Contributors to this thread:
Has anyone here watched this on Amazon? Very well done.
My question is what would be a good response to professor Kemmerer (28 min mark) stating her opinion (paraphrasing) that hunters advocating their conservation efforts is spurious due to the fact that the conservation efforts are geared to escalating target animals and reducing predators, ultimately manipulating ecosystems in a self serving way.
Her spiel regarding taking away the resource from those who want to animal watch is typical animal rights kookiness. My right to hunt is just as important as her right to watch. There are dozens of places off limits to hunters that the public can view and enjoy animals, not to mention the right of a private land owner to harvest animals on his/her land or give others the permission to do so. Hunting harvests do prevent the ability to animal watch. Her misguided opinion could be applied to many other things for instance logging... Better never log because you are talking away a resource from a tree enthusiast, to heck with building homes. Better never put a boat in the lake because it disturbs the serenity for the nature lover. Good grief.....
Pretty sure she a typical liberal professor, but I have never thought about the hunting conservation efforts as geared to promote our own benefits. There is truth to that it would seem, but obviously that isn't the whole story. However, off the top of my head I can't think of a brilliant answer to this line of debate. What are some of Bowsite's best and brightest retorts to that thought process?
"What are some of Bowsite's best and brightest retorts to that thought process?"
I would not fit the above statement but heres my opinion! Ha:)
I've thought about that before, and I agree.
DUH! She is absolutely right, of course we do it for our own benefits. WE are able to think on a higher level and we are tasked with managing what we have as humans. We also need to eat to live. We can choose to manage cows on farms for food and also wild game as substance. In order to continue to have these animals to eat and enjoy, we have put in place a system to maintain them at levels that work for everyone. It's not perfect, but it works.
Some farms aren't that great of a way for an animal to live, but she has no problem with raising cows solely for the purpose of being killed and eaten? I believe a wild elk that lives a wild life and is killed by a hunter, has lived a better life then some of the farm animals that are raised solely for our food. Either way we are using what we have and living off the earth. There happens to be a huge added benefit to hunting them in our personal lives that gets us outdoors and an appreciation for the animal and where our food comes from. So yes, we do it for ourselves and if we didn't there would be problems. Is it self serving? Yes, absolutely. Is it good for the animals? Yes, 100%.
Your welcome professor, we are willing to do the work you are unwilling to do. We pay for it ourselves , we love these animals and put more into maintaining them then they do. They are lucky we have taken this task on or they would not have many animals to watch. The north American game management system is unparalleled, look at Europe, Asia, etc. They have nothing left in comparison. What we are doing is working.
My response would be hell yes we manage predators. Someone has to keep them in check if you want a balanced eco system that doesn’t ebb and flow. Sure we could allow more predators and less hunters but at some point the predators need managed too. I would point to the increased number of trouble lions in California that eat pets right out of the yard, that then, at a cost, the state has to get rid of. I’d also talk about why grizzlies with no sense of fear are eating humans. Not eloquent but that’s the direction I’d take.
My answer is that we are no longer a pristine balanced ecosystem. If hunters didn't fulfill the role of predator, we would be overrun with some animals, especially whitetail deer. I doubt that we have the habitat for some of the native predators. Some areas would probably do fine but man has altered the landscape to the point that to think it could function on it's own is probably not fact.
Her argument works the very same way against her. "We" are "all" manipulating the natural world for our own benefit from the minute we're born, to the minute we die. It is an ignorant premise to assume otherwise...
Hunters fund state wildlife management. Look at all the non-game species that benefit from hunters and fisherman buying licenses and tags. Our dollars go towards conserving more than the species we hunt.
Elkman +1. The fact we’re the top of the food chain should count for something.
Self-serving or not, I’m not ashamed to say...if another predator kills less so I can kill more, so much the better.
Just as the National Parks are preserved for everyone's enjoyment, all work done towards a good, no matter the cause or end result, has a certain level of selfish gain attached to it. The professor should want to conserve animals without the reward of looking at them if her logic is to mean anything.
Did you guys watch the film?
Yes, I did. Not sure what the posts about the predators are referring to.
Your question was how do we answer "hunting conservation efforts as geared to promote our own benefits" right?
My answer in short, is that yes, it is for our own benefits. Everything we do is for our own benefit and it is in our best interest to maintain healthy herds of elk so we do!
The upside is that what "benefits us" as hunters is also what benefits 99% of wild things, in both the animals, and wild places. Also doesn't hurt that what "benefits us" also aligns with common sense...
I remember what a rancher whose place was very well managed. Talking about that and he said you have to limit how many animals you run. He said something I've never forgotten: "There's only so many pounds of beef you can take off the land. You can do it with 50 or 100 but you'll still only get the same amount of beef."
I think if you could use that and modify it for deer/elk it might show the person that you can't just keep building up deer/elk numbers without damage to the environment they profess to support.
I'd need to do a lot more research into the subject to come up with a good answer, but I know that just because I think nintendo is a stupid way to spend your time and does damage to society I don't campaign against video games. Just like dogs in the wild should run free and be able to roam, not cooped up inside a person's house it's whole life. What gives people the right to own animals? What choice did that dog or cat have in life? I mean there are a million retarded questions we can ask which are really just an indicator of how good we have it. I know that helps you not at all, but the absolute retardedness of the things being debated about politically these days and the costs associated with it are insane. It's crazy to think that we can spend billions in north america to debate if a man is a man or a woman is a man, when in other parts of the world people are starving and dying due to living conditions. Sorry Justin. Helps you not at all.
"Did you guys watch the film?"
Perhaps if you want to start a thread discussing an online film, it would be helpful to post a link to the film if you want people to watch it and participate intelligently. Just a thought.
Numerous times state and federal agencies have tried to get laws passed for non-consumptive products where an excise tax is levied that would go to non-game management similar to the Pittman-Robertson or Dingle Johnson Acr where taxes got back to the states for fish and wildlife management. Shot down every time by the lobbies and at the polls. We are talking hiking boots, binoculars, etc. non consumptive users don't put their money where their mouth is - sportsman do and should be thanked for it.
Lee
Marvin,
I stated it's on Amazon Prime, as in available to members of Amazon Prime. If you're not a Prime member then I'm not aware how you would access it without renting it from Amazon. If it's available elsewhere for free I am not aware. Hence the reason I stated it was on Amazon. Kind of hard to post a link when it's not content available to everyone.
Here is a youtube video showing hunters in action. Where is something similar for lookers in action?
https://www.arizonaelksociety.org/project/buck-springs-allotment
I drew 632-21 for the 2018 season. I have never been there. Any good pointers for me before I make any bad choices ?
I drew 632-21 for the 2018 season. I have never been there. Any good pointers for me before I make any bad choices ?
Check my link.....you can rent it for a couple bucks. We have Prime and I started to watch it last night but was interrupted (fell asleep on the couch) :-)
It looks to be very well done and has some great elk footage. Going to finish it tonight.
