Xltarget
xl_target wrote:Sudesh, Great find!
That last sentence sums it all up, doesn't it?
That one sentence distills the essence of the matter and it doesn't just concern Africa. Most of you in your lifetimes have seen the decline of game in India.
There is no money to pay for enough rangers and for the rangers that there are, no one cares to pay them enough so they won't be corrupted by poachers. Since there is no revenue to be made from keeping the animals healthy and unmolested, no one in Government cares enough to do anything about it.
Look at the great wildlife preserves in Africa. In the 1960's and 1970's names like Serengeti and Ngorongo were the stuff of legend. I'm sure most of you have seen the National Geographic documentaries from that time period; flyovers showing animals covering the landscape from horizon to horizon.Look at them now. They are not beyond help but they are shadows of their former selves. With the change in attitude against hunting and the subsequent drop in revenues, the will to maintain those natural jewels seems to have suffered and consequently the animals have suffered.
I never understood the attitude of modern city dwellers who buy their meat in neat packages from the supermarket but look down on the hunter. At least the hunter goes out and bags some of his meat himself. He doesn't rely on some slaughterhouse worker to grab a chicken from out of a bunch of terror stricken birds who watch as the worker stretches its neck and chops its head off. Ok, I might be stretching the truth here a bit but I'm not far wrong about slaughterhouse practices. Not to mention the steroids and antibiotics that are force-fed to those chickens so their meat will have a semblance of firmness. Chickens who cant move a muscle because they are closed up in tiny little cages for the entirety of their natural lives. Even in here, in this forum, I have seen people belittle hunters and hunting. How someone managed to empty the logic out of so many peoples heads boggles the mind. Yet these same hypocrites will have no qualms about going down to the butcher's and buying thier meat. How do you think those chops or ribs or whatever got into that little package. They weren't grown in the lab. Someone KILLED that animal so you could have a meal. So what gives you the right to denigrate a hunter? You understand that hunting means fair chase hunting and is far different from a stroll down a supermarket aisle? Where you have expend bodily effort to get close to the animal in the wild and pit your wit against his senses so you can get your shot?
Then you have reporters like that who don't have one logical thought in their heads, who ask repeatedly "How can you hunt those animals"? Unfortunately, vast numbers of that reporters audience are just as brain dead and will ask the same question even after being told what must be done to ensure the species survival.
no furthur comments needed sudesh wrote:
Thanks Xltarget, Now I got a hunter's view.
Conservationists please share your veiws too.
Best,
Sudesh....
I agree.xl_target wrote:
Sudesh,
Hunters are some of the biggest conservationists. For example; in the US, it is from license fees, the sale of ammo and firearms that a lot of conservation dollars are derived. These dollars go to pay for habitat conservation and game law enforcement. Most hunters also see themselves as conservationists.
e[/url]
I fear that such a question is almost beyond relevance. We are loosing so much in the way of environmental range for wildlife that it almost doesn't matter anymore what the purpose for preservation is, or whether the social equality of having hunting available for all is provided.Hunting for conservation or Conservation for HUNTING ???
Well said Prashant.prashantsingh wrote:Whatever little I have gathered till now. I have reached a conclusion that Wildlife Conservation has been successfull in developed nations like the U.S. and Canada only because they still have these massive stretches of land devoid of human habitation.
In poorer nations and developing contries , specially contries like India with an ever growing human population.......wildlife conservation takes a back seat. There is just not enough land available for the evergrowing human population. In such a case Man looks at the jungles and it's inhabitants as another resource which needs to be exploited. An ideal example is the Rajasthan govt. refusing to cancel new mining leases in Sariska range dispite the Union forest minister asking the C.M. of the state to put an end to it.....And Inspite of the Supreme Court ruling against mining in the Aravalis....till further orders.
The same goes with a number of African nations which were once untouched and wild. Poor governance and poverty has taken their toll on wildlife and their wilderness.
After walking for about half an hour through this reasonably good jungle I could neither hear an insect nor see a single bird. I was rather surpised of this green belt being devoid of all animal life form. On my way back it was dusk and I saw these men fumigating the jungles to kill all insects. This was done to allow the tourist an insect / mosquito / bug free comfortable stay on the tourist island. Now Singapore is a developed country (though a small one).
Where ever Man has had a chance he has exploited nature. And wherever Human population has increased .....it has done so at the expense of wildlife and forests.
You have put it up quite sensibly timmy. Thanks.timmy wrote:I fear that such a question is almost beyond relevance. We are loosing so much in the way of environmental range for wildlife that it almost doesn't matter anymore what the purpose for preservation is, or whether the social equality of having hunting available for all is provided.Hunting for conservation or Conservation for HUNTING ???
Now, we are getting to the point that, no matter how wildlife habitat is preserved, just preserving it must be the primary focus.
As wildlife numbers are reduced and the genetic pool shrinks, the ability of wildlife to resist plagues and infections becomes less and less. This is also true regarding crops, where the natural diversity of plant life is replaced with monocultures of a few highly bred cash crop strains. The Irish potato famine is an extreme example of this, but unfortunately the lessons of history seem to be lost in today's mad rush for gold and more gold.
As XL points out, rightly, I think, when it is a question of survival, then the choice, however unpalatable, is fairly clear. But when this is not the case, and where large profits stand to be made, the question is quite different. Ultimately environmental damage affects everyone in society. One only needs to view a satellite picture of the island of Hispañola in the Caribbean and note the difference between Haiti and the Dominican Republic to see the truth in this.
Whether there is still enough time and will to do something about this, I wonder.
