NationStates Jolt Archive

This subject came up when Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face while on a "hunting trip" that involved flushing pen-raised quail about ten yards from the "hunter." Now I want to make something clear--while I have never been a hunter, I am not opposed to the practice. I grew up in an area where the first day of deer season was practically a school holiday, and I've eaten my share of wild game, so don't for a moment think that I'm either anti-hunting, or anti-gun.

But this is crap. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article354934.ece)

British tourists are fuelling a booming industry reliant on the slaughter of thousands of lions and other exotic animals by travelling to Africa to hunt semi-tame big game.

Rich huntsmen are willing to pay up to £625,000 a time to shoot and stuff animals bred commercially for their sport as part of the so-called "canned hunting" trade....

The demand is so great that animals are being hand-reared from birth in cages and sold on to stock the growing number of game ranches where they end their lives in fenced-off killing enclosures. They may be drugged into docility and habituated to human contact, it is claimed.

Welfare groups say such breeding practices render the animals sitting targets to the hunters who dispatch them with a choice of weapons, ranging from high-powered rifles to bows and arrows....

Now, the folks I grew up with would sneer at anyone who called this hunting--my friends were the kind who would shoot at a wild boar with a black powder rifle, knowing that if they didn't kill it, they'd better find a tree to get up, and quick, because that boar was gonna have their asses.

My question is this: what kind of person would want to pay this kind of money to do something so pathetic and fake? What are they compensating for? Who do they think they're impressing?

Seems rather pathetic to me. I've shot venison for the pot, and Kangaroo for the hide - I understand the draw of sport hunting, even if I don't especially feel the need to do it myself. But what's the point of "pitting yourself" against something unequipped to respond?

Seems rather pathetic to me. I've shot venison for the pot, and Kangaroo for the hide - I understand the draw of sport hunting, even if I don't especially feel the need to do it myself. But what's the point of "pitting yourself" against something unequipped to respond?
Exactly. Even if you lie to others and make it seem like you're mister-though-guy-big-white-bwana on safari, you can't really lie to yourself. In the end, you still have to live with the knowledge that you're a pathetic pencil-dicked weenie who would have been left behind in the village with the women and children while the warriors went out on the hunt (if they'd been born 10,000 years earlier, that is).

I am beginning to think that the only thing money buys is stupidity.

However, I don't really think this is something that we should outlaw.

I agree this is NOT hunting,real hunting is getting up at 5-6 in morning and going out and have the game have a chance. i mean last time i went deer hunting I didn't even fire my gun. my party saw more coytes than deer. that is hunting.

*snip*

This whole practice is complete and utter crap. If you're going to hunt, then hunt. These people are basically shooting caged animals just to kill them, which isn't hunting.

I would say people arleady engaged in this sort of activity have been lying to themselves for some time.

Who wants to wait and very likely find nothing. Africa's a big place! We give them a running start...sometimes.

I think they do this in Texas too.

I've never hunted myself, but I can tell you this much: this is utter and complete bullshit. A true hunter respects his prey and gives them a fighting chance, knowing that if the prey succeeds and kills him instead--which can happen with some prey, like a wild boar--then it is part of the cycle of nature. A wee bit of Native American spirituality there, but I agree with the sentiment. If I ever hunt, you can be damned sure I'd respect my prey and give them the chance they deserve. Fuck, they might as well just shoot the animals with cruise missiles with the "hunting" they are doing.

snip
I think they do this in Texas too.

they do it with quail,duck,deer,boar,turkey,phesant, and lawers.

But this is crap. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article354934.ece)





Agreed. This is crap. My girlfriend hunts for food and hides, and I fully support that. But this is the kind of crap that gives hunters a bad name.

Agreed. This is crap. My girlfriend hunts for food and hides, and I fully support that. But this is the kind of crap that gives hunters a bad name.

Female hunter eh? I wouldn't have thought there'd be very many of them.

Hunting animals bred to be easily hunted? Surely getting penile enhancement surgery would compensate far better than that.

what ever happened to sitting in a tree stand for 10 hours waiting for your game show up? now you can go hunting and shopping with your g/f in a single day...

I'm a Texan, female and a life long hunter.

This sort of utterly pathetic, utterly inexcuseable, activity enrages me beyond description.

That is not hunting, and an insult to real hunters every where - and an insult to the animals they slaughter.

Unfortunately yes Texas's wide open spaces do see these canned hunts happening and I am ashamed that fellow Texans not only condone it but operates them.

Part of me would like to take these 'brave and noble hunters' ( can I gag now? ) out, dump them in the wilds and let the animals hunt them.

Just because you don't like it isn't a reason to ban it.

Although I do agree it isn't hunting at all; it's target shooting. Hunters have a right to be pissed at this being called "hunting" because it simply isn't.

But to ban it? Nah. I don't support that at all.

Seems rather pathetic to me. I've shot venison for the pot, and Kangaroo for the hide - I understand the draw of sport hunting, even if I don't especially feel the need to do it myself. But what's the point of "pitting yourself" against something unequipped to respond?

Indeed. I don't have a problem with hunting if the animals actually have a chance, but this is just silly at best.

This subject came up when Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face while on a "hunting trip" that involved flushing pen-raised quail about ten yards from the "hunter." Now I want to make something clear--while I have never been a hunter, I am not opposed to the practice. I grew up in an area where the first day of deer season was practically a school holiday, and I've eaten my share of wild game, so don't for a moment think that I'm either anti-hunting, or anti-gun.

But this is crap. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article354934.ece)



Now, the folks I grew up with would sneer at anyone who called this hunting--my friends were the kind who would shoot at a wild boar with a black powder rifle, knowing that if they didn't kill it, they'd better find a tree to get up, and quick, because that boar was gonna have their asses.

My question is this: what kind of person would want to pay this kind of money to do something so pathetic and fake? What are they compensating for? Who do they think they're impressing?
This is obvious meant to appeal to liberals and Democrats that want to look good for the pro-gun, pro-hunting crowd. We can expect Hillary and the rest of the potential Democratic presidential candidates to form a line and take advantage of this.

This is obvious meant to appeal to liberals and Democrats that want to look good for the pro-gun, pro-hunting crowd. We can expect Hillary and the rest of the potential Democratic presidential candidates to form a line and take advantage of this.
Way to make it partisan when it's not even a US issue. Hack, table for one?

i think my only concern with this kind of thing is whether they would respect their own quotas based on how many animals they can raise, or if they would capture wild animals to make up for it.
i think it's dumb, but can't see it as regulation-worthy, unless it were cruel and inhumane. doesn't really sound like it though.

i agree that this is stupid. its cowardice if you ask me, and im sure the hunters are blustery men who's iq level is in the one digit range. hunting is fine as long as its done nobly, and done to animals that can afford to lose a few fellows.

Snip
But this is crap. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article354934.ece)Agreed.
Now, the folks I grew up with would sneer at anyone who called this hunting--my friends were the kind who would shoot at a wild boar with a black powder rifle, knowing that if they didn't kill it, they'd better find a tree to get up, and quick, because that boar was gonna have their asses. That's the way I hunt.... and I use a flintlock, revolver or sub-200yd lever rifle - with iron sights.
My question is this: what kind of person would want to pay this kind of money to do something so pathetic and fake? What are they compensating for? Who do they think they're impressing?
2 answers.

#1, Rich Wannabees (or wannabee posing as "rich people") will do whatever they want to, regardless of cost. Like everything else, they want the result without the effort and money/lines of credit are easier to come by than experience.

#2, The Political Answer: Your article is from the UK. Poor bastards have no experience with "real" hunting, and aren't allowed to either practice gun handling/safety or hunt in their own country anway - so what can you expect?

Seems rather pathetic to me. I've shot venison for the pot, and Kangaroo for the hide - I understand the draw of sport hunting, even if I don't especially feel the need to do it myself. But what's the point of "pitting yourself" against something unequipped to respond?

Deer and kangaroo are equiped to respond to rifles?

Deer and kangaroo are equiped to respond to rifles?
You obviously haven't hunted. I can't speak for 'Roo, but Deer are uber smart and sneaky. Well over 50% (80% in some places) of all deer tags go unfilled - even over baited plots... even where there are so many deer that the Hippies have to try to figure out how to reduce the population with artificial birth control. :rolleyes:

You obviously haven't hunted. I can't speak for 'Roo, but Deer are uber smart and sneaky. Well over 50% (80% in some places) of all deer tags go unfilled - even over baited plots... even where there are so many deer that the Hippies have to try to figure out how to reduce the population with artificial birth control. :rolleyes:

I am trained with the M-16. Not hard. I nearly ran down a deer on a bicycle when I was 12. I have accidently stepped on wild quail. I dont see the challenge of using a bullet that travels at beyond the speed of sound, when an Aerostar going 60mph can do the job. Where does the challenge come from? Is it the difficulty aiming? Or is it that you don't sit still, but trudge around and they run off before you get to them? Oh is the challenge merely measured in the impatience factor of waiting for a deer to come along?

As for the artificial birth controll, what is it anyway (what kind)?

We grow them to eat, why not grow them to shoot?

This is vile and disgusting, yes, but either the lives of non-human mammals have value or they don't, we shouldn't change our minds frivolously on the basis of how much we like or benefit from the practice in question.

I think you guys are missing the point.

The American VP does this. In this sport, they know where and when the animals are going to be let loose and in what direction. Cheney was playing with quail. He knew where to aim, he knew what to hit, yet he still somehow shot a man in the face.

Either he's got no experience with a gun whatsoever, or he meant to shoot the guy. Has this thought not come across anyone else's mind?

The only hunter I met I was truly impressed with was a guy I worked with in the forest. Every weekend he'd go out pig hunting with nothing more than 2 dogs and a knife. His dogs would round the pig up and he'd jump onto it's back and get the knife up into it's heart.
The only time he got injured was when he twisted his ankle dragging a carcass out of the bush. The boar weighed 130kgs. IMO, that's true hunting. You're certainly giving it agood chance against you.

Just because you don't like it isn't a reason to ban it.

Although I do agree it isn't hunting at all; it's target shooting. Hunters have a right to be pissed at this being called "hunting" because it simply isn't.

But to ban it? Nah. I don't support that at all.
I'm not finding anyone talking about banning it, just people calling those who do it fucktards (in so many words...). Who is calling for a ban?

You obviously haven't hunted. I can't speak for 'Roo, but Deer are uber smart and sneaky. Well over 50% (80% in some places) of all deer tags go unfilled - even over baited plots... even where there are so many deer that the Hippies have to try to figure out how to reduce the population with artificial birth control. :rolleyes:

Deer are actually supposed to be the most dangerous wild animal in the US, but that's mostly due to the high incidence of vehicular collisions. But, they can be quite dangerous to hunters, and I speak fromn experience. ucks have antlers and fairly sharp hooves, and hunting season (with some exceptions) takes place when males are in rut and at their most agressive. Plus, wounded animals are especially dangerous - I was almost gored by a wounded deer once while hunting.

'Roos have powerful hindlegs and sharp nails/claws. However, I understand there has only ever been one documented case of a 'roo killing a human (a hunter).

Oh, and canned hunts are a stupid abomination.

I am trained with the M-16. Not hard. I nearly ran down a deer on a bicycle when I was 12. I have accidently stepped on wild quail. I dont see the challenge of using a bullet that travels at beyond the speed of sound, when an Aerostar going 60mph can do the job. Where does the challenge come from? Is it the difficulty aiming? Or is it that you don't sit still, but trudge around and they run off before you get to them? Oh is the challenge merely measured in the impatience factor of waiting for a deer to come along?Nope. You don't know what you are talking about. DId you (almost) hit that deer during hunting season? I doubt it. A deer that you can walk up to the week before hunting season will vaporize the day before. I'm not much one for "stand" or "blind" hunting. To me, there is less sport than technology in waiting for somthing to walk past you. I'm a stalker. I go out and track a herd and try to sneak up on good meat. It's harder to do that in the East or Midwest because people "own" all the land, but in the West and Alaska - and REAL African bush, it's a way of life.

As for the artificial birth controll, what is it anyway (what kind)?The bunny hugging morons want to try anything but managed culling. Hormone implants (have to tranq the does first), Clipping the bucks (ditto), or other ways of attempting to Catch & Release a pissed-off 200+lb ruminant. :rolleyes:

You obviously haven't hunted. I can't speak for 'Roo, but Deer are uber smart and sneaky. Well over 50% (80% in some places) of all deer tags go unfilled - even over baited plots... even where there are so many deer that the Hippies have to try to figure out how to reduce the population with artificial birth control. :rolleyes:

So your saying that they shoot them so rarely that they want to use birth control on deer. And that they will employ this birth control after tranquilizing them, which will require them to be shot...... Seems like a self defeating argument.

Nope. You don't know what you are talking about. DId you (almost) hit that deer during hunting season? I doubt it. A deer that you can walk up to the week before hunting season will vaporize the day before. I'm not much one for "stand" or "blind" hunting.

Did you mean to say that it will vanish the next day (and not that it will vanish the day before you hit it). NM, I get it, vanish the day before hunting season.


To me, there is less sport than technology in waiting for somthing to walk past you.

Thats my argument. Agreed.


I'm a stalker. I go out and track a herd and try to sneak up on good meat. It's harder to do that in the East or Midwest because people "own" all the land, but in the West and Alaska - and REAL African bush, it's a way of life.


Well, like I said if you go trudging about it's hard as hell, deer can hear catapillars munching, so no matter how well you stalk, you are trudging. I can see how sneaking up on deer is challenging. Still though, deer have their natural gifts and we have ours, when you buy a rifle and use it you are using someone elses ingenuity (the inventor). Personally, I think if its going to be considered a sport you should have to make your own weapon.

We grow them to eat, why not grow them to shoot?

This is vile and disgusting, yes, but either the lives of non-human mammals have value or they don't, we shouldn't change our minds frivolously on the basis of how much we like or benefit from the practice in question.
I don't think it's as black and white as all that. A trophy on the wall and food on the plate are two very different ways of respecting an animal that has been killed.

Penned quail, drugged lions -- none of that is hunting. It's shooting. Fish in a barrel kind of shooting, at that.

I've got nothing against the legitimate gun wielding public, so long as they're responsible with their firearms and educate anyone who come in contact with them. I'm not a 2nd Amendment revisionist. But morons like those in the OP who want to be able to exude bravado for killing animals so duped and drugged that they could be hunted with a ball-peen hammer, well, these guys need to me tied to a chair and beaten with a Stilson wrench. Preferably by a drunken lion.

So your saying that they shoot them so rarely that they want to use birth control on deer. And that they will employ this birth control after tranquilizing them, which will require them to be shot...... Seems like a self defeating argument.Duh. But don't tell that to the Bunny Huggers. They live in a fantasy world.

Well, like I said if you go trudging about it's hard as hell, deer can hear catapillars munching, so no matter how well you stalk, you are trudging. I can see how sneaking up on deer is challenging. Still though, deer have their natural gifts and we have ours, when you buy a rifle and use it you are using someone elses ingenuity (the inventor). Personally, I think if its going to be considered a sport you should have to make your own weapon.Well, since I suppose I could make a flintlock equivilant to my deer rifle in about 2 or 3 days, I guessthe point is moot. I could also make a 9mm Submachinegun in about 48 hours. I guess I really don't know what you want.

If pressed, Icould find my own ore, smelt it, add carbonto make "woot" steel, draw it into a barrel and forge the lockwork (though I would probably use investment casting), carve a stock, find some flint and make my powder... I guess all that would probably take a year or so, but I could do it. Or I could make a Bow and arrow set, and cobble up a short-lived neurotoxin so I didn't need a broadhead to kill a deer. So what?

Humans have been "using someone else's ingenuity" since Og the Brainy discovered that pointy sticks can be used to kill things better than just throwing rocks.

Untill it is banned or civilization utterly collapses, I'll buy my gear, thank you.

These canned hunts are for yuppie losers who want to be able to brag that they bagged some type of big game, but think that they have left the civilized world if they can't get cell service.

Part of me would like to take these 'brave and noble hunters' ( can I gag now? ) out, dump them in the wilds and let the animals hunt them.

I suppose you could pretend to drive them to a canned hunt and drop them off in boar country. I'm thinking Cheney's not much of a tree climber...

I think that this sort of canned hunting is a sick joke that should be outlawed. I remember in the 90’s when there was a special duck decoy that approached other ducks and sprayed them with a neurotoxin to slow them down. It’s an insult to hunters and society to allow this sort of practice. People who think that this crap is hunting should stick to playing console games and stay out of the bush. Hunting is about respect. You respect weapon handling and marksmanship, and you respect the game. Otherwise you’re just another maladjusted moron with a gun.

I was personally surprised that Dick Cheney wasn’t publicly censured for taking part in such a farce as his hunting trip was. It’s a disgrace for someone of his position to denigrate what is a pioneer tradition in America. It’s like fly fishing out of a fish tank! Fish and Wildlife Services should fine the asses off people who operate this service and anyone who takes part. If Roosevelt had caught Cheney doing a stunt like that he’d have had him made into a throw rug, as a warning to others.

The Bruce

My question is this: what kind of person would want to pay this kind of money to do something so pathetic and fake? What are they compensating for? Who do they think they're impressing?


Actually, what you describe reminds me of an article I saw in Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/) (Edit: This is the article in question: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/03/03_2005_Duane.html )and a exerpt from a 20/20 special with John Stossel (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/ABCNEWSSpecial/) about conservation groups turning to selling hunting licenses as a means of saving endangered species, paying for environmental programs, and empowering indigenous populations.

According to proponents, securing land, and the stock of animals living there upon, as property encourages conservation of said animals even while hunting licenses are sold. Because the hunting licenses represent major profit (hundreds of thousands of dollars per individual animal) those owning the land and the animals there upon have an interest in carefully managing and conserving the animal population in order to ensure continued profit in the future. More animals means more hunting licenses can be sold, which in turn means not only more profit but also the rebuilding and rescue of endangered species populations.

The Mother Jones article described how such a method was being used to fund endangered species conservation efforts, and I recall that the John Stossel
special described how similar methods were being used to restore elephant populations while also providing poor indigenous peoples with a means to better themselves economically.

The bad evil profit motive and people who "want to pay [that] kind of money" can both apparently can be exploited to save endangered species and lift people out of poverty.

Interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Hand).

([b]Edit: Although what I read (Mother Jones) and heard (John Stossel) didn't seem anything like the sort of "canned" hunting described in this thread. What is described above provides a potential explanation of, and use for, expensive hunting licenses/permits, anyway.)

As to why Rich british people do it, probabaly because it would be cheaper than going to some highland estate to hunt dear. On a highland dear hunt you spend a stupid amount of money to be allowed 1 round of ammo, trudge around the hills in the pouring rain for days at a time while being mocked by the ghillie (in your eyes anyway, how can someone who earns less than £100,000 a year even dare speak to you on equal terms let alone attempt to teach you anything). Where as on a african canned hunt you can use what ever gun and ammo you want (heck they will likely give you a 20mm anti material rifle if you pay well enough) and the staff will all act like proper servants and drive you around in perfect comfort.


I suppose in the end a canned hunt isn't a million miles away from fly fishing for rainbow trout, msot of which have been commercially reared in farm conditions and while huge compared to a wild brown trout are rediculously easy to catch comparatively speaking.

Watch this (http://www.limestonemedia.com/funny-video/video/lion2.wmv)

I support people's right to hunt - but have little stomach for it myself. I frankly get queazy catfishing.

Watch this (http://www.limestonemedia.com/funny-video/video/lion2.wmv)

I support people's right to hunt - but have little stomach for it myself. I frankly get queazy catfishing.

This shows just how close a hunter came to getting shredded by a lion. When it charged him, if it hadn’t been hurt in its rear legs when it pounced it would have broken his neck like a gazelle. You could see the way it was winding up for the kill as it slipped.

Shooting a big cat in the body is a very bad plan, which is why so many shots were needed to take it down. If you need more than one shot to drop something that unfriendly you need to spend more time at the rifle range.

Watch this (http://www.limestonemedia.com/funny-video/video/lion2.wmv)

I support people's right to hunt - but have little stomach for it myself. I frankly get queazy catfishing.
I've seen that before. It was a canned "hunt". That Lion was in a fenced area. Notice the large pole in the video. Thr lion had nowhere to flee, so it attacked after the moron play-hunter failed to properly shoot it in the first place.

The blaze of gunfire was particularly stupid. When being charged, you don't stand there and panic shoot, you take a knee and AIM. :headbang:

I wish the cat would have hit the guy much harder.

Not hunting in any shape, function, form or ideal.

<snip>What are they compensating for?<snip>

Their tiny, tiny penises?

*snip*
Oh yeah! There is a whole subculture of hunters like this. My father has a reasonable collection of trophies, and is a keen hunter. While I never took to it myself, I do enjoy the venison which proceeds a hunting trip:p Anyways, he has had several people wanting to purchase :headbang: a couple of his more exotic mounts! Of course they were refused, as my dad puts it "Without a story, its just a dead animal wrapped around some styrofoam".

This subject came up when Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face while on a "hunting trip" that involved flushing pen-raised quail about ten yards from the "hunter." Now I want to make something clear--while I have never been a hunter, I am not opposed to the practice. I grew up in an area where the first day of deer season was practically a school holiday, and I've eaten my share of wild game, so don't for a moment think that I'm either anti-hunting, or anti-gun.

But this is crap. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article354934.ece)

Now, the folks I grew up with would sneer at anyone who called this hunting--my friends were the kind who would shoot at a wild boar with a black powder rifle, knowing that if they didn't kill it, they'd better find a tree to get up, and quick, because that boar was gonna have their asses.

My question is this: what kind of person would want to pay this kind of money to do something so pathetic and fake? What are they compensating for? Who do they think they're impressing?
I know quite a few hunters and I am sure that they would find this "sport" kinda lame. I found an interesting article about these great "game", er I mean "tame" hunters:

Bloody Businesses (http://www.bloodybusiness.com/news/trophy_hunting/bloody_businesses/end_canned_hunting.htm)

Not hunting in any shape, function, form or ideal.

That's cool. Nothing wrong with that at all.

What we've got a problem with is people stacking the deck to the point that, not only do they have no danger, but not even any discomfort. Then they have the gall to call themselves "Hunters".

If you're going to kill animals in a controlled setting, work in an abbatoir. At least then you're doing something useful with your time.

These "Canned Hunts" are nothing more than Target Practice with actual living targets. These "Hunters" aren't eating the meat, like my Stepfather, an ACTUAL hunter, who, as an outdoor writer and publisher who takes his profession seriously does, they are not stalking their prey, and they are not willing to take the chance of putting in ANY effort which may not immediatly pay off. If they had their egos removed, than they would just use clay pigeons or paper targets at a shooting range. It would certainly be less wasteful of food.

Take a moment and imagine what would happen if, for a reality show, we disarmed and hobbled these "Hunters" and sent actual hunters after them.

:eek: :sniper:

Not a pretty picture, but cathartic, nonetheless.