Discussion»Questions»Animals (Wild)» Is Eric Trump a BIG GAME HUNTER? He was referred to as "a guy who kills baby elephants for kicks". Is that true? Is he really that?
I have done some hunting. It is fun. I have a friend who owns a big farm, and she invites guests to hunt with her occasionally. Humans have been hunting since they evolved, and it is only natural. To demonize it and claim it is murder is outrageous. Murder is the unjustified killing of a human. Humans are he most intelligent species of animal. We should have species loyalty, just as we have loyalty to our families and nations. "Animal rights" is bad fiction. Some extremist groups use such absurdity to cause trouble and collect money. They tell people to be vegans. Whether the Trumps hunt or not is considered only by mindless critics who demonize his very word and action. If Obama did it, they would approve.
That attitude caused the extinction of the thylacine, Caspian tiger, passenger pigeon, dodo - and the white rhinoceros is on the brink along with many other species. I'm not opposed to hunting for food, but hunting for kicks is blood lust, pure and simple, that should not be countenanced. The Trumps don't eat their kills, they do it for fun and "trophies".
No, I do not hunt endangered species. You accuse me falsely. I do not care what you like. The Trumps and I will hunt as we like, and you can do nothing about it. Worry about humans more and less about other animals who care nothing about you. I am a natural human being, and animal rights activists are neurotic.
I enjoy hunting occasionally. There are many things to be considered, so do not be petty. Trophy hunting is fine with me. My first priority is humans as it should be, rather than dodos. Trump should be judged for his performance as president, not for hunting or not. Luntai left puppets look for anything to degrade him and are blind to Obama's flaws.
I am not opposed to trophy hunting. It is natural to hunt. Our first priority should be fellow humans. People have the right to hunt, and there is no valid reason to deny us that right. Only tyrants try to control every action we can take. What needs to be extinct is PeTA, ALF and such extremist groups that advocate and support terrorism in their insane cause and collect millions.
Well gee doesn't that just say it all.. and ooh i see I have a new fan.. you have taken the trouble to answer at least three of my posts now.. oh wow lucky me.. Would it make any difference if I said we don't have PETA here?? No I thought not.. nuff said eh.
I just answer questions without noticing so much who asked them. I was not aware I answered three of yours. You evidently do not want any disagreement. Actions speak louder than words. When you utter PETA propagnda, a logical human deduces that you are believing PETA propaganda. What else can it possibly be? When the glass shoe fits, you must be Cinderella. Denials are futile when you display evidence contrary to your assertions.
My attitude is rational. rather than emotional. PETA arouses hysteria in naive people, so that they cannot be reasonable and objective. My attitude is realistic, not childishly idealistic to the point of mild schizophrenia. So dodos became extinct. Well, so did dinosaurs and many more animals. Get over it! I am glad you are not the dictator to tell us whether we can hunt or not. If you were, I would revolt and perhaps send you to the guillotine for your tyranny and judging hunters so harshly while having an infantile tantrum. I have never shot even one white rhinoceros, dodo or dinosaur. PETA fanatics should not be countenanced. Elephants are given to local natives when they are killed. Feeding a village is more noble than just feeding yourself. I hunt, and I do not have blood lust. You portray my group as savages, but the actual savages are PETA and its drones who mindlessly parrot its deceptions and want to dictate to everyone. It calls itself ethical but deceives and lies. It collected $30,000,000 from such people as you a few years ago. It supports terrorism in its dumb cause. Who actually should not be countenanced? Not us hunters!
Slow down there, gospazha. I've hunted myself, and have never been a member of the quasi-terrorist organisation known as PETA. What I hunted were feral vermin creatures - foxes, rabbits and cats, not endangered elephants and tigers. Cats and foxes are detrimental to native Australian wildlife, and rabbits devastate habitats. So what I did was beneficial to the environment (I don't do it anymore, I haven't owned a gun since 1996 when local laws were tightened). No problem with hunting, just be more judicial when picking targets.
How's the rabbit and camel populations situation going over there "down under"?
Whitetail deer are becoming a real nuance in the eastern US. IF it wouldn't be for hunting they would be a real problem. In fact, pro hunters are sometimes called into Rock Creek Park in the nation's capital to cull the heard.
You also need to do a bit more research on the extinction of species like the passenger pigeon. It's a LOT more complicated than simple over-hunting. (And you forgot the "northern penguin, the great Auk, and about 95% of the other species that have gone extinct over the course of this planet's history, all without the help of humans.)
So humans should not be hastening the process. The thylacine was culled to extinction, to protect the domesticated animals of the invaders. The lesser bilby is extinct and the greater bilby critically endangered, due to predation by cats - again a feral species introduced by humans (who then abandoned their pets). Some idiot let rabbits loose and the population exploded - culls, myxomatosis and calicivirus have helped but not enough. So some other idiot released foxes to try to get the rabbit numbers down - surprise, surprise, they also attacked the native marsupials, slower runners and MUCH slower to reproduce. Hunt deer by all means. We have pro hunters taking out feral pigs, camels, goats and horses. All edible and the skins can be worth saving too. Leave the bloody elephants alone.
Haven't there been some recent sightings of the Tasmanian tiger (no need to try to go "high-brow" on us by calling it the thylacine)? So perhaps the reports of their extinction may have been premature? (Or are they like the ivory-billed woodpecker sightings here in the States?) But really, wouldn't it be best for all the non-aboriginal people (speaking of a "species that the newcomers tried to hunt to extinction) to just get the hell out of that part of the world? No? (Sorry, but humans are here to stay for the time being and one individual or a statistically small group isn't going to change everyone else's thinking, especially if individuals in the "everyone else" group are driven by trying to feed themselves and their families.)
As to leaving "the bloody elephants alone" . . . sorry, the ship has already sailed on that one. And the data doesn't seem to support that approach to save the pachyderm populations. If we look at countries in Africa where elephant hunting is banned the population is in decline. That's believed to be mostly due to poaching of the poor critters (just how big a pot does one need to poach an elephant?). Most of those countries aren't flush with cash so there's no extra money to support even hiring the needed game wardens to offer some protection from the poachers, let alone do any kind of biological research to help offer protections.
Except in South Africa. Their game reserves may be facing the opposite problem, potential overpopulation. That's mainly due to regulated hunting. I believe that the current price to take an elephant there is $38,000, a pretty spicy meatball. And that doesn't include all the "trimmings" like the actual safari (lodging, guides, travel, etc.). That $38,000 is just for the elephant. That money goes to hire game wardens (who would otherwise most likely be poaching elephants to support their families) and to maintain those game reserves. And then there's that extra money that supports the travel and safari parts of "the hunt".
The aborigines aren't a "species" per se - humans of all races can crossbreed without muling out (I'm one thirty-second aboriginal myself). Recent sightings of "Tasmanian tigers", however, are on a par with drop bears and hoop snakes - part myth, part wishful thinking. One video was positively identified as a Labrador, with the "stripes" caused by shadows.
Of course the invading Brits considered the aborigines to be a totally different species. That's how they were able to almost annihilate them. It's hard to convince people to do that to their own kind.
Species loyalty huh? Well it's a shame there are so many humans who are far from humane in their dealings with either other humans or animals! We need to remember that as the *ruling* species we do have a duty to protect and conserve the planet not just for it's own sake but for the sake of future generations. We do need to remember that.. and not be stupidly short-sighted in our selfishness.. What we do to the planet and the wildlife on it matters and affects future generations.. SO to say we can simply do as we please is really naive and horribly wrong.
Elephants ARE endangered, or in drastic decline.. regardless of whether the meat is used the fact is that they ARE killed for sport/ivory rather than their meat, or because the meat is needed.
As human beings blessed with superior intelligence.. we CAN and should consider cruelty.. .we have a responsibility to kill only for our needs and to do so humanely.. when we don't do that then it's as close to murder as damn-it and we cannot stick our heads in the sand on that point. Thinking of our precious fellow human beings.. it's well known that those who mistreat or abuse or kill animals without thinking are also pretty shitty to other human beings.. just sayin,
Lastly.. lets consider one more point.. baby elephants eh.. and of course these fine American examples aka the Trump sons are doing this hunting on their own soil aren't they?? They really aren't abusing their power and position by exploiting the position and wealth in a much poorer country. SO in other words, if Americans want to hunt and kill do it in your own country.. don't exploit other countries.
They are legal to hunt. The areas that are hunted in the elephants are in abundance and over populated for the area they are in. Also the animal hunted must be old, sick, unable to mate, or a danger to the herd or local people.
Hmmm well that's what some are told? Sorry but it's really not that simple and the idea of some outside rich whatsists coming in, stomping around in their big arrogant boots, acting big when they are SO not, is abhorrent. Legal to hunt, is like the question as to whether prostitution is ethical... it's based on money and power.. yes, of course a poor country welcomes money from a rich pleb, it's hard to resist when one is so poor but that's arguably not a free choice. And as to the claim being that they are old and sick.. well hardly a trophy then and why not do the humane and proper thing - kill it, in house so to speak by some trained expert not some stuffed shirt pleb who doesn't know his ass from his elbow acting tough.. The idea is unethical and immoral. Americans should NOT be exploiting other countries resources.
No has nothing to do with prostitution....it is illegal. Big game hunting is legal and ethical. It helps the local population of animals. (That is why you must get permission, they are regulating the population) It helps the local economy, it helps the local humans with food etc. Poaching is not the same as legal hunting. Poaching is illegal.
Asian elephants are listed as endangered, African elephants are considered by some organizations to only be "vulnerable"; not good, but no where near being endangered. And they're populations are growing . . . where they're legally hunted.
So very VERY good for the Trump brothers, true conservationists. As an example in South Africa where it's legal to hunt elephants each highly regulated "kill" brings in $38,000 for conservation efforts for the species with the meat being distributed to the locals. Do you have any idea how many game wardens that can hire for a year there to prevent poaching? Oh, and as to the very young pachyderms . . .I don't believe that they're legal to hunt, they've got to be a certain age/size.
It's dirty money, it's exp;loitation.. it's taking advantage of a poorer nation, raping their resources, they don't have free choice - they are blinded by money and typical ol USA goes stomping in to take advantage.. Sorry but simply, logically there is no need for the Trumps or any other American, or other foreigner to come in and shoot things for fun. It's not needed - if animals need controlling, and that's debatable as per even your words, 'considered by some.. '
Please, if you can read the response I made to m2c - if we liken this to drugs and prostitution.. we all know it's unethical and that people involved don't always have a completely free choice, they are compelled by poverty, disadvantage and sometime lack of education and understanding...but lots of money is involved.. so people sometimes do things they shouldn't and quite simply they shouldn't be taking advantage here.. if the animals need shooting let the local experts do it. How would Americans like it if I came in shooting stuff? They wouldn't - this is exploitation. And it's immoral and unethical.
There are loads more links I could have included.. but another question those who are pro-hunting so extend that to paying loads of money to a poor country, in an exploitative way to kill THEIR animlals should consider is.. what about the poachers, there are so many and why do the same countries pay people to protect the elephants? So many elephants are taken by poachers that they pay rangers to try to prevent poaching...hmm why would they do that and then allow tosspots to come in, pay loads of money and shoot them.. exploitation and immoral
First, this isn't the mid to late 1800's. That's back when Cecil Rhodes and his brothers were raping and pillaging much of Africa, particularly South Africa, in the name of Imperial ENGLAND, not in the name of the USA. (how much do you suppose deBeers paid those diamond miners?) So you better be looking in your own back yard to see where that table was set in the first place. In fact, you might want to read up on that bit of history sometime. (And let's not think about the horrific atrocities that Belgian committed against the Congo.)
An no, hunting is NOT unethical. (And stop trying to use "hunting" and "poaching" interchangeably. They're NOT the same thing from a legal, societal point-of-view; nature not being concerned with such "ethics".) That's just disingenuous of you.
As to your "blood money" thinking . . . it's the REAL world out there, not the sunshine and roses world you think should exist. Irrespective of what you and some members of PETA writing for National Geographic and other "unbiased" magazines hunting does work for wildlife management when properly regulated. For example, in countries like Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and the Congo where hunting is banned the elephant population appears to truly be in decline. That's due to actual poaching because people are just trying to feed themselves and their families, no one looking for a big payday.
But in South Africa where big game hunting (elephant hunting) they now appear to have the opposite problem, elephant overpopulation in their well-managed game reserves. And that's due to the funding from wealthy people from all over the world (not just the USA) going there to pay that big "blood" money to take "trophy" big game.
And now that the South Africans have had a taste of that income they're not about to destroy the very source: those very big game animals. If the animals go extinct then that very nice income stream goes away. Why, who knows? If that money keeps coming in to support the South African economy at some point the general population may even be able to afford more to eat than pop, maybe even some protein? Or perhaps you think it's better to starve to death?
You may not like it but that's the way the economics of the situation, of the world, actually works.
Sigh... I am way off base eh? Oh, was that because you didn't like my answer :P We all accept that the Brits did some awful things.. back in the days of ignorance and arrogance.. but thing is.. a) we were by far not the only ones doing this.. people never seem to remember that France, Spain, Dutch etc, etc were doing exactly the same.. barbaric and very ignorant times.. and b) we learned our lessons and we don't do that anymore and haven't for a long time.. so what's America's excuse huh? Seriously I like Americans but they are known world wide for their arrogance and exploitation of other countries for their resources.. and thing is.. this is happening now.. in a time when we should really know better.. So sorry you didn't like my answer.. it's uncomfortable I am sure but it doesn't change what is.
I didn't say hunting was unethical.. I made the point clearly that for food, survival etc.. should not be compared with trophy hunting and hunting for fun.. I made the point too that if things need to be culled let the experts do it humanely not some numbnuts idiot big kid. So the point you made there was void. However, the fact that poaching and trophy hunting co exist is important to note.. many of these creatures dont need to be culled.. there is already a big problem with poaching.. and... lets face it when we see people being paid to protect and conserve a species - it is illogical for others, especially outsiders to come in and kill them for money..
Which leads on to blood money... do please remember we are not talking about hunting.. trophy hunting isn't hunting in the sense you guys do there.. there is skill involved... no honour.. they are driven up to a defenseless animal and they shoot it.. often badly..that's not hunting and that's where I get surprised that people cannot seem to see the very real difference.. Go shoot whatever wildlife you have over there.. be my guest.. but don't claim that trophy hunting is the same..
Re nat geo.. well gee... they must be wrong huh cos you said so.. and others like you say so.. oh wow well I wonder why it is that nat geo are internationally respected? Historically respected? hmm? As to PETA did anyone, aside from yourself mention PETA? Did the nat geo article say it was written by PETA? Or is this just the conservation alterntative to shouts of FAKE NEWS?
PS I've a friend who comes from Zimbabwe.. and my son was out there working and yes, they hunted impala etc for food not trophies... as I say don't get confused between the need for survival and trophy hunting.. SO you guys should here what a native says.. cos lets face it we are not from there so this is like when I express an opinion on American politics.. I am an outsider.. I can have an opinion but I really can't know how it really is on the ground.. same applies here.. SO back to poaching..you think poachers kill elephants for food?? Oh come on now.. I respect you more than that.. they kill elephants for ivory not food.. the elephants are left for dead.. not eaten.. Important to be up on the facts of poaching really.. it aint for food.. lets face it if you were hungry what you gonna kill? An impala of which there are many.. and would feed a fair few? or a tough old elephant? Logic and as I say them's the facts..
Or did you mean they kill the elephants for ivory for money? Nah see that doesn't work either.. and there IS a huge payday for someone - usually the rich fat barstewards again in other countries ... the people who kill the elephants make very little.. so again we turn to ignorance, lack of education and exploitation..
I didnt manage to look at the links yet.. but logic .. one says there's a crisis because of poaching.. one says there is an over abundance.. yes well in the reserves where they PAY people to protect them they do well.. outside of those reserves they don't do well.. and this proves what? It proves there's a problem out there - and a catch 22 situation. if they have over abundance where they are protected they cannot release them anywhere cos they will get poached.. no win.. None of this changes the illogic and unethical nature of trophy hunting.. much as there are those who will seek to excuse and justify it. and ANY person from any country who pays money to shoot wildlife another country is guilty of exploitation.. the money they pay may be needed, may be used but very little goes to the people and projects for conservation are always lacking in funding.. so where does the money go I wonder....
As I say it doesn't go to the poor people.. it never does... cloud cuckoo land.. and I will thank you NOT to imply that I don't care.. as I say Ihave friends who are from there, my son does too and he's actually been there.. not someone spouting plucking what they want to believe from thin air.. Another country bringing money and exploiting is still exploiting.. no matter what you dress it up like.. and that goes back to the beginning of this answer..we have come full circle... and fact is it isn't right for one country to exploit another and rob it of its resources.. we should have moved on from empire tactics.
Benedict Arnold 