Indians For Guns

Folks,

Alright, before people start sighing, before people start thinking "this guy is back with his game of semantics", before people post replies with "Flogging a dead horse" emoticon, it is worth to read the attached PDF through.

http://www.animalrightsafrica.org/Archi ... vation.pdf

There's always "the other side of the coin". Citations here are from the very country Africa, where we believe trophy hunting has been successful and people advocate implementing the same in the Indian parks. Interestingly, it compares, with statistics, the impacts of Photo Safari and Hunting Safari.

When the report was compiled in 2004:


Well, the study is based on various investigations, surveys, reports etc. All References are cited in the PDF.

The report discusses several cases, local employments, the "reality" of what's being done in the so called "legal" hunting etc. In case the attachment doesn't work (it is over 2 MB), here is an online link of the PDF

http://www.animalrightsafrica.org/Archi ... vation.pdf

Hope we read through and know the other side of the game, which probably could be a major argument, why this can not fit Indian ethos.

-------Edit-------
Attachment didn't work so, please refer the URL for the PDF

Swamy,

You're probably right when you say it won't fit the Indian ethos but whats absolutely sure is that we won't see trophy hunting happening in our country because there are'nt left with many "trophies"

Of course that might change if we engage in serious efforts to bring up numbers of all fauna species in a balanced manner and reverse deforestation in a big way.

M.

fantumfan2003 wrote: Swamy,

You're probably right when you say it won't fit the Indian ethos but whats absolutely sure is that we won't see trophy hunting happening in our country because there are'nt left with many "trophies".

Manish ji -- Agreed! This was my view point in an earlier thread. Hope you read the article (I know it is long, still worth a read).

fantumfan2003 wrote: Of course that might change if we engage in serious efforts to bring up numbers of all fauna species in a balanced manner and reverse deforestation in a big way.
M.

Sounds next to impossible to me!! Even if the conservationists become successful in doing so, again, the number of "trophies" will increase and there will be appeals for "trophy" hunting

Good article, on old one though as i remember having read a couple of years ago.

A few pointers:

Decleration of interest: All studies should declare a decleration of interest. This study didnt for obvious reasons. It was funded by the league against cruel sports.

Face validity:
This article and a lot of the research it uses is about CITES 1 species. Majority of animals hunted in Africa do not come in CITES 1.
The Article is not about hunting in general.

Content Validity:
Most of hunting operators allow photography safaris. The rates are in their websites. There is no 'hunting only' areas unlike 'photography only' areas. The break up of photography revenue between private hunting areas and govt. owned land is given.


This article has a lot of pages about canned hunting and as it says SCI also condemns it. No question about that.
A lot of the times the word 'hunting' is used to describe poaching activities like bribing the officials, etc etc. this is breaking the law. This is not taking place because the law allows it.

The beginning of the article gives the example of Kenya. Good example as it is one of the few places where there has been maximum amount of decline in the population in animals. They have recently started wingshooting safaris. Maybe plainsgame might follow.

Economic analysis:

No doubt about the tourists being more numerous and the money they bring in. Point taken. However the numbers are again a bit misleading. Basic amenities? Please check the resorts and the camps. In fact if anyone finds a basic facility, please let me know; I have only been able to fine one in Namibia @175$/day. Majority are around $400/day. Cheap?

Lion fees of $2000? wow im booking that safari tomorrow. Then again you can google lion hunting and see how much the trophy fees are.

Also, season in Africa in most countries is a year long open season. Go to any safari outfitter and see for yourselves. If you say less hunters come in summers or rains, well its also true of photograph safaris.

This paper actually admits to the fact that Africans are meat eaters. It also admits the fact that the money from photographic safaris goes to the people.

What do you think the people spend it on? I pods? no its food. A BIG majority of people there are meat eaters But this study discounts the fact that the meat from trophy hunting goes to feed the villagers. An important so conveniently not mentioned as it skewes the economic equation.

This study doesnt even touch the animals of the antelope family, kudu, oryx and warthogs, a big number of the animals hunted.
Go to outfitters and see very few have leopard hunting licences. Fewer still have big 5 licenses. Even this study hasnt touched the plainsgame hunting. It merely gives facts about cites appendix animals, poaching, canned hunting and makes the title 'trophy hunting'.

Even this stydy concludes hunting is fine by the locals.

Economic analysis:
There are very few ways the money by any industry goes directly into the hands of the poorest. Basically if foreign exchange comes into any country, the economy grows. If not for this logic, all MNC's should be banned as they only employ the richer (more educated), higher cast (no reservation there) people so they should be banned.
We have all seen how the MNC's have benefited the Indian economy though the poor still dont get any money directly.

This is more a political debate, capitalism vs socialism.

This study discounts the taxidermy fees, people employed in the taxidermy trade, dippers and packers and shipping industry and also the money this brings in. I was speaking to P***** an aquaintance of mine earlier today; he leaves for a hunting safari in 2 weeks time. I asked him to bring some rugs for me. He told me he had been quoted £1200 fora zebra skin. This sort of income is not included in this study.

It states in this study that a lot of land has been cleared of grazers to make way for wildlife. It also stated the fact that many local see the wildlife as a nuicanse. They didnt elaborate the point that the traditional grazing tribes consider the cattle as wealth and wont be averse to clearing forests to make grassland. They also see other animals as competition to their cattle. So is this point pro hunters or anti hunting operation?

A concept that is not working due to poor implimentation doesnt make it wrong. See US UK Canadaand EU countries for ex.



Re: Zimbabwe, i had recently written a thread about the decimating wildlife. This study also says there is poaching due to no law and order and locals killing for food. Though this is sad and true, I dont see what the connection is with shooting safari outfitters.

To sum up I would like to show you some facts. These facts can also be verified via the indian budget. Does it still make it right?

http://www.cafi-online.org/disarmament-poster.html

P.s.: Jim Corbett did support hunting. He hunted till his last days. He only advocated conservation for species whose numbers were falling and his idea of conservation didnt say stop all hunting. He continued to hunt till he died. Dont know about Billy Arjan as I havent studied him much.

shooter wrote: Good article, on old one though as i remember having read a couple of years ago.

A few pointers:

Decleration of interest: All studies should declare a decleration of interest. This study didnt for obvious reasons. It was funded by the league against cruel sports.

shooter,

You're right, the article is pretty old. So, we're still talking about a concept that didn't work out fully, and was negated even 6 years back with valid examples, facts and figures. The rates might differ, due to the time difference. Regarding the declaration of interest -- this was a submitted to the environment minister at that time -- so obviously, no need. Moreover, the first heading in the article itself is a purpose, well stated.

shooter wrote: It merely gives facts about cites appendix animals, poaching, canned hunting and makes the title 'trophy hunting'.

Oh yeah!! The effort, money and study are all waste probably!!! I hope you read through the sub-heading "A smoke screen for corruption and poaching", still, want to validate the league wrong?

shooter wrote: P.s.: Jim Corbett did support hunting. He hunted till his last days. He only advocated conservation for species whose numbers were falling and his idea of conservation didnt say stop all hunting. He continued to hunt till he died. Dont know about Billy Arjan as I havent studied him much.

[/quote]

A slight note -- he never indulged in TROPHY hunting till his last. To clear things up, here's some info. He swore not to kill any animal, unless proved dangerous to the mankind and followed his vow.

Corbett bought his first camera in the late 1920s, and inspired by his friend F. W. Champion, started to record tigers on cine film. Although he had an intimate knowledge of the jungle, this was demanding to obtain good pictures, as the animals were exceedingly shy. As his admiration for tigers and leopards grew, he resolved never to shoot them unless they turned man-eater or posed a threat to cattle. He expressed regret at killing the Bachelor of Powalgarh.

Corbett was deeply concerned about the fate of tigers and their habitat. He lectured to groups of school children about natural heritage and the need to conserve forests and their wildlife; promoted the foundation of the Association for the Preservation of Game in the United Provinces and the All-India Conference for the Preservation of Wildlife. Together with F. W. Champion he played a key role in establishing India's first national park in the Kumaon Hills, the Hailey National Park, initially named after Lord Malcolm Hailey. The park was renamed in his honour in 1957.

It is altogether another topic, how we could deal with man-eater cats. I think we have discussed the same on board.

About Billy Arjan Singh:

Duff Hart-Devis, a former feature writer of The Telegraph, London, has just finished penning his biography, “Honorary Tiger”. How Billy Arjan Singh became from a “shikari” to a conversationalist is a fascinating story. A scion of a princely house, he took to hunting at a young age and, by his own admission, he killed seven tigers. But circumstances and his own character led him to a different path altogether. He now deeply regrets his hunting days and candidly admits: “ I was part of the slaughter that maligned the evolutionary processes that created such magnificent creatures”. He subsequently gave up hunting and actively campaigned to end sport hunting. He was directly responsible for closing down 26 “shikar” companies. He was the first to advice the Union Government to ban shooting tigers in 1969.

you posted the article asking for comments.

There is a way of appraising a study starting with aims, decleration of interest, type of study, face validity, construct validity, bias, statistical analysis etc. etc.
i was merely following the list.
There are many parts i agree with.

A critical appraisal is nothing like criticising but merely pointing out the areas if any that need to be improved.

thats what i did. In fact i have taken an effort to go through the paper have tried to be rational and logical in the responses.

I dont see anything so funny to make someone roll on the floor with laughter.

I dont know the source of your info; he did state that hunting cheetah in Africa was an exhilirating experience. I am sure he didnt shoot them for food. He also arranged hunts for various VIP's. The bachelor wasnt thee only trophy animal he took though it was the most famous. The season before he announced he was going to give up hunting, was the season he hunted the most and also using most ways and means. I still respect him though.

Tiger is a cites 1 listed critically endangered species on the verge of extinction and no 2 species with the different conservation status can be managed in the same way.

Trophy hunting is not limited to cites one or critical species. Please be aware that impala, springbok, gnu etc are also a part of trophy hunting.

I can give you 100 studies of banning shark killing for shark fin soup but that can mean ban eating chicken or even trout.

shooter wrote: you posted the article asking for comments.

shooter wrote: There is a way of appraising a study starting with aims, decleration of interest, type of study, face validity, construct validity, bias, statistical analysis etc. etc. i was merely following the list. There are many parts i agree with.
A critical appraisal is nothing like criticising but merely pointing out the areas if any that need to be improved.
thats what i did. In fact i have taken an effort to go through the paper have tried to be rational and logical in the responses.

Shooter Ji, I must really thank you for spending time to go through the article and analysing the points that were brought out. At least for your time spent to read the entire list. Appreciated from my heart.

You might have spotted few changes here and there. At the same time, we also can't deny every point quoted in the article is wrong or meaningless or done with only an intention. There are many logical sections, thanks again, for agreeing with them.

Even you had mentioned earlier, the article clubs poaching, canned hunting and names the study as trophy hunting. I would disagree in this aspect. It only tried to point out how the different terms are linked and one is happening as a consequence of the other. The countries like US and Canada, considered to be best in implementing a controlled, legal hunting were also no exception when it came to poaching. Don't they have enough money to spend to stop them?

shooter wrote: I dont know the source of your info; he did state that hunting cheetah in Africa was an exhilirating experience. I am sure he didnt shoot them for food. He also arranged hunts for various VIP's. The bachelor wasnt thee only trophy animal he took though it was the most famous. The season before he announced he was going to give up hunting, was the season he hunted the most and also using most ways and means. I still respect him though.

My sources were from an author who has followed his trail in the Himalayan foot-hill villages. If you want, I can give you the name of the book. I have been reading about Jim Corbett and Billy Arjan Singh, for quite some time now. I also do presentations in various schools, inculcating the need for conservation in our country, just to dip my nail tip in the ocean.

shooter wrote: Tiger is a cites 1 listed critically endangered species on the verge of extinction and no 2 species with the different conservation status can be managed in the same way. Trophy hunting is not limited to cites one or critical species. Please be aware that impala, springbok, gnu etc are also a part of trophy hunting.

I can give you 100 studies of banning shark killing for shark fin soup but that can mean ban eating chicken or even trout.

The article just brought out various negatives of the Trophy Hunting. It is natural they look at the big cats for the sample. Conservation status is altogether a different topic. How to manage conservation for different species was never suggested or dealt with, in this article. I do not know why you look at it from that angle. This article only aims at bringing out certain "most negative" points in the very country, where Trophy Hunting is believed to be a tool for conservation. Not my opinion Ji, as I have told several times earlier, I do not have anything personally against hunters, least, who am I for that matter? The thought is coming straight from the Conservation Team Member of Zimbabwe. Citation in the article.

Thanks again!!! A nice interaction though, when I expected different kind of reply.

I have been reading about Jim Corbett and Billy Arjan Singh, for quite some time now.

Then you must know the mention of hunting in africa. And his last season of tiger hunts and the hunt for the Maharaja of Jind etc.

There is another book Carpit Sahib which is a good read and hi biography. This book is not his criticism, merely his biography. The book you mention is a good read though i forget the name. was it something like in the stos of .... Anyway i think if i am not mistaken it was released before 1999 as i had read it approx then. I have always said he is my hero.

SRSwamy you said you expected a different interaction. I agree with many points of your study, having read this paper long time ago. I have always condemned canned hunting, poaching, wanton killing, hunting out of season etc.
I am not criticising every point. I even gave you the source of why i wrote what i did.
I didnt make any icons, was patient, and not ridiculing your point of view.

And i still dont get rolling on the floor with laughter funny part of it.

The only difference in our view point is that I have seen with my eyes that of all the countries in the world that allow hunting, the animal numbers arent depleting.
Take for example mountain lions western hemispheres big cats and see their numbers rise.

Look at 2 countries where hunting is banned like India and Kenya and look whats happened.

On the other hand see US,UK,germany, Austria, Spain, France, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, (Basically western europe+eastern Europe+scandinavia), Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Turkey, Iran, Australia, NZ, Russia, South Africa, Namibia, Mauritius, Uzbekistan, Khazakhistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia ... the list goes on.

You really think they all got it wrong?


I was reading an article written by anti hunting group in the USA. (forget which one).
They have written that hunting for controlling numbers or pest control should stop as HUNTING DOESNT EFFECTIVELY REDUCE ANIMAL NUMBERS.
I will look for it and post you the link if you find it.

And I dont have anything against non-hunters either; i mean most of my friendly/family are non hunters.

shooter wrote:

There is another book Carpit Sahib which is a good read and hi biography. This book is not his criticism, merely his biography. The book you mention is a good read though i forget the name. was it something like in the stos of .... Anyway i think if i am not mistaken it was released before 1999 as i had read it approx then. I have always said he is my hero.
.

"Carpet Sahib" A life of Jim Corbett
published in India by Oxford India Paperbacks
Priced at Rs 250/=
Written by Martin Booth.
A good read.

I have a copy .
By the way India also does not allow import/export of animals/animal part of species listed in the CITES.


Yet srswamy , why do you think we are loosing most of our tigers? (A most endangered animal).
One must not group the Hunter and the Poacher as one and the same.


Reminds me of the lines of a pioneer of the Indian Forest Services. A fine officer and (surprise) a Hunter who shot many big cats which had turned cattle lifters and maneaters.
I quote:
"And what a shock it was for me to see it's glint of gold ( eyes) gradually fading away. There is nothing so disconcerting , nothing so heart rendering , as to find the most beautiful of God's creatures lying at your feet, reduced to a stinking mass of flesh. It seems there are only two major tragedies in the life of a sportsman: one , not getting the quarry he is after, and the other far more serious one, getting it."

Regarding: evolution in reverse theory of killing the big males etc:

take a deer for example or other species, the year they grow the biggest antlers/horns/tusks etc doesnt correspond to the first year of mating or the first year of sexual maturity.

The length of horns increases by the year but the genes/dna remains the same.

Even the worlds largest giant new caledonian NZ stag takes years to get that big. many years after it starts mating.

They have already passed on their DNA to the next generation by the time they are shot. These are not virgin deer.

If only the armchair conservationists who wrote that passage could go into the forset and see deer in various stages of antler growth and see them mating etc/ observe them in the wild.

By their reckoning the largest deer should heve been in middle ages and only dwarfs now whereas we see the world records for antler growth being broken repeatedly through decades.

-- 16 Jul 2010, 11:31 --

Please note that i have put up 3 articles which support hunting for conservation.

Please note these are NOT sponsored by pro hunting groups (Decleration of interests).


If actually want to understand the concept maybe youshould also check out BASC, FACE, Ducks unlimited and also articles about the role wildfowling clubs and wildfowlers play in preserving Britains esturies, backwarers and marshes.

Sorry for the delay shooter Ji, work is keeping me from doing anything else these days.

shooter wrote: And i still dont get rolling on the floor with laughter funny part of it.

To tell you something, it was definitely not to ridicule your reply or your critical analysis. When you made the below statement,

shooter wrote: It merely gives facts about cites appendix animals, poaching, canned hunting and makes the title 'trophy hunting'.

I just quoted the people must have collated the information in a much better way so that no one gets this opinion. I am sure they spent money, effort and time on it, so better prove themselves right, by all means! I would strive, not to give any opportunity to anyone, if I were to come up with one such thing. I am so sorry, if by any chance it gave you an impression that I am trying to ridicule. Kindly excuse me.

shooter wrote: The length of horns increases by the year but the genes/dna remains the same. They have already passed on their DNA to the next generation by the time they are shot. These are not virgin deer.

Sharp point. However, there's another scenario, we can not dispose just like that. When you say, "they have already passed on their DNA to the next generation", it means, the next offspring will have a "re-combined genetic composition" and not the original gene, as the one that was shot. Re-combination can not assure all the features will be dominant, in all the off-springs. The tusk or horn for that matter, could be recessive!

shooter wrote: If only the armchair conservationists who wrote that passage could go into the forset and see deer in various stages of antler growth and see them mating etc/ observe them in the wild.

It would probably be right to call "me" an armchair conservationist, if I make such statement. I hope you also took a look at the appendix for this paragraph. It is from a study called "Utilization of Wild Living Animals, Conservation and Sustainable Development: Contradiction in Terms or a Promising Approach?" by Martin Hutter, who is with a wild life organization, based out of Munich, Germany. At least, the wild life organizations don't employ "arm chair" conservationists.

So, in my humble opinion, it would make sense to confer the title upon someone, after reading the entire study submitted by him. Here's the link, but it is German. I too am on my way to get it translated.

http://www.prowildlife.de/sites/default ... 202001.pdf

shooter wrote: The only difference in our view point is that I have seen with my eyes that of all the countries in the world that allow hunting, the animal numbers aren't depleting.

Numbers not depleting does not necessarily support Hunting plays a vital role in conservation.

shooter wrote: Look at 2 countries where hunting is banned like India and Kenya and look whats happened.

On the other hand see US,UK,germany, Austria, Spain, France, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, (Basically western europe+eastern Europe+scandinavia), Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Turkey, Iran, Australia, NZ, Russia, South Africa, Namibia, Mauritius, Uzbekistan, Khazakhistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia ... the list goes on.

You really think they all got it wrong?

The list might go on. More of the debate lies in the implementation of the same in India. There are also "mishaps", reported in some of the above countries, citations already quoted in the article under debate.

Again, as you quote

shooter wrote:and no 2 species with the different conservation status can be managed in the same way.

Same applies to the countries too. No two countries can resolve to manage the wildlife in the same way. I also can still question on the studies and the scientific processes by which they determine the number of "trophies" in a country. Several articles to quote. There are also several other practices which are being followed in the countries you have quoted and are not followed in India. Does it mean we have got it wrong?

Better option -- India should try to resort to the "best" possible constructive approach and try save the "very few" left over trophies.

shooter wrote:I was speaking to P***** an aquaintance of mine earlier today;

Not as a conservationist, but as a member of the "pro-hunting" fraternity, is this the way you deal with "Poachers"? Nothing specific, just curious.

P.s: The links you have given in other topics, as citations seem interesting. I will respond to them, once I'm out of my work's whirlpool.

prashantsingh wrote: Yet srswamy , why do you think we are loosing most of our tigers? (A most endangered animal).
One must not group the Hunter and the Poacher as one and the same.

Thanks Prashant ji, for your response. Though they face many problems, the important ones are

1. Poaching.
2. Illegal trade across the borders, which triggers "Poaching".
3. Local people, hunting tribes.

Of course, I do not view "Hunters" and "Poachers" the same. However, the only point I was trying to illustrate from the article quoted was "Trophy hunting can be "dangerously" utilised as a "smoke screen" for poaching. People like you, might know the rules and abide by ethics, but unfortunately, the world is not full of such examples! For an instance, please see

http://www.rhinoconservation.org/2010/0 ... orn-trade/

Another tragedy, in the same country "South Africa", where hunting is believed to "work". Why aren't they able to stop this?

Sharp point. However, there's another scenario, we can not dispose just like that. When you say, "they have already passed on their DNA to the next generation", it means, the next offspring will have a "re-combined genetic composition" and not the original gene, as the one that was shot. Re-combination can not assure all the features will be dominant, in all the off-springs. The tusk or horn for that matter, could be recessive!

They will have a recombined DNA even if there is no shooting. ALL species are born with 'recombined DNA' whether shot or died a natural death. However The point was whether the stags can pass it on or is it evolution in reverse.

Numbers not depleting does not necessarily support Hunting plays a vital role in conservation.

Thats why i said please look at various organisatons like BASC,FACE,Ducks unlimited, Countryside Alliance, UK wildfowling clubs etc.

Not as a conservationist, but as a member of the "pro-hunting" fraternity, is this the way you deal with "Poachers"? Nothing specific, just curious.

I dont get this part. I was just telling you the price some rugs fetch in relation to the economic impact. The part of my speech you have quoted should be read as a whole sentence and not those few words.

I have also put up another post and dedicated it to you. it is an article without any conflict of interest. Hope you read it.

please check:

http://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopic ... 18&t=10600