Brian May says Princes William and Harry hunting makes him feel 'sick'

[witchcurlgirl]

Since we cannot cull people

Fucking shame, isn't it?

[McJag]

^^It's not too late, we can still control human population growth and re-establish a better balance.
As for wild hogs and deer, I can understand the point of killing starving and suffering ones. But, for some creep to pay a small fortune to blow away a rhino or elephant or whatever and to claim they are just doing it to help animals is obscene.

In regards to population control,I point you to China.
And the Duggers. Good luck with that one.
In regards to the creepy hunter,the auction was held here. The bidding was firece and thae money collected was to benefit the animals. Lots of money.
The rhino was pre selected and one that was elderly male and didn't play well with others. He probably was going to be put down anyway,owing to his mean behavior towards very young.
Tons of money was raised so that the best of the breed can continue in healt and safety.

[ConstanceSpry]

In regards to population control,I point you to China.
And the Duggers. Good luck with that one.
In regards to the creepy hunter,the auction was held here. The bidding was firece and thae money collected was to benefit the animals. Lots of money.
The rhino was pre selected and one that was elderly male and didn't play well with others. He probably was going to be put down anyway,owing to his mean behavior towards very young.
Tons of money was raised so that the best of the breed can continue in healt and safety.

Auctioning off a rhino hunt sets the wrong example. Rich people = okay to kill rhino or elephant, poor people = poachers = get shot. If the rhino had to be killed for legitimate reasons, euthanize it. And I can't believe the only way wildlife refuges are able to raise revenue to preserve species is by auctioning off hunts for the very same species.
As for human overpopulation, as long as indiscriminate procreation is considered a basic human right, our already increasingly limited resources are going to become even more scarce. We are not all special little snowflakes who need to pass on our genes.

[Brookie]

Who cares if a rhino is "mean"? We now decide which ones just don't fit in to their own formed groups, and get rid of them? Hunting for sport is wrong no matter which way you cloak it, IMO.

You want to see what we do to animals, look up a video called "Earthlings". Man's inhumanity to animals for luxury, sport and entertainment. I'll make your hair curl.

[Novice]

In regards to population control,I point you to China.
And the Duggers. Good luck with that one.
In regards to the creepy hunter,the auction was held here. The bidding was firece and thae money collected was to benefit the animals. Lots of money.
The rhino was pre selected and one that was elderly male and didn't play well with others. He probably was going to be put down anyway,owing to his mean behavior towards very young.
Tons of money was raised so that the best of the breed can continue in healt and safety.

You forgot to add that if he hadn't been culled/short that hewould have been gored to death in a battle with a younger bull to be the herd alpha which would have resulted in a painful, bloody death that may have also seriously damaged a potent younger alpha that would be a good mate & leader for the herd. I mean seriously, have people never seen what cuddly fluffygiraffes do.it.each.other? Polar bears with flesh hanging off & rhinos gored??? Nature is red in tooth & claw.

Auctioning off a rhino hunt sets the wrong example. Rich people = okay to kill rhino or elephant, poor people = poachers = get shot. If the rhino had to be killed for legitimate reasons, euthanize it. And I can't believe the only way wildlife refuges are able to raise revenue to preserve species is by auctioning off hunts for the very same species.
As for human overpopulation, as long as indiscriminate procreation is considered a basic human right, our already increasingly limited resources are going to become even more scarce. We are not all special little snowflakes who need to pass on our genes.

Seriously, you need to educate yourself.
Over population in 3rd world.countries is not about "passing on genes" but about having someone to look after you in old age. Pensions do Not exist in many countries, like welfare & the like. When the natal death rate is high, having more children means that more will survive into adulthood & "old" (ie 50) age.
As for poachers always being "poor" wrong, why do you think that they keep poaching. In comparison to the rest if the pollution (that has to have 10 kids) they are rich.

[ConstanceSpry]

^^It doesn't matter what causes the increasing human overpopulation, the result is what matters. And that result will affect all of us if we live long enough and if not, our children and grandchildren and so on.
And I didn't write poachers are always poor, what I wrote is that poor people (those who are enlisted by higher-level criminals who actually sell the animals to the Chinese or whomever) are killed or harshly punished when caught.

[MmeVertigina]

Because I love my large family and I love animals ( I realize how simplistic this sounds) I will stick in here the argument that it's not (at this time) how many people are on this planet but how we use/don't use our resources that causes the most damage. And then I will run out of this thread because I can see some validity in most of the comments on here and it's making my head hurt and my brain is already stressed to it's max today.

[McJag]

Who cares if a rhino is "mean"? We now decide which ones just don't fit in to their own formed groups, and get rid of them? Hunting for sport is wrong no matter which way you cloak it, IMO.

You want to see what we do to animals, look up a video called "Earthlings". Man's inhumanity to animals for luxury, sport and entertainment. I'll make your hair curl.

Brookie-that rhino was doomed either way. It was going to be put down. At least this way his death will not be in vein.all the other rhinos will benefit vastly. And for years.
I totally agree hunting for sport only is horrible. This one is far different. One old grouchy male is sacrificed (as it would have been anyway) and heaps of cold cash goes to keep the others safe. Fair trade off. Lots of money is needed just to ward off poachers.

[MohandasKGanja]

The least threatened animal species on the planet are the ones we find tasty or can commodify in some way.

If we want to save these beautiful rhinos, we need to pressure McDonald's to start offering rhino nuggets and mandate that all little leaguers wear athletic supporters with rhino-horn cups.

[ConstanceSpry]

Because I love my large family and I love animals ( I realize how simplistic this sounds) I will stick in here the argument that it's not (at this time) how many people are on this planet but how we use/don't use our resources that causes the most damage. And then I will run out of this thread because I can see some validity in most of the comments on here and it's making my head hurt and my brain is already stressed to it's max today.

Valid point. And I will follow your example and bow out as well.

[MmeVertigina]

Valid point. And I will follow your example and bow out as well.

I just do not have the brain power to give to this today. But I really can see how most of the comments make sense, even when then points are contradictory, I can see both sides to the debate. Just personally, I struggled with the idea of having a large family and if it was a responsible thing to do. I have my reasons (rationalizations?) that made it ok for me. I am not alright with excess of most things (for example, I love to shop, it's an issue for me, I try to donate at least as much as I take in), or waste of resources, or disregard of the rest of the planet by putting people first at all costs. But I don't think it's a black and white problem or that there are clear solutions. So much depends on how much we are willing to sacrifice in creature comforts so that other parts of the world can not have a negative effect from our poor choices. (Officially drained now)

[Flygirl]

A wildlife biologist performed an assessment on my family's land one spring. He in no certain terms told my dad that whitetail deer would need to be "harvested" that year to the tune of 3 does a day. My dad is not much of a hunter, so, needless to say, this did not come anywhere close to getting accomplished. Combine that with the fact that most hunters down here won't shoot a doe (get the big bucks only; back to that despicable sport hunting discussed earlier in the thread) and there was a long, cold winter that year (at least by Mississippi standards) and you had the perfect storm for an ecosystem disaster. (hey, maybe that biologist guy knew what he was talking about ) Fast forward to late that winter/early spring. I was enjoying the nicer weather and decided to take a walk back in the deep parts of the woods. You could smell death all around, no kidding. I started looking closer and realized that every single tree was bare of all bark and vegetation up to a height of about 5-6 feet. There were remains and skeletons of deer that had literally starved to death that winter due to the overpopulation. The saddest skeleton I saw was a deer that had strangled herself in the vee of a tree while desperately trying to get a high piece of vegetation. I guess she had been too weak to extract herself from the tree. Is hanging preferable to starving? Not sure. You can bet your life we have not allowed another year like that to happen. The deer are harvested at the rate the biologist or county agent suggests, and the meat is donated to the local soup kitchen and a children's home.

Anyway, my morbid point being, there is no need for anyone to bow out of the thread. I think you are all right. (especially the parts about culling the humans ) We as greedy human beings have created this problem, and, in my opinion, it is our duty to alleviate it as humanely as possible. I kind of think it's our punishment for greed; having to "take care" of the problem in the most humane methods possible, however unpleasant that might be for us. Perhaps if more people were forced to help "deal with" the problem, they would jump on board and help be good stewards and conservationists of the lands and animals we have a right to protect.

Sorry, rant over.

[nina385]

People who hunt defensless creatures make me sick, too. I'm on board with Brian May on this one.
And when I hear hunters talking about "keeping natural balance", I see red. Who are they to say how many deers can aor cannot live in a forest. Most of the time they have problem keeping their own balnce from too much booze, let alone the Nature's.
I like the princes, but killing for sport is just wrong. No matter whom or what you kill.

[McJag]

People who hunt defensless creatures make me sick, too. I'm on board with Brian May on this one.
And when I hear hunters talking about "keeping natural balance", I see red. Who are they to say how many deers can aor cannot live in a forest. Most of the time they have problem keeping their own balnce from too much booze, let alone the Nature's.
I like the princes, but killing for sport is just wrong. No matter whom or what you kill.

Did you read Flygirls first hand account directly above? THEY can say how many deer can live because that is their profession. Reality can be harsh.

[Flygirl]

People who hunt defensless creatures make me sick, too. I'm on board with Brian May on this one.
And when I hear hunters talking about "keeping natural balance", I see red. Who are they to say how many deers can aor cannot live in a forest. Most of the time they have problem keeping their own balnce from too much booze, let alone the Nature's.
I like the princes, but killing for sport is just wrong. No matter whom or what you kill.

Sigh. It definitely was not the "boozy hunters" deciding in my case. It was a wildlife biologist with many years' experience advising humans how to delicately balance ecosystems that we have so profoundly fucked up. Yes, that initial fuck up is completely our faults as human beings, but now that it exists, it's our responsibility to be as humane as possible about the way it is remedied. Trust me, my dad would much rather be photographing deer than shooting them, especially at his age, but we have seen how Mother Nature remedies the problem, and her methods are cruel, slow and painful, invoking useless suffering on these beautiful animals (see post above)

This is as far from sport hunting as it gets. The animals culled are all does, usually young and smaller in stature. There is a reason my dad chooses to perform this unpleasant task on his own. He knows he's a good shot, and will never take a shot out of his range that could cause needless suffering (cause that would defeat the point, right?) he has no interest in hunting for sport, so some huge buck trotting right in front of him is not going to change his mission in the slightest. Because of his intense love and respect for these majestic animals, their deaths are dignified and never in vain. As mentioned above, they are never wasted either. I know it doesn't make much sense, but walk with me through the woods at the end of a harsh winter, and look at the carcasses that suffered and starved to death. I've seen it firsthand, and cried my tears.

Once again, sorry about the long post that you probably won't read, but my point is there is a huge difference in being a good steward of the land and sport hunting (which for the record, I completely disagree with) Please don't lump them all together.