Hunting or fishing

Wrong again. Many trophy animals are cultivated and farmed, and that results in them having a large population when they would otherwise be dancing on the edge of extinction.



You're the one with the track record of being wrong all of the time, and I'm the one with the track record of being right all the time.

Not rich at all. If a species goes extinct because it is no longer being conserved by trophy hunters, the result is no animals.

Except you are doing the opposite. You're trying to drive some animals to extinction, and trying to cause an unhealthy and dangerous overpopulation of other animals.

You hve no friggin idea about the businss and marketing that gos on with "hunting and fishing"

The only way animals wont dance with xtinction is if we leve them the **** alone . The carrying capacity of the environment is based on birth rates, feed capacity and mortality. Human are a big factor in all of these and if you dont know, most of the herds and flocks we dont do anything with are doing better than those we "manage"

GAME MANAGEMENT is another name for slow extinction. I only hunt for wild turkey and waterfowl. Waterfowl are the least managed of any species. They rely on seasonal migration or winter hole up. not "management"

Canadian an snow geese are at all time highs due mostly to climate change and bag limits (if it werent for bag limits wed have the passenger pigeon and bison story.
If theres anything about species management re gam animals, I can quite you species by species infor (nnd It its mostly not so good).

nd mot of those are gelded cervids so they dont enter the wild population and mess with gene pools (unless its a total **** up with the management of a herd)
Most frmed species are sent to game farms or are licensed to firms deling with open range and BLM areas.


Controlling the number of licenses and the bag limits season by season has been the only thing that hasnt sent all species crashing and that means a declining hunt over time.

The species who are rescued from extinction by trophy hunters would beg to differ.

Trophy hunting is a well organized , sponsored, and marketed worldwide business and is second only to poaching . That is a well documented fact that only trophy hunters will deny.(or those who believe their game Fish and Game agencies).

You are arguing over the facts. I don't know which one of you is correct. I am interested in the principle.

If you find out that the fact is that organized trophy hunting is good for these big game species... meaning that it made these species more likely to survive, would you change your mind and support the practice?

My support or opposition to the practice of trophy hunting depends on the facts. If it helps species and (more importantly) the people who live in these areas, then I support it.

One thing to keep in mind; the wild predators normally stick to the weakest animals. Trophy hunters usually hold out for the best. In other words, the animals most suited for breeding.

Like you, I don't know if trophy hunting has a better or worse effect on the animals being hunted.

ALL hunting has had an impact on species. Several species were hunted to extinction during paleo Indian through post colonial times. NOw, 60% of the cash needed to "manage" game herds comes from hunting licenses and gun sales.
Hunting and especially trophy hunting is a HUUUGE cash stream. BUT, its in major decline. Hunting is still going on but in another generation it will be a rare event rather than a tradition.

Smalll game and waterfowling is mostly a "sport" to get groceries. We rarely hunt for small game trophies. Over a hunters life he may have one pheasant (a totally introduced foreign species) stuffed but will enjoy ting hundreds.. Trophy hunting gets all its jollies from major kills of beautiful specimens of boars and bucks. (With some market hunting for does, ewes, and sows).

HUNTERS in PA do NOT maintin a healthy bear population, the governments agencies do. TheDCNR controls the number of licenses and permits (BY COUNTY). There is a harvest rule that is strongly enforced. The Pa Gme News is rife with poaching stories and fines for unusual lawbreaking. Hunters are a mere mechanism, a tool employed to raise revenue and give an appearance of "looking busy"

Hunters are aware of this and, besides waterfowl hunters, they know that they are a tool that must be carefully used to meet the dnr's ends. Pretty much all states do this . "Species management of golden and ringneck pheasants in Kansas Nebraska and Iowa consists of huge game farms that raise peeps and grow specimens that are released into a totally foreign land. Pa did this but newer farming practices arent pheasant friendly so now pheasants in Pa are "wxtinct in the wild", yet we still pay for the game farms

The arguments I have heard in favor of trophy hunting mainly revolve around generating large amounts of money.

If enough of this money is distributed to local communities and used to maintain habitat for the animals in question... then it may tip the balance. Nature has killed off big game itself when there are too many of them. These species can handle a certain amount of hunting.

ALL hunting has had a negative effect on species. I didnt want to get into an either or argument and I fer Ive been responsible for having sides get drawn up. Im a "meat" hunter and if we consider ten thousand hunters trophy hunting and 20000 meat hunters,soon it gets to be a real number (to quote Sen Sam Ervin). Trophy hunting serves no real "greater" purpose in any state because the money raised in upport doesnt do anything spectacular for species conservation , in fact, trophy hunting, by its definition , is like war,(It harvests our best).
Animals are showing effect of trophy hunting and fishing

1Overall numbers of most all target species have been greatly reduced since arrival of European

2Sizes of all target species have declined markwdly in 300 years. The really big (1000 lb to 1500 pound black bears) hve been eliminated all over.

3Game fish like swordfish, sailfih, and bluefin tuna have been reduced greatly in size and number as an obvious response to ovrfishing (sword and sailfish mostly as "trophy species", tuna from markt pressure.

4"Leaving alone" great fish species like Atlantic Sturgeon, paddlefish, pira rucu has helped in their very slow recovery.(In the case of sturgeon going caviar free has been the major rason)

The argument about game management is a fuckin lie that people, gullible to the last, will buy from the high marketing boys at state Fish n Game HQ's. Bison have gon from 20 MILLION on he plains to almost extinct to a post hunting number of about 250000(mot of whom are in private buffalo farms being raised for meat and about 30000 in National Park herds). Some privately owned bison have been farm raised and these too have shown really amazing adaptiv modifications in size, color, temperament etc. (Most of these have been crossed with Hereford cattle and whiteface cattle there is not true bison out there because of the "bottleneck" the species suffered when it was huntwed almost to wxtinction.
The recovery of bison has been an interesting story of genetic husbandry of an almost extinct species that was >effectively hunted out of being.
Imagine, subsistence (Meat and clothing) hunting by native Americans in an open plains environment has allowed the mega herds to be sustainably hunted (we think) for 10000 years. Then, in the space of 400 years, weve removed this entire species by hunting for pickled bison tongue. Then weve "hacked" a small herd or two by introducing canadian and Alaskan forest bison and then we mixed those with meat-breed cattle weve protected them for almost 125 yrs n were back to about 2% of the original herd size and as a totally different species.


Look at grizzly bear and puma. weve only got patches of these left and "leaving em alone" has been the real effective management program.

Thinking we can OUTTHINK, nature is hubris at its best.

That is an awfully broad generalization. Do you mean all hunting by human beings, or would you include lions hunting for zebras as part of this generalization?

What about stone aged tribes?

Here is a CBS 60 Minutes piece from 2012 about how trophy hunters brought some species back from the brink of extinction, and how anti-hunting radicals pushed for a hunting ban, saying that it is better to have only a handful of these animals exist anywhere on the planet than to let them exist in far greater numbers on ranches where they are hunted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r9-WeNXzTQ

Embedded playback is disabled so I'm just posting a link to the YouTube page. But it's really best downloaded directly in high definition anyway.

subsitence hunting has also taken animals to xtinction.
Moa were hunted for thwir eggs an mat. Certain animals need a specific density to be viable, apparently Moa were some of these.

Bison were apparently sought after by population of plains Indians who would drive numbers over cliffs or into depressions where they would be killed by fall (and the sudden stop). Basically, bison are extinct and a new species of Bos has resulted via hacking and crossbreeding. They are till in a genetic bottleneck. What we are raising now are a domestic/wild cross. ven the meat is marbled and quite tasty. (Bison , in the past, needed to be cooked in stews and braised to retain any moisture and tenderness)

Animals pursuing animals is an invalid comparison because thats how the "hunter/prey species evolved . Its the "red queen" argument involving stealth hunting/speed of attack . Human hunting is based on a super high velocity particle that kills in a line of sight.
Totally invalid comparison.

So what you really meant to say is "ALL hunting by humans has had a negative effect... " but I still don't buy it.

1) The word "ALL" is extreme. There are lots of prey species that humans have been hunting for millennia that are still doing perfectly well.

2) There are non-human hunters that have driven prey species to extinction. This isn't something uniquely human.

dangerous overpopulation


And that sounds a word play for me .

This comment make sense

I checked what is this throphy hunting

DISGUSTING OF A SPORT . heartless killers for me .

they are not "doing well" because we are hunting them. Logic dictates that when you take individuals out of their viable gene pool, they lose variability and hence hybrid vigor, critical numbers , and thus broad adaptation. "As a species becomes more finely adapted to an environment, the more it is trapped in it".

Passneger pigeons didnt immediately die of over"killing", the numbers that the species was reduced to were not dense enough to guarantee replacement stock. Passenger pigeons apparently were highly polymorphic and these polymorphs were reduced rather rapidly, by "sportsmen"
can you discuss a few?

No word play. Just you causing a lot of disease and car accidents because there are way too many deer for the environment to support.