Hunting Abroad

[shooter]

Dr. sahab, you might be aware of most butchers giving prednisolone tablets to goats to make them put on weight (water retention).

Costs far less. As per the energy pyramid, 10 kg vegetation cause a herbivore to gain 1 kg meat. but a few tablets @ few paisa (maybe more now in India) each will cause the same but more rapidly.

[jonahpach]

castrating animals for better flavour is a very old tradition.

in bakras its called "khassi". khassi tastes much better. thats why one cant tell the difference between a "male" (khassi) or a female.

the actual males (not khassi) have the odour which will need huge volumes of garlic, mirch and bhunao till musclea ache to get rid of.
You want more gun control? Use both hands!

God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

shooter

Posts: 680
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: London
Top
Re: Hunting Abroad
by Yaj » Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:21 pm

Castrating of males being bred for meat is common practise in the goat business (actually the meat industry in general),they are called wethers.This makes them put on weight faster,behave more docile and taste better.
Another important point is proper handling of meat, meat which is not handled properly while dressing/butchering it will pick up odours which spoil the flavour. This usually neglected here in India.
Regards,

Nags next time you go to buy some meat I hope you know where to look to see if it has been castrated eh?? well.. ackshully don't! We dont want them 'tribals' to start getting ideas eh? Dont know where it will all end up..

Shalom

[timmy]

MUCH HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT THE WHITE TAIL Conservation in U.S.A.
May I please ask my dear American friends about the Conservation efforts regarding the Wolf and the Bison which once roamed the length and breath of their beautiful continent.
You guys live in Developed Nations . India is way way behind.


No doubt their populations are growing today......But were these animals not "overhunted" in the earlier centuries with NO regard to the Age or Sex of the animals.

There's a little bit of "apples" and "oranges" here, but in a way, neither of these animals, wolf or bison, is a very good example of game in the sense of game management (At least, in the USA example, anyway).

Regarding the wolf, it was not hunted as a game animal, in the sense of people going out to get trophies. Nor was it hunted for meat. So the wolf doesn't fit into a discussion of hunting as a sport, poaching, or meat hunting, whether commercial or private.

The wolf was hunted for 2 reasons: First, there was a prejudice toward the animal that was a legacy of the USA's European roots. Second, in an agricultural society that was at the forefront of most expansion in the USA (disregarding mining, of course) the wolf was a competitor for resources, killing animals raised for meat.

I am not disagreeing with the point that wolves were/are badly misunderstood as an important environmental factor. However, even though that point is true, the wolf is not really a subject for game conservation, because (except in the case of trapping for furs, a very minute part of the wolf slaughter), wolves were never game.

Then, there is the American Bison. The killing of the bison did have a little to do with game, and also subsistence/meat hunting. Naturally, the buffalo was the mainstay of Great Plains tribes of Native Americans. Killing buffalo was also part of feeding the crews who laid railroads throughout the American West. However, the biggest part of the slaughter of the massive buffalo herds had to do with the policy of the US Government, and what might be termed as "white people" in the USA in general, toward the Plains Native American tribes. Killing off the buffalo caused the Native American way of life on the Great Plains to be unsustainable, and it was necessary for the white way of life, with its ranches and farms, to be set up in that place.

The decimation of the buffalo should, in the main, be looked at as part of a scorched earth policy between Native American and Whites in the USA during the second half of the 19th Century. There were other aspects to it, true, but this was the key and determinative factor.

So I submit that the story of the buffalo in the USA is not a story about hunting or overhunting, whether by hunters, poachers, or meat gatherers. It was part of a policy to drive the Native American tribes from the Great Plains. All one needs to do is review the huge piles of bones left behind this slaughter to understand that fact -- they animals were killed, just to deprive the Native Americans of their sustenance. It was a determined policy.

I am sticking to bare facts here. I'm sure you might be able to guess my sentiments, but as they are a distraction and digression from my points, I will omit them.

[shooter]

well said timmy

heres a link to a pic that will give you an idea of what timmy is saying. it shows two men posing with the skulls of some of the bison they have shot:

[timmy]

shooter, that's exactly the sort of picture I'm referring to. There were a lot of buffalo robes obtained from the slaughter, and also buffalo tongue was considered to be a delicacy by some. However, the great bulk were simply killed to be rid of them.

I believe that in later years, the bone piles were used for making fertilizer or some such thing.

But the picture does give a striking visual picture of the level of the carnage, as there were many such bone piles.

[shooter]

The bison herds of america were weight for weight largest mass of living beings on earth.
Even massive than the legendary herds of millios of wildebeest on the serengeti, even if one includes the herds of zebra and other antelope etc that accompanied these herds.

The bison herd were so massive that they could be heard/felt before being seen a la Jurrassic park.

What a shame to see them gone.
Ditto for passanger pigeon.

What a sight it must have been to see them; bison on the earth and flocks of pigeon in the air.

I really must plan my trip to Argentina soon.

[prashantsingh]

[quote="shooter"]well said timmy

heres a link to a pic that will give you an idea of what timmy is saying. it shows two men posing with the skulls of some of the bison they have shot:






Pure and simple..... Massacre.

[omaar_sir]

Hunting should be legalized in India and should be placed under strict surveillance. It can benefit both, the ecology and the local population. There should be a systematic handling of things and the "ministries" should be kept out of all this totally. The only department that should be concerned with hunting should be the forest department and all the responsibility of the hunt should be theirs.

The department should conduct a survey of every forest block on a yearly basis and should gauge the number of animals of all the species present. Then they should calculate the number of animals of the species present that can be supported in that particular block. The difference between the two numbers should be the decisive factor for letting the animals be or giving the animals up for the hunt. A Good amount of money should be charged from the hunter for the hunt, and since a hunter has to own a weapon, he/she will b in a position to pay up. For example, Rs 7000 for a bluebull(nilgai) and Rs. 10,000 for a cheetal is quite an amount and it should be paid in advance.


The D.F.O should meet and gauge the prospective hunter issuing him a permit.

The hunter should then go to the particular forest block of which he has the hunting permit and meet with the local ranger.

The ranger should then assign a forester to the hunter for further detailing and paperwork.

The forester should then assign a local tracker for the hunt.(thus helping the local unemployed youth)

The forester should also accompany the hunter when the hunter enters the forest range with his own weapon to advise the hunter about which animal should be shot.

Once shot, the trophy should be weighed etc. and a note should be made of the hunt in the govt. books. The hunter should sign the book and leave.

Its just a simple process...


This will help keep the poachers and the timber thieves out of the forest.
It will help the local youth financially.
It will help maintain the ecological balance of the forests.
It will give the forest department money with which it can buy better equipments for the forests.



this is just a picture i am tying to make of the hunting procedure. Kindly advise ... Esp. Prashant.

[Vikram]

well said timmy

heres a link to a pic that will give you an idea of what timmy is saying. it shows two men posing with the skulls of some of the bison they have shot:






Pure and simple..... Massacre.

As Timmy said, often the tongues alone were picked and the carcases were left to rot on the prairie. The pic you see is from one of those tanning yards that sprung up to process the cadavers. Buffalo skins were exported to Europe too.

Best-
Vikram

[prashantsingh]

As Timmy said, often the tongues alone were picked and the carcases were left to rot

Best-
Vikram[/quote]

Reminds me of a video I saw of a fisherman who cut away the fins of a shark (for shark fin soup) caught in his net and left it to die and rot .

Omaar_sir .
The drop in number of tigers from an estimated 50000 in the early 1900's to just over 1400 today shows the drop in numbers of the animals the tiger feeds on. It is also an indication of the loss of tiger habitat. As of now "funds" (from India and Abroad) are not an issue to save our wildlife. There is adequate awareness for tiger conservation worldwide (except China). To introduce hunting today simply to raise more funds would not be ideal . The problem is How these funds are utilised and the Political Will to save the tiger. National Parks like Sariska and Panna loosing all the tigers to poachers is horrifying. They have reintroduced the tiger subsequently but that is not the solution . You have to save every animal in the jungle if you wish to save the tiger. Can't save the predator if you can't save his prey.
Like many places abroad , allowing private conservation should really help......and once you have achieved adequate numbers , then your suggestions could be implemented.

[omaar_sir]

Dear Prashant:

Its not the lack of prey, whose presence is so overwhelming in the forests that they are getting out of the forests and destroying the crops of farmers. The problem is the ravaging of the forests by timber thieves. The habitat destruction today is (i think) the root cause of both the crop raiding and the dwindling numbers of tigers in india. I do not accept the number of tigers at 1400 as i myself know of tigers in my area (eastern uttar pradesh) which are not accounted for. There may be as many as six tigers currently living here and no one bothers to save them. About ten years back, i remember, the killing of eight tigers in the same forest range by the villagers as the animals had taken to cattle lifting. This also went unnoticed by the media and the politicians of the country.

The area of Behraich, again, in eastern uttar pradesh also has a healthy but dwindling population of tigers and nobody knows about it. I was there a year back and my friends did manage to see a tiger on foot right next to our Dak bungalow. The forest officials estimated the number to be around 40 animals or more in the Behraich itself. My cousins have seen tigers there on every trip too. Gharials are the USP of the area and prey is abundant in numbers. Cheetal, Sambhar, Bluebulls, Boars, Kakkar and Padha etc. are just some of the prey that is available to the tigers there.

I found reports of increasing forest cover in India but i fail to see them. I have been visiting the forests of my area ever since i was born and i have yet to see the forests increase. The forests on paper have no doubt increased but they are in fact decreasing.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globa ... orest.html

"In many countries the rate of deforestation is accelerating. For example, most of the forested areas of Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and parts of Brazil's rain forest could be gone by the end of the century."

the problem lies with the management of wildlife and its habitat in India. This , i think, is the root cause of all the problems of wildlife in India.

[prashantsingh]

Omaar_sir wrote:
"My cousins have seen tigers there on every trip too. "

Lucky Guys.

There are certain points I agree with.
When you talk about "increasing forest cover in India but I fail to see them."
The increase is more on paper than anywhere else. Secondly the trees they plant to increase this "forest cover" (specially in U.P.) are "Eucalyptus and Poplar" (I know they grow fast) . I wish they planted our own local varieties.

As far as tiger numbers go I do not agree with you. There are some "tiger experts" who believe the total number in the wild to be as low as 800. The details I have mentioned in another post elsewhere.

[shooter]

I found reports of increasing forest cover in India but i fail to see them. I have been visiting the forests of my area ever since i was born and i have yet to see the forests increase. The forests on paper have no doubt increased but they are in fact decreasing.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globa ... orest.html

"In many countries the rate of deforestation is accelerating. For example, most of the forested areas of Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and parts of Brazil's rain forest could be gone by the end of the century."

We are all killing our forests. Not agreeing with this facts makes us feel better about ourselves, agreeing with it makes us feel less guilty.
Doesnt change the fact that the forests are decreasing and its not the govt or the forest dept doing it but the citizens like us.

Omaar_sir the tigers you have seen are neutralised by the no. of 'paper tigers'; the ones that exist only on paper. The least they can do is to allow private breeding like USA at least that will keep the numbers high till they can find a suitable habitat for them

[omaar_sir]

Okay guys, i was into hunting till a few years earlier and have definitely seen a significant growth in animal numbers in my hunting area. I used weapons ranging from a 30-06 to a .22lr to shoot bluebulls only as i have a farm and my crops have been raided quite a few times by them. These are sturdy animals and they breed twice a year. If the govt. allows only bluebull hunting it will at least help farmers like me.

I have also seen and have been told by timber thieves that while i was in the forest block none of them entered as they thought that i was from the forest department. This shows that the ethical hunter can enter forests and just by doing that can keep the timber thieves out of the forests.

As far as planted forests go. being a former hunter myself, i have seen that it is easier to hunt in a planted forest than in a natural one. The natural forest is quite impenetrable other than the roads and tracks while in the planted forests, it is much easier to traverse and spot animals as there is lesser undergrowth and the animals cannot hide. This gives the hunter an unjust advantage over the animal. Therefore, i do not think that planted forests are a solution, what one should actually do is to let the forest land be. It needs a few seeds or seedlings to start the process of natural forestation which should be given to it and then we should let nature take its own course. Human interference should be kept to a minimum and the natural process should be helped and not commanded.

[prashantsingh]

Okay guys, i was into hunting till a few years earlier and have definitely seen a significant growth in animal numbers in my hunting area. I used weapons ranging from a 30-06 to a .22lr to shoot bluebulls only as i have a farm and my crops have been raided quite a few times by them.

Did you ever loose an animal (blue bull)in the bush / fields , when shooting with a .22 ?