The blind irony of hunting outrage

Every time I see an article in the paper or online about hunting, more so African safaris in the nature of the recent Melissa Bachman and The Herald’s bloated emotive bullshit by Bevan Hurley on NZ businessman Mark Gunton I see the same old nonsense repeated. All, if not most of it is based on emotional outrage, lack of understanding, research or all three of the above. Far be it from from us at WOBH to allow biased MSM spin go unchallenged.

This week over 450,000 people signed a?Change.orgpetition?calling for the South African government to ban big-game huntress and Minnesota-based television presenter, Melissa Bachman. The online?fury?was sparked after Bachman posted a photo posing with a dead lion she hunted in Africa.

Above is the perfect example of people?left wing idiots who do not can not engage logical thought processes, and act on emotional outrage. All of those who have signed the petition are effectively rallying to act against the law, by petitioning to ban a person for participating in a legal act in that country.

Illegally ban a person for acting within the law. Got it.

The irony is that lawful hunters like Bachman are instrumental in raising money for conservation efforts, and keeping wildlife populations stable.

The?Change.org?petition says that she is a ?contradiction to the culture of conservation.? It also describes her Facebook post as one featuring her with a ?lion she has just executed and murdered.? It is perfectly acceptable to renounce the concept of sport hunting, but equating hunting with murder is absurd.

Lawful hunting does not pose a threat to conservation. Lions are?not listed?as an endangered species, nor are any of the other animals and birds Bachman poses with on her website. In fact, lawful hunting serves a?vital role?in managing overpopulation, reducing intraspecies competition for food and shelter, and raising money for conservation.

Proceeds from licenses, animal tags and other expenses associated with hunting, fund more than $1.6 billion a year in conservation programs in the U.S. This pays for wetland restoration, research and wildlife law enforcement work to fight poaching, habitat creation, and other activities that help countless species.

A study?cited?by National Geographic pointed out that tourists pay over $200 million a year to hunt lions, leopards, elephants, warthogs, water buffalo, impala, and rhinos, in the 23 African countries that allow sport hunting. These funds contribute to the economy and are used to maintain sustainable habitat for these animals.

$200 million that goes into the local economy, conservation and sustainability management. $200 million that they would not otherwise get in the way of government funding or cash injections from so called animal advocacy groups who do nothing more than bleat like hungry goats when they see something they don’t like.

From a National Geographic news article from 2007:

Trophy hunting can play an essential role in the conservation of African
wildlife, according to a growing number of biologists.

Now some experts are calling for a program to regulate Africa’s sport-hunting industry to ensure its conservation benefits.

According to a recent study, in the 23 African countries that allow sport hunting, 18,500 tourists pay over $200 million (U.S.) a year to hunt?lions,?leopards,?elephants,?warthogs,?water buffalo,impala,?and rhinos.

Private hunting operations in these countries control more than 540,000 square miles (1.4 million square kilometers) of land, the study also found. That’s 22 percent more land than is protected by national parks.

As demand for land increases with swelling human populations, some conservationists are arguing that they can garner more effective results by working with hunters and taking a hand in regulating the industry.

Sport hunting can be sustainable if carefully managed, said Peter Lindsey, a conservation biologist with the University of Zimbabwe in Harare, who led the recent study.

“Trophy hunting is of key importance to conservation in Africa by creating [financial] incentives to promote and retain wildlife as a land use over vast areas,” he said.

In an upcoming edition of the journal?Conservation Biology?Lindsey and an international team of colleagues call for a plan to increase the conservation benefits of sport hunting, including a certification program to more tightly regulate the industry.

“To justify the continued existence of [protected] areas in the context of increasing demand for land, wildlife has to pay for itself and contribute to the economy, and hunting provides an important means of achieving this,” Lindsey said. –

John Pickrell
for?National Geographic News
March 15, 2007

18,500 tourists. Take Melissa Bachman out of the equation, that leaves 18,499 hunters or so that the outrage brigade are neglecting to be outraged about, but we all know it is easier for cowards to target a woman, make derogatory sexual slurs, mysoginist remarks and sexist innuendo.

Lawful African hunts are regulated so they provide the maximum benefit without endangering any species. It is poaching that poses a threat to wildlife, not lawful hunting. Funds raised through lawful hunting are used to combat poaching.

The meat from hunting often goes to help feed the hungry. The Maroi Conservancy, which guided Bachman?s hunt,?announced?on their Facebook page that ?all meat from animals hunted is distributed to the local community.?

What’s that? The meat is distributed to the local community? there goes another opinion masquerading as a fact down the dunnie. An opinion that pops up time and time again,(as I’ve already seen today) but it is contrary to the facts. But now we’ve got that one out of the way, let’s step over the carcass of that myth continue on:

Those describing hunting as murder are equating humans with animals, which is a morally inconsistent position for anyone who eats meat. Whether the animal is a lion or a cow makes no difference.

Animals either have the same rights as humans, or a human, as a predator, has a right to consume them. If you eat meat or wear leather, than you can?t equate killing animals to murder.

Hunted meat is arguably more ethical than factory raised meat because at least the animal lived a free life before its death. It is also healthier and leaner meat.

People need to stop demonizing millions of lawful hunters, like Bachman, with emotional, sensationalist, knee-jerk reactions and anthropomorphizing animals. It is one thing to object to sport hunting on moral grounds, but it is completely disingenuous to call it murder and to disregard its benefits. Humans have been?hunting for eons; it?s a way for families to connect with nature, procure healthy meat, help the economy, manage excess wildlife, and yes, thereby, help the environment. – The Daily Caller

The outrage brigade and leftie screamers can’t seem to get past the fact she is a woman, she enjoys her hunting, makes a living out of filming it (it’s not a crime) despite the fact the meat goes to the local people who need it. Who pulls the trigger and how they feel about it makes no difference. The non thinkers would have you believe the animal is shot, taken a photo of, and left to rot where it lies. Calling it “a waste”. All in the convenient ignorance of facts.

You may not agree with this type of hunting, that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. But at least think about your reasons behind it, before using opinion masquerading as facts. Most of the opinions I’ve read elsewhere and even on this blog contradict the facts, of which most people are too lazy to research before putting finger to keyboard.

I am yet to see a logically constructed opposition to the argument other than “it’s sick”, “what a waste”, “bitch needs to be shot” and “I am a hunter and I oppose this kind of hunting.”

It also brings a bit of a smirk to my face when I see the comments about the hunting being a waste. Some of these large government/hunting conservancy partnerships make our own Department of Conservation look incompetent and stupid.?They use sustainable hunting for management. We use 1080. And yet some of us in this country have the cheek to be preaching about other countries using immoral practices.

Opposing the hunting is perfectly reasonable. But the irony of the situation is the knee jerk reaction of going on a crusade to stop the practice that is the very life blood of poor communities, the conservation effort to maintain animal habitat and sustainable numbers is nothing but blind stupidity and selfish ignorance.

A crusade by thousands of fools who probably don’t even know where the African continent, let alone an individual country within it is. Thousands of fools interfering in business that doesn’t concern or affect them, other than having a brain aneurysm every time they see a dead cute animal. ?Tourists aside, banning the hunting has a more direct financial and physical effect on more people than allowing it to happen just to appease some foreign sooks on social media or blog that gets the sad sniffles when a photograph pops up online.

It’s kind of like opposing oil drilling really. Except it’s not the direct benefactors doing the crying this time, it is foreign busybodies with gnashing teeth and sweaty hands smashing away in anger at their keyboards (see Bevan Hurley, I can use emotive language too) who have no oar in this boat.

And remember: by the time you’ve finished typing your emotionally fueled comment, another lion dies.

40%
×