actually given, yes, given freely to villages in the countryside. This meat in many cases is vital to the health of the village. In Indiana, it is common knowledge that deer are overpopulated. Can you imagine an elephant eating your garden? While some areas of Africa have few elephants, others are overrun. Hunting is helping to bring the population to proper levels and provides income to people who have few other options. By publicly showing support for PETA, you are condoning the support of terroristic behavior. PETA has publicly admitted that their organization thinks it is okay for violent "liberation" of animals used in medical research. Tell that to a woman who is suffering through breast cancer. A research facility was destroyed a few years back by PETA and Animal Liberation Front Members. This raid set cancer research back by years. Recently, ALec Baldwin, who was once an outspoken "PETA boy", quietly left the Animal rights limelight. Why?.... His mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. Suddenly everything he'd been saying wasn't as important. Why did you even write the article? Traditional numbers state that 10 percent of people hunt, 10 percent are anti-hunting, the other 80 could care less about the topic. Thus, your article only has an intrest level of about 20 percent of your readers... Good journalism? Or are you trying to mislead the public. In any debate, facts and research mean more than emotional fluff. You neglected to mention the majority of scientific facts that prove hunting is in the right. You stated in your article that you researched your topic, as a teacher, I certainly can use your article as a poor example of research. Scott Hottell Angola, Indiana
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 24, 2005 11:35:29 GMT -5
Good one Scott.
Let us know if you hear anything back from him. I'm sure he will catch an earful.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Oct 24, 2005 12:15:15 GMT -5
Ditto Woody. I did not like the direction the "Outdoors" section was going, so I dropped the paper. Sure do miss Don's insight.
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Oct 24, 2005 13:28:28 GMT -5
hotshot - did you send that to Skip or as a letter to the editor? It will never see the light of day as a letter to Skip. My advice? Resend it as a letter to the editor.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 24, 2005 14:38:46 GMT -5
Actually, I have said this before fellas.......
When you send a e-mail like that to the Star....ALSO send it to their ADVERTISERS!!!!
Dick's Sporting Goods, Gander Mountian and such places spend hundreds of thousands of dollars with the paper each year. When you let the newspaper management know that you are talking to their advertisers, it will get their attention!!!!
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 27, 2005 9:49:30 GMT -5
"Skip" needs to get th real story about "trophy hunting" in Africa. It is a boon to the native economy and it PROTECTS the game there. Before the natives had no reason to protect the game. Now that they are getting paid and receiving the meat form the "trophy animals" they are watching them for poachers. The American "trophy hunters" couldn't bring back the meat is they wanted to. The USDA wont allow it. BUT... the public's perception of "trophy hunting" is that we shoot an animal, cut off it's head and leave the rest to rot in the fields. Until that perception is changed we need to go easy on this promoting "trophy growing and trophy hunting".. The DNRs catch enough flack from the ARFs for managing herds to "provide targets for the sportsmen/women" without the ARFs having ammo that says" Now the DNRs are managing trophies for the hunters." We need to be very,very careful.. We often think of our wildlife management as the gold standard, but what has been done in Africa by a small number of dedicated people with few resources is truly remarkable. Former poachers now diligently protect the wildlife resources because safari hunting has made it in their best interest to do so. Local villagers get the meat down to almost the very last scrap and receive a portion of hunting fee for every animal hunted in their area. Some of these areas are high fenced though and for several very good reasons. As for Mr. Hess, it is just another example of how ignorance is dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Oct 27, 2005 16:11:56 GMT -5
It's a great system unless your the natives who wants to hunt. You got to let the Great White Hunter with money kill your country's native wildlife and accept their cast off meat that they never wanted in the first place. So you would get paid off not to hunt by the haves. How many of you want to take that trade off here in this country. Perhaps we should auction off the buck tags here in Indiana to the highest bidder. Only they can shoot our states largest bucks. The rest of the bucks would be allowed to grow up and reach trophy size. Those of us with license would receive a stippen for not being allowed to hunt and even perhaps those with incomes under a certain level could receive meat donations. Perhaps those who did not have the money to win a buck tag would be allowed to hunt does and again keep some meat if you are under a certain income level and the rest would have to be donated to the poor or prisons or perhaps even sold for revenue enhancement . Surely this would be an economic plus to Indiana.
The TIP program needs to be changed here too. Instead of rewarding those who turn in a poacher we need to pay the poachers not to poach.
It was the commercialization of wildlife that lead to poaching and wanton waste of wildlife. Animals were being killed for there commercial value not the meat. Although the system has change somewhat, wildlife is still are being comercialized. Had this been stop like it was in our country, all instead of only the privledged would truely have access.
While Africa's wildlife has improved from the slaughter and waist of the past. The North American Wildlife model is the "gold standard". I wonder how many of us would be hunting today if Roosevelt and others had not stopped the comercialization that occured prior to the 1900's and set up a system for all, not just the priveleged of which Roosevelt came.
I believe Hess and PETA have it wrong but I would not look to Africa as the model for hunting or a society that has it right about many social issues.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 27, 2005 20:01:22 GMT -5
That is an interesting take on the situation, care to elaborate with some evidence to back up your position? Exactly who would protect the wildlife without the safari system? Where would the incentive to protect wildlife instead of exploit it come from without sportsmen's dollars?
We should pay poachers to stop doing what they shouldn't be doing in the first place? Wouldn't that cause more people to poach in order to get paid to quit poaching?
Has the commercialization of wildlife really stopped in this country? It seems to me one form of commercialization has simply been traded for another.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Oct 27, 2005 22:44:40 GMT -5
Man the old popular saying of "Indiana needs to be more like IL, OH, MI, KY just went out the door. Now we have someone who thinks IN needs to be more like Africa, mercy. The picture I see of Africa is no locals could afford to hunt African game. Like I said I don't know but everything I see and hear gives me that impression. Not so golden in my book.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 28, 2005 5:59:54 GMT -5
I'm not saying that Indiana should be anything like Africa, just that many African countries have a great system considering what they have to deal with and what they have work with. If you really want to learn something about the subject I would recommend beginning with a thorough study of African history followed by a thorough study of safari hunting history, not simply listening to people on the net.
Anyway, this thread has diverged from the topic of the Star's bias against hunting. I would be happy to debate the pros and cons of African style hunting in another thread with any interested parties.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Oct 28, 2005 9:44:13 GMT -5
Yea I am not really interested in African anything. Thanks for the suggestions though.
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Oct 30, 2005 21:53:53 GMT -5
Associated Press October 26, 2005
CAPE TOWN, South Africa - Lions bred in captivity to be shot and killed by a pleasure-seeking tourist. Rhinos felled by bow and arrow for fun. Zebras bred with donkeys to slow their escape from hunters. A panel of experts highlighted the darker side of South Africa's booming wildlife industry Tuesday and recommended a total ban on "canned hunting" - the release of captive-bred animals to be killed for sport with no chance of escaping their human predators. Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said the government would introduce legislation next year to salvage South Africa's reputation as an international haven for wildlife. "We want to stop the approach of 'anything goes' in terms of hunting and crossbreeding," said van Schalkwyk, himself an avid hunter. "Some practices which have been developed over years and decades are distasteful and despicable." Last year, an estimated 6,700 tourists killed nearly 54,000 animals. Faced with mounting public concern, van Schalkwyk convened a panel of environmental conservation and management experts in April to look into the industry and suggest ways of regulating it. Documents provided to the panel by the TRAFFIC wildlife trade monitoring network provided details on the extent of the "trophy" hunting business. It said 190 lions were hunted last year by foreign tourists, worth an estimated $3.3 million - or $17,500 each. Nearly 5,500 kudus - valued at $5.3 million in all - also were killed, along with 45 leopards worth an estimated $250,000. The list of slain animals included baboons, giraffes, elephants, hippopotamuses, mongooses, porcupines, warthogs and zebras. Prices paid ranged from $25 for the humble pigeon or quail to $25,000 for the mighty white rhinoceros. Some hunters were offered the chance to shoot large mammals, including rhinoceroses, with bows and arrows, condemning them to a long and painful death, the panel found. "This is something that no civilized country can continue to tolerate," van Schalkwyk said. To satisfy the insatiable demand of foreign hunters, game parks resorted to importing boars from Russia and tahrs from the Himalayas, the panel said. Breeders also used crossbreeding and genetic manipulation to make the potential prey more appealing - for instance, by introducing more albino strains in lions. This could have devastating implications for long-term biodiversity in South Africa, the panel said. One of the most extreme examples quoted was that of the "zonkey," a crossbreed between the fleet-footed zebra and the slower-moving donkey. The panel concluded that hunting is - and should remain - an integral part of South African life because of its importance to the economy and employment. Hunting kudu and other game to make "biltong" - a popular local dried meat - is one of a number of entrenched traditions, it said. But the panel said there must be more controls, greater self-regulation and a concerted attempt to transform the white-dominated hunting industry into a multiracial business that benefits more sectors of society.
Crispian Olver, chairman of the expert panel, said implementation of its recommendations would help repair South Africa's tarnished image among environmentalists and animal rights groups. "We would be able to stand proud among the nations of the world and no longer be ashamed of our hunting," he said.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 31, 2005 6:06:01 GMT -5
Using one worst case example and then implying that all hunting is like that has been a favorite tactic of ARFs for years. Now it is becoming popular among hunters with an agenda. But misinformation and outright lies don't really matter if it leads to what you want does it?
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Oct 31, 2005 15:15:08 GMT -5
mbogo brought up Arfrica and made implications
"We often think of our wildlife management as the gold standard, but what has been done in Africa by a small number of dedicated people with few resources is truly remarkable. Former poachers now diligently protect the wildlife resources because safari hunting has made it in their best interest to do so. Local villagers get the meat down to almost the very last scrap and receive a portion of hunting fee for every animal hunted in their area. Some of these areas are high fenced though and for several very good reasons."
Then there are implications of "hunters with agendas" and then once again some one brings up AR's as if there was a connection. One wonders who really has Agenda?
Since hunting in Africa was held up to view, I just offered up a differrent perspective. Do you dispute the article?
|
|