I believe that the majority of the African wildlife killings are done by poachers.
https://www.awf.org/campaigns/poaching-infographic/
http://www.lionaid.org/news/2013/05/are-lions-being-poached-for-their-bones.htm
“Does he take these threats seriously?”
I was referring to the reference that apparently some posters here (actually I didn’t see them but take that poster’s word for it) suggested what they would like to see happen to him and/or his man parts. If they were “threats” here, doubtful any of us take them seriously. Now if he is getting death threats at his home and/or office, thats a different story, though only he can know whether or not he takes them seriously. I think there is a mix of true outrage and faux outrage.
Feds open investigation on Cecil’s killing - http://www.kare11.com/story/news/crime/2015/07/30/feds-open-investigation-into-lions-death/30888691/
Someone upthread mentioned that the king of Spain lost his throne, in part, after the press found a picture of him posing triumphantly with the body of an elephant in Botswana. But I haven’t heard anything about the BRF during the current outrage which is weird because bloodsports are among their very favorite pastimes. And there’s that recently discovered photo of the young Queen Elizabeth standing over a dead tiger. So awkward that William is also involved in wildlife conservation causes, in between hunting trips.
Hunters are generally the biggest supporters of wildlife conservation. This is no different than someone who eats fish being a supporter of wildlife conservation.
No, hunters are generally the biggest supporters of conservation of game species, not the biggest supporters of wildlife conservation in general. There’s a difference. Here in the Upper Midwest, for example, hunting for white-tailed deer is huge. Many, probably most deer hunters want the wildlife conservation and land management agencies to manage forest resources in a way that maximizes the deer herd available for “harvest,” even if it means, e.g., eliminating old-growth forest that provides habitat for other species and replacing it with stands of young aspen that deer love to browse on, and even if it means allowing the deer to over-browse and damage forest resources that other species depend on. And I’ll bet if you asked 10 Minnesota deer hunters what they think of the timber wolf (gray wolf), at least 6 or 7 of the 10 would say we should reduce or eliminate the wolf population because wolves prey on too many deer. Similarly, many or most recreational anglers don’t care about conservation of any aquatic species other than their favorite game fish; and most are perfectly happy to have the DNR artificially stock their favorite lakes with hatchery-raised game fish, even if that’s to the detriment of other, non-game species.
Are fish eaters really wilderness conservationists? What makes someone a “supporter”?
Ok, I’ll defer to your expertise. But they can’t have any game without their habitat being conserved.
The same people who say hunters cannot be conservationists, would have to say fish eaters cannot be conservationists. The argument would be the same. So if one can be, the other can be, too. Or they both aren’t. Its an arbitrary judgment, really. Eating plants kills plants, unless you only eat seeds and fruit and no root vegetables. I guess one could argue that vegetarians don’t care about wilderness conservation either. Farming is so destructive.
98754321/
I certainly would never say hunters can’t be conservationists. Teddy Roosevelt was a notorious big game hunter, but he was also one of the most pro-conservation Presidents we’ve ever had. And here in Minnesota our present Governor, Mark Dayton, is a conservationist in the broadest sense of the word, but he also hunts (mostly pheasant, I think) and fishes. Many hunters don’t have the same broad conservation vision as a Teddy Roosevelt or a Mark Dayton, however.
I have a fondness for some vigilante environmentalists like the ones who were subject to one of these articles (in and excellent series) by the NY Times. (keyword = some)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/world/a-renegade-trawler-hunted-for-10000-miles-by-vigilantes.html
The Sea Shepherds, in a boat called Bob Barker? Well, who else is going to take on the world’s worst pirate fishing vessel?
Sorry, @Bay, I misinterpreted your post. I thought when you said “This is no different than someone who eats fish being a supporter of wildlife conservation.” you meant that those who eat fish are wildlife conservationists. It made me scratch my head and think, “Really?” One can be a fish eater and not care about the depletion of fish populations or the condition in hatcheries. I don’t believe it it goes hand in hand, one or the other that you mentioned on later.
Thought I read somewhere that 80-90% of Minnedota state funds to support parks, conserve forests, waters and natural lands and wildlife habitat comes from the fees collected for hunting and fishing licenses.
That may be, but that’s not voluntary. Do cigarette smokers support public health because taxes on cigarette packs go to fund public health initiatives?
I guess I should have clarified. The hunting and fishing licenses provide a gigantic portion of the FINANCIAL support for Minnesota’s parks, forests, natural lands and wildlife habitat.
Yes, that was clear. But if someone has to pay something, the “support” is coming from the legislators who are designating that money for conservation, not the people who have to pay.
I think you’re misremembering, or your source was just wrong. The Minnesota DNR essentially does nothing but manage parks and conserve forests, waters, natural resources, and wildlife habitat. The agency’s total budget is about $500 million annually, of which only about 12% comes from hunting and fishing license fees. Hunting and fishing license revenue–about $60 million annually–goes directly into the state’s Game and Fish Fund, administered by the DNR, and by law can’t be spent for any other purpose. It pays about 60% of the $100 million budget of DNR’s Fish and Wildlife Division, where it’s used for things like fish stocking, management of fishing lakes, game habitat and hunting grounds management in designated Wildlife Management Areas, and enforcement of hunting and fishing laws. The rest of the Fish and Wildlife Division’s budget comes from various federal grant programs and a tax on lottery tickets. So state hunting and fishing license fees don’t even cover the costs of the services provided more or less directly to hunters and anglers. Nearly 2/3 of wildlife expenditures from the Game and Fish Fund go to management of Wildlife Management Areas, essentially state-owned game preserves totaling 1.3 million acres statewide. These are popular public hunting grounds, but they are also valuable conservation lands and are used by birders and wildlife watchers, so they have somewhat broader conservation benefits.
Minnesota’s state parks and trails are managed by DNR’s Parks and Trails Division under a separate $100 million budget, supported by park user fees and general fund tax revenues. No hunting and fishing license revenue goes to state parks, even though the Parks and Trails Division does provide valuable services to hunters and anglers, e.g., managing and maintaining 1,495 public water access sites and 355 fishing piers. The Parks and Trails Division also administers $25 million annually in grants to local governments and organizations for local parks and trails; again, no hunting/fishing license revenue is used.
Minnesota’s 4.1 million acres of state forests–representing 24% of the state’s forested land–are managed by DNR’s Forestry Division, again with no support from hunting/fishing license revenue. Revenue comes from timber sales, user fees (e.g., state forest campground fees), and the general fund. In many ways this is the state’s most important forest, land, and wildlife conservation program, and it also benefits hunters and anglers as these lands are open to public hunting and fishing as well as many other recreational uses, and watersheds in undisturbed forest areas are generally more pristine than other waters. The Forestry Division is also responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires not only in the state forests themselves but also elsewhere throughout the state.
DNR has some other Divisions, too, none of them supported by hunting and fishing license fees. These include Lands and Minerals which manages 12 million acres of state-owned mineral rights and acts as real estate manager and broker for the state; Ecological and Water Resources Management which manages Scientific and Natural Areas and administers water withdrawal permitting and wetlands permitting ; and Operations Support which performs the general overhead functions for the agency and also manages the state’s 2.5 million acres of school trust lands and another 1 million acres of school trust severed mineral interests.
And that doesn’t even begin to account for the funds spent on protecting water resources by other state agencies like the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, or the hundreds of millions in sales tax revenue spent annually on clean water and natural resources projects and programs through the Clean Water and Legacy Amendment program, adopted by referendum in 2008
So hunting and fishing license revenues are not unimportant to the State of Minnesota’s land, water, and wildlife conservation programs, but at the end of the day they represent a fairly small fraction of the total cost of those programs, and the services and benefits the state DNR provides to hunters and anglers actually far exceed what hunters and anglers pay back in license fees.
A Seattle area resident has stepped forward to defend Walter Palmer. He notes that he, Palmer and other big game hunters should be considered saints among hunters. I can’t even begin to understand his mindset.
one lion
kidnapped girls
Joseph Kony
… three things Americans pretend to care about on the continent of Africa.
After a couple days, the outrage will move on to something else.
I think the world would be better off without this guy, but the random outrage at this ONE person is kind of hilarious.