Indians For Guns

Can't help.. I have to ask this..

Who is on which side...Hunting or Anti Hunting?

And when I say hunting I mean trophy hunting (Or you can say fun hunting) not hunting for food or pest control and I am talking about fully legal community based hunting..

-Inder

I believe that controlled hunting is the best way to save animals and their habitat.However,I am against trophy hunting as it removes the biggest and the strongest animals with the best genes to be passed on to their progeny, from the gene pool

penpusher";p="40040 wrote:I believe that controlled hunting is the best way to save animals and their habitat.However,I am against trophy hunting as it removes the biggest and the strongest animals with the best genes to be passed on to their progeny, from the gene pool

I beg to differ -

The flip side is that "the biggest rack" (of antlers) has already passed on his genes over several years to many offpspring. This stag would be on the more mature side and "removing him" in return for hefty hunting/ trophy fees would both provide much needed funds for conservation of the species as a whole AS WELL AS allow younger stags the opportunity to allow for a new "alpha" to emerge from amongst that generation etc. This is a tried and tested model, having proven itself as successful in many diverse habitats, for a stark contrast we only look at our own backyard to see what a blanket ban on hunting does to wildlife populations! As counter-intuitive as it might sound to many people, well managed hunting, both for food & for sport (trophy hunting included) is crucial for wildlife management programs to pay for themselves. Ignoring this ground reality is akin to someone espousing Soviet style communism in today's day and age... it simply does NOT WORK!

I think well managed trophy hunting has most definitely got a place in any well conceived and properly managed wildlife conservation program. Needless to say which animals species are allowed for hunting, bag limits, size limits etc. would need to be decided according to what is best suited to maintain a proper balance in the particular habitat in question.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

So how do you know what is the mileage on the fellow with the biggest horns

penpusher";p="40046 wrote:So how do you know what is the mileage on the fellow with the biggest horns

Ah, that's the easy part... you just walk up and ask him of course! But then there is an outside chance that he may be in a foul mood and try to ensure that you don't get any further mileage yourself...

I am indifferent to the concept of trophy hunting so long as it does not become a numbers or a size game.

Forget trophies,hunting in any form would be welcome even if rules for the present crop protection are made more liberal,let's get real past exp suggests most Indians lack any sense of discipline we tend to go ballistic does the Maharaja of Sarguja ring a bell.
Given the poverty in our neck of the woods most folks in rural areas would look at it as the event that brings the next meal on the table.
Hunting if opened should be the tightly regulated perhaps with the participation of private enterprise re like givng out concessions so that the state gets revenue and the same is put back to maintain the eco balance,pvt concessions would be effective in putting an end to poaching which is currently rampant.

I am in for hunting as long as there is limit to what you can hunt and when you can hunt. This is to ensure that habitat can sustain the population of the animals. I mean its not hunted to extinction by over hunting or the total hunting ban causes over population which the habitat cannot sustain
Cheers
MSandhu

Hunting for the pot of species that are in good numbers is fine, but I dont support hunting for trophies.
Regards,
Yaj.

Totally "Anti" hunting for trophies. For hunting when it comes down to controlling of pests or to check an unwanted increase in the numbers of a species to the extent that the increase becomes a menace for one and all.

In some cases hunting does good for the species. as in England where fox hunting has helped better the genes of the foxes and as I am told that even the Royal Family also indulges in the sport with much fan fare. But there must be responsibility involved and India could start with specified licence regime in a small manner. I am a strong advocate of this but I don't want animal rights groups baying for my blood.It is quite ironical that our country still follows the Common Law system yet we differ in certain key areas.

there are many misconception to hunting, the worst kind are the poachers, they are the scum of the earth, just take skin, ivory or horns and waste the meat.

in england for example fox hunting is somewhat banned, however this sport generates employment, income and keeps the fox population down as they when hungry go to farms and kill livestock.

Trophy hunting ie deers is much needed, i don't want to go into depth but deer hunting is not shoot at any old deer. A good hunter would know his heard and would think in term of healthy herd management. A good Trophy brings in much needed income for the estate and the hunter. when one goes on a safari one pays for the Trophy, this income helps keep the other animals and pays for human labor in addition keeps the animal in sustainable population. In general Trophy hunting tends to be selective hunting where the income is put back into maintain g the wild animals and the hunter goes home happy.

nagarifle";p="54075 wrote: ...In general Trophy hunting tends to be selective hunting where the income is put back into maintain g the wild animals and the hunter goes home happy.

I heard this is well structured in countries like Africa...

No hunting in any form and maybe we'll have some remnant of wild life 50 yrs down the line. SIGH.......
Marksman

pro trophy hunting generate a good deal of funds which in turn can be spent on managing wildlife and forests.i think there is nothing wrong as long as its humane and ethical.many countries follow this and have acheived good results.so, a pro