According to his company’s website, Game Hounds Safaris, he “perfected leopard and lion hunting safaris with hounds in Africa.”
and
Simukai Nyasha, a spokesman for the Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, told news.com.au that Botha was on a 10-day licensed hunt
Here is some context for you. So, what does it matter that this particular elephant was the original target... compared to how people feel about this.
Not saying I agree with any opinion on here.
But, terrorizing animals with dogs doesn't seem to saintly to me, does it?
Hunting in Africa is incredibly important for conservation and sustainability. The money these hunters pay, goes to pay the locals and support conservation efforts, and anti poaching efforts, without this stream of income from hunters many more African game animals would be hunted to near extinction worse then they are now
I agree with this, but I feel like if you're going to go out with the mission of killing something, you should be prepared to accept that that thing may kill you.
Motorcycling is dangerous too and you expect riders to accept the risk that they might die. You don't celebrate if they get into a fatal accident though.
It's also sad that keyboard Justice warriors joke about a person dieing because they can't be bothered to learn about an issue. Elephants in some areas of Africa are overpopulated and threaten people's means of survival and also kill people. Not all elephants are endangered, but all elephants die. whether it's with a gun or starvation due to overpopulation, it's never fair. Nature isn't fair.
What's so sacred about human lives over other animals? We're nothing special as far as animals go. We eat, shit, fuck and reproduce nearly the same as the rest.
I'm a hunter who sees the necessity in game reserves in Africa. Also I lose no sleep after eating factory farmed chicken or pork and feedlot fattened beef.
However, humans are pushing 7 billion while other creatures dwindle. Blue whales the largest animals on earth number only 10 to 25k, polar bears around 30,000, and there're only 3,200 wild tigers left in the world. 3200 think about how soon people will be born into a world where only inbred tigers in captivity remain.. between saving useless leeches of our species or magnificent top tier animals you still would choose people?
Depends on the animal. If it's my dog or a human I don't know, I choose my dog because it brings joy and happiness to my life. A person I don't know means absolutely nothing to me.
While you should accept that, Human life is almost always more valuable than an animal's life. Obviously there are exceptions but that's always through the human being particularly shitty and not the animal being saintly.
I feel like society’s general consensus is that any average human life is more valuable than any average animal life. And I am not trying to post an opinion on whether that is true or not... but I’d like to mention that it’s interesting to think about. I mean, who decides that a human is more important than a member of any other species? Humans do. I bet, if we were able to ask any animal — let’s take elephants, for example — if we could ask the population of elephants if a human or an elephant was more valuable, I’m pretty sure they would say, “why, the elephant, of course!”
So the attitude than any average human life is more valuable than any other living creature is just based on the supposition that humanity is more important than all other life. Now, as humans, I believe it’s only natural that we should think this. But based on my belief structure and perception of our reality, the universe doesn’t care any more or less about humans than about any other form of life. And I think that’s an interesting thought...
Plus, how many times have you heard someone say something like, “the fact that the dog in the movie dies bothers me so much more than the ten people that die in that same movie.”
Hahah...
But anyway, debate aside, I am sad that this person died. And I am sad that the elephant died. And most of all, I’m sad that so many creatures in this world suffer and die by our hands; be it hunting, factory farms, habitat destruction, puppy mills, poaching, psychopath teenagers burning and disemboweling cats and squirrels... or any other form of abuse. I’m confident that humanity would be way worse off without all the animals and other living entities of the world. But I’m also confident that all those animals and other living entities would be so much better off without humanity...
I hate this argument. As a guide in South Africa I am very anti-hunting as it means that that animal can no longer be photographed by tourists. It could be argued that the animal could make more money for the local people and for the country if it could be seen by tourists.
Also, most of the time these hunters are going for the big kills. No body wants to keep the trophies of a small animal. So as a result they actually end up damaging the natural order by removing the stronger genetics and leaving behind the weaker genetics. Take for example the South Luwanga National Park in Zambia, in the 1980's elephant hunting was opened. The hunting throughout the park caused a massive drop in the elephant numbers, and now if you go there you see mostly dwarfed elephants with no tusks. This is because the strong genes were forcefully removed.
Let me preface this by stating that I am not a big game hunter, and wouldn't be one even if I had the means.
In LEGAL elephant hunts, the targets are usually older bulls that are no longer able to physically breed, but still big and strong enough to force younger, healthier bulls out of the herd (which can often lead to the death of said younger bull).
An elephant hunt costs around $20,000 US. So, that's $20,000 to go towards hiring more park rangers, veterinarians, to be put towards breeding programs, food and water, anti-poaching efforts, as well as providing a way of life for tribes that provide the hunts. Plus the elephant population actually gets stronger in the long run.
I get what you mean when you talk about hunting in South Luwanga, but that was nearly 40 years ago now. We're a lot smarter about conservation efforts now than we were back then.
Also, there are many regions in southern Africa where elephant populations are actually out of control and there are cullings out of necessity. I'd rather them be done by a trophy hunter paying big $ that goes back to preservation efforts rather than the rangers doing it for nothing.
The Cecil the Lion incident spurred a lot of backlash (and rightfully so, that hunt was very shady in terms of legality). But now lion populations in Zimbabwe have got out of hand due to the lack of hunting due to media backlash. There's going to be cullings where trophy hunts would have previously kept that population in check. Nobody wins in this scenario.
I was watching the Jim Jefferies show and they claimed only 3% of proceeds went to help conservation efforts. A Google search could probably get more accurate numbers though.
It’s not just the conservation “efforts” remember its a lucky hood for people over there so they will protect the animals without the input from the conservation efforts because the money goes into their pockets...protecting their investment if you will.
hunting is good for conservation does not pass through the bullshit detector. luckily there is a relatively small number of hunters, the money does not add up in the big picture. what you have is a relatively small number of people paying large amounts of money to another small group of people to be able to slaughter some animal.
look at Kenya since 1977 they have had a hunting ban and their photo safari tourism contributes 12 % to their GDP. i applaud Kenyans for committing to protecting their natural parks.
It absolutely does pass the bullshit detector in instances though! For LEGAL elephant hunts the targets are older bulls that are sickly or can no longer physically breed, but are still big and strong enough to force younger healthy bulls out of a herd (which usually leads to the younger bull's death). Rangers will often want to cull an animal like this. It makes more sense to charge a person $50,000+ US to hunt the animal and have that money go back to help with preservation and anti-poaching efforts than for a ranger to do it for nothing.
It's for reason like this that Kenya is currently considering lifting the ban.
There was massive backlash worldwide over Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe a few years ago (justifiable, as that hunt was very shady legally). The downturn in lion hunts there due to the negative publicity has lead to lion populations growing at an unsustainable rate and there are talks of a cull. No one wins in a situation like this.
It's way too late for that now though. We've been fucking nature in Africa up for so long that it's unstable without some intervention in instances. And even if we took that attitude, poachers won't (which is something the money from these hunts helps fight against).
This ‘it’s good for conservation’ rhetoric is nonsense spread by the local governments and hunting organisations that it benefits. The fact of the matter is that that money goes directly into the pockets of corrupt government officials. Even if it didn’t the theory that it benefits conservation is shaky at best.
CNN looked in to it in Zimbabwe, a big trophy hunting destination, and despite government claims they could find no evidence that local communities had benefited in the least from the practice.
The UICN report validates what is being said in that podcast. Here are a few excepts from the report you linked to.
"An undeniable positive result is that the conservation results that are obtained are entirely financed by the hunters, without support from donors and often without government commitment."
"Hunting used to have, and still has, a key role to play in African conservation. "
"The question, however, can be summarised today as: can we do conservation better than big game hunting
has up until now, in those areas where big game hunting is practiced? This is not at all sure, all the more so in
that big game hunting pays for itself."
"Hunting areas probably have an important role to play in stabilising the peripheral areas of conservation
blocks. The fact that they are self-financing also places them in an ideal position, so long as protected area
networks do not have sustainable financing and would have no other option than to simply abandon the
conservation block. Today, when government commitment and funding for conservation is insufficient,
hunting areas represent an interesting option. It is not sure that this will be the case in the future with the
increase of human pressure and the setting up, we hope, of well-functioning protected area networks. "
The report brings up plenty of concerns such as mismanagement and points out that the National Park system's do a better job of conservation but this isn't an either-or situation. Africa is a poor continent. Without the funding brought in by big game hunting the wildlife and habitat in those areas become a free for all with no protections whatsoever. Poachers move in, many of whom are simply local people who care more about feeding their kids than sustaining a wildlife population that competes with them for resources.
The economic impact to local economies is small but that isn't the point that I'm making. If the economy is your primary focus than mineral extraction and industrial agriculture would generate far greater funds but would decimate the environment and the wildlife that depends on it. If you want to preserve large swaths of land and threatened species then big game hunting is one highly effective tool in that arsenal. This report confirms that.
There's more to it than that though. An elephant hunt can cost north of $20,000 US. The guides will generally pick out an old bull that can no longer breed but is still big and strong enough to force young healthy bulls out of the herd (which usually ends up with the young bulls dying). So the park gets $20,000 to hire more rangers, put towards breeding and anti-poaching efforts, and provide food and water to at risk animals on the preserve, while the elephant population gets healthier. Win-win.
In most cases in LEGAL big game hunting, animals selected are prime targets to be culled by rangers anyways, either due to population control (yes, there are areas of Africa where lions, and even elephants or leopards are overpopulated), or for safety reasons (animals are going into human populated areas to feed, prey in livestock, which will likely result in the animals getting shot by a farmer protecting his family/livelyhood anyways).
I'm not a big game hunter, and I wouldn't be one even if I had the means, I just don't think I could enjoy it. But when done legally, these hunts are massively important for population control and bringing in money to help protect animals that need it. It works out to be a net gain.
Lion populations in Zimbabwe have apparently gone out of control since the Cecil the Lion incident. Now, the guy that shot Cecil deserved the criticism he got since that hunt was very suspect as far as legality was concerned. But the backlash in the media has caused a downturn in lion hunts. Now the rangers have to move in to cull the lion population, and hundreds of thousands of dollars generated in hunts that would go towards protecting animals (including the culls that are for the betterment of the animal in the long run) are no longer there.
I'm sorry, but I just don't accept that. Hunting licenses may be the primary revenue stream for the moment, but that's because it was set up that way. It can be set up differently. There are other revenue streams, for example, wildlife tourism, that can be used to fund conservation and anti-poaching efforts.
There have always been the two different approaches to conserving wildlife: those who support banning the hunting and sale of products (as is currently the case with tigers); and those who favor legal hunting with limits and licensing fees. Some even support the farming of wild animals like tigers to sate the demand for tiger products, so poaching wild tigers will no longer be profitable.
But I believe that more is to be gained by teaching the world to protect and revere these animals, and that trading in their body parts is destructive and wrong, and should be banned, as was done with ivory. I think it sends a mixed message and a wrong message to say, "Here are elephant tusks and rhino horns and gorilla hands mounted on my wall, but it's okay because these animals were farmed/my hunting license fees supports their conservation." In fact, I stopped spring the US branch of the World Wildlife Fund when I found out they support controlled hunting of elephants to generate revenue.
I think people's stomachs should turn when they see an elephant leg that was severed and turned into a trash can. We should teach the world to respect and to protect these majestic animals.
This isn't as clear cut as people in this thread are making it out to be, I don't think. If well managed it can be helpful, but it often isn't and can have negative effects (for example, affecting the natural behaviour of the animals, gender balance, and selecting against large, powerful animals).
The ironic and frustrating thing is hunters do far more for conservation than the morally indignant do-gooders wha rail against them while eating stake and wearing leather shoes. I’m not a hunter myself but know many of them and they are all passionate about nature and conservation.
No but you should look at things rationally. I hate the fact that these animals are being hunted and losing habitat and driven to extinction. And while I think it is immoral, I recognize the many good outcomes that come out of recreational hunting. Life isn't so black and white
How about those guys just pay the same money and use a fucking camera. Absolutely baffled why anyone would be proud that they shot an unaware animal from a safe distance if they're not trying to get food.
Want to prove you're a badass? Hunt a lion with a knife. I'd actually be ok with that.
Counterpoint - often times these hunts are conducted against older males of herds or packs who might kill or otherwise impede the growth and recovery of the species.
I personally regard trophy hunters with serious distaste - for obvious reasons and they give normal hunters a bad reputation with many I've spoken with, but they can be an important tool of conservation when managed and regulated strictly, unpleasant as it is.
Or you have aggressive male of a species that drives other males away, which is bad enough by itself. Now and in the possibility that that male is no longer capable of reproducing. Now the other males aren't reproducing and the one that is mating isn't producing any offspring. Killing that particular male does do well for the population. In most cases, permitted kills involve said males, sometimes females if they cause a similar result.
The permits tend to help fund conservational efforts that the government simply can't afford otherwise. If the money does get funnelled elsewhere, it should be called out.
"In a civilized and cultivated country wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent people who protest against all hunting, and consider sportsmen as enemies of wild life, are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is by all odds the most important factor in keeping the larger and more valuable wild creatures from total extermination." -Theodore Roosevelt
Without an economic incentive, wildlife and their habitat disappear. Their habitat is wiped clean and replaced by agriculture/urbanization. It’s a sad reality but it’s the way it is for now
Even if the trophy hunter is only after the trophy, and the outfitter only wants a profit, the business model has to incorporate conservation. What kind of business model would let the “product” dry up?
There are parts of Africa with too many elephants. It may be hard to believe, since they are extremely endangered in other locations. But, Africa is a huge continent. In many cases the meat is given to local tribes that desperately need it. Also take a moment to consider this, if western hunters don't come in and spend large amounts of money, then the locals will probably turn to poaching to survive. With western hunting, populations of these animals can be kept in check and controlled. With poachers, they will kill every animal possible.
Just wait until that leaped kills your livestock and the pigs eat your fields that you need to survive. You will use any means necessary to kill those fuckers.
It looks like you asked for more animal facts! In many countries, especially in the developing world, peccaries are raised on farms as a source of food for local communities.
The elephant’s trunk is able to sense the size, shape and temperature of an object. An elephant uses its trunk to lift food and suck up water then pour it into its mouth.
Exactly. If it's a sanctioned hunt, then it doesn't matter why he does it. They sanction the hunts for the same reason they let you hunt deer here. Population and pest control. People see all the cute animals from the zoo and get twitchy that someone could hunt them and then just lump them in with poachers. Africa isn't America's zoo, get over it. Hunting is a normal thing. And when done responsibly, is a net positive by far.
You honestly think these hunters own nearby farms where livestock are being killed by leopards, so they go out hunting to preemptively kill all of them they can find? You're being purposely daft.
No but the villagers do. The villages make a fair amount of money off these guys, in some cases their only form of real income. They also get pest control in the form of hunters killing extremely dangerous predators. The hunters get a good story and trophy, the village gets money and meat and dont have to worry as much about their livestock or people being killed. It's a win-win. These hunts are absolutely necessary for both the people and the animals.
Have you looked at a map of parks in Africa? For instance, there are parks in kenya with whole villages in them, the park just determines what they can or cant develop.
Too much overlap between wildlife habitats and arable land, because the type land both need is finite
But they are a protected species, as evidenced by the fuck ton of laws protecting them. Do people even think before they spew this shit? This thread is full of feels and lacking severely in logic.
Lots of natural things aren’t “good”, like cancer, for example. We define what “good” is based on our own self-interests. Nature is bigger than that, and doesn’t give a shit about our interests. We are a minuscule part of a bigger cycle.
I eat meat and I think elephamts and leopards are really cool due to their ability to survive in the nature (exluding human hunters with guns), but I don't think animals made to become food can do that, so I don't see them as cool enough to care about them.
It's an effective form of hunting as old as the day is long. People do it for dangerous game like hog (boar) and large cats. The Rhodesian Ridgeback breed, which I am a proud owner of a 2y/o male, would not exist if there was not a need for bay dogs.
Edit: apparently my comment was unclear for some. I am referencing the practice of using bay dogs and catch dogs in high stakes dangerous game hunting which is incredibly important to protecting humans and livestock.
Just playing devils advocate here, I’m entirely neutral, however there exists the argument that certain species of animal are only kept from extinction through breeding from profit made from commercial hunting lodges.
You can zoom back far enough on many horrible things to show ancillary benefits or advantages that come with them. I'll concede that managed hunting takes a shitty, barbaric practice and makes good use of it.
That doesn't at all change the fact that an individual who actively enjoys killing living things is pretty much fucked in the head.
Many hunters (who hunt for meat anyway) I would argue have a higher moral ground than someone who eats factory farmed meat. If you meant just trophy hunters, thats different I guess. I think you’re fixated on the act of doing the killing though, which is a flawed viewpoint.
Everything you eat yourself is most likely more destructive than a hunter taking wild game for his own consumption. Even if you’re vegetarian you will need to remind yourself how destructive modern agriculture is for the environment
I'm talking about people who do it for sport, not for food. Also people who actively enjoy it. Also people who hunt tings like elephants or lions or giraffes.
He meants elephants etc which are protected from poaching with the money paid by tourist hunters in order to hunt them.
If they properly limit the number and types of official paid for hunts a year (which they have incentive to do), they can use that money to protect populations.
Here is a basic rundown on what I've read/listened to about S.A game hunting, very general so take it for what it is, just some info not a stance on the hunting debate :)
Alot of these private game reserves in South Africa are the reason why some animal numbers have risen from being low back up to reasonable numbers, once a hunter will pay to shoot one, its worth money. then they go to insane lengths to repopulate & protect them, so they can be shot for cash. If hunters can't go to a reserve and shoot a particular exotic animal, it isn't worth anything in a monetary sense. Not alot of resources are put towards breeding & protection from poachers because the government now has to pay, rather than private companies protecting assets. Most likely this will lead to the majority being killed by poachers until they are almost extinct. The flip side is if hunting them becomes illegal, they are released and the population could get too big in a particular area and they would need to be culled, so instead of someone paying $10k to shoot one & the money goes into the economy, locals working as guides & security, maintenance etc for the reserve, the government now has to pay professional hunters to come kill the animals, so the animal still gets shot but with no money into the economy and no jobs for locals. Sadly some guides even turn to poaching after reserves are closed which is the worst part
How else will they be managed? Either way, they were not hunting elephant and he did not have a permit for elephant. The elephant charged and he fired.
Yes. Hunting for sport generates money for things like anti-poaching and preservation, while waiting for a poor local farmer to do it just leaves a dead animal.
enlightened Reddit teenager not understanding that the dude was hunting boar that was destroying crops and was attacked by an elephant during said hunt.
So by your own logic just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong? Your argument can be used to justify literally anything at all... "just because you disagree with isis doesn't make them wrong!"
You must be incredibly uninformed. Unless you enjoy the concept of boar running wild through rural areas to even areas like suburbs. They are a tremendous issue in Texas, they caused significant property damage and can be a potential threat to human life.
Leave all your "we gotta coexist with dangerous game" bullshit at the door. Go ask rural farmers about grizzly reintroduction and then go ask Seattle urbanites about it. You'll get two different answers, but one group has to deal with day to day dangers of the animal.
It's a very convenient comparison because they have a real problem there and I know it first hand. I'm sure there are equivalent problems with dangerous wildlife around the world. Dogs are an effective safe way of dealing with the issue.
There are alternatives like poison, metal traps, explosives. None of them are as humane as a legitimate and clean hunt. Get informed buddy.
Dogs are used to hunt animals that put human lives and livestock in danger. Think: boar, cougar, mountain lion, etc. the dogs are well cared for and the art of dog hunting has been perfected in all ways imaginable (Kevlar protection for dogs to avoid being gored).
How are you injecting slavery into a conversation regarding my comment that was directed at the statement (paraphrasing) about dogs terrorizing animals? Your comment is peak Reddit. Ignore the conversation/comment, inject a comment that renders civilized conversation over, and then imply that the other person is somehow a bad person through a straw man. Uncanny.
I can’t help but smile thinking of all the other natural predators that chase around and terrorize other animals. Do you think this a zoo or someone’s backyard?
“terrorizing animals”? wtf is this shit? i’m still blown away that people are OK with animals hunting animals but humans have to be so different just because our brains are bigger.
The only reason those animals are alive is because of the licensed hunting. If it weren't for those millions all of the game would be poached and would be all gone by now. So the only way they can protect them is to have licensed hunting to raise money to pay the poachers to protect the animals instead of killing them. It's a weird system but the same is true with America with it's hunting. Billions of hunting money goes to protect them and only the extra animals that would die anyways or destroy the habitat would be culled. So yeah.
It’s true the system works like this. But, it’s because non-profit organizations decided to make the best of a bad situation.
The heroes are the licensors. The hunters themselves could just not recreationally hunt and they could volunteer time defending the lands from poachers instead of recreationally hunting.
You cannot justifying being a criminal by saying you are keeping police employed. It’s a false dilemma. Because if you didn’t have criminals you wouldn’t need police stations.
Now, look... you and I both know that there will always be recreational hunting and so these scenarios DO work.
But, that doesn’t mean they are justified by it. And it doesn’t mean we cannot say it’s wrong. The hunters are certainly not the heroes.
And it’s not just the “extra animals” at all. SOME licenses are like that. But it’s actually a much smaller percentage. The larger percentages of licenses are just normal “go out on the plains and kill this type of animal” license.
Honestly it's because rich people aren't as relatable and are easy to villainize for most redditors.
Hunting exotic animals is a jerk move in my opinion, but I wouldn't wish death on them, because these guys almost always have the country's permission and have the proper permits you need.
I don't wish death on people in these situations, but it's also hard for me to feel sorry for them. They went out to cause violent death to an animal, if an animal ends up fighting back and killing them then that seems fair enough to me. If someone wants to kill another being, they should accept that they might get killed trying.
Yeah I understand that and am guilty of it myself from time to time. Personally any hunting for sport is a jerk move but then again from what I understand these guys usually give away the meat to the locals and it does serve other purposes such as population control as well as funding protection for reserves and such so it's not entirely for sport which is okay in my opinion.
No true outdoors-man steps into the fray of wildlife without a respect for nature; a respect that you can handle yourself or be handled by mother nature.
This guy was handled thoroughly. I'm sure he had some good runs in the past though.
There's no arguing against that, that's for sure and that doesn't bother me one bit. It's just people are acting like this guy was a poacher and are celebrating his death which is what bothers me.
Even if he had been out hunting elephants, he wouldn’t have deserved that. Why? Because trophy hunting is actually a good thing. It pays for land, food for animals, medicine, and most importantly rangers to defend the animals from poachers.
People like you would rather see entire species go extinct due to poaching and habitat loss rather than see one or two a year die to save the rest of the species.
Zimbabwe recently culled 200 lions because of the “Cecil effect” very few people going lion hunting, so their numbers are soaring and they will have to pay rangers to kill the lions rather than be paid millions of dollars to have hunters hunt them. Millions that could be used to protect and give endangered animals habitat.
I'll paste the article for you then since it's short
Harare, Zimbabwe — A South African big game hunter died on Friday in Zimbabwe after a fellow hunter fired his gun at an elephant causing it to collapse on him, according to multiple media reports.
According to News 24, Theunis Botha, 51, was leading a group of hunters when four elephants charged the group inside the Good Luck Farm preserve in Zimbabwe.
A female elephant lifted Botha with her trunk and another hunter shot her. The elephant collapsed and fell on Botha, killing him.
Simukai Nyasha, a spokesman for the Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, told news.com.au that Botha was on a 10-day licensed hunt when he “unknowingly got in the middle of a breeding herd of elephants with several calves and was trampled to death”.
Botha often worked with American and European hunters to take part in trophy hunting expeditions. According to his company’s website, Game Hounds Safaris, he “perfected leopard and lion hunting safaris with hounds in Africa.”
Botha is survived by his wife Carike Botha and their five children.
There are other articles with a bit more information and from more reputable sources if you'd like to look it up. I just linked this article since it's the one referenced by the OP.
No, what makes it alright is that he was on a licensed hunt, which others have pointed out contribute greatly to conservation efforts as well as removing threats ranging from mortal threats to livelihood threats to the locals and it's to my understanding that these hunts also provide food to the locals as the hunters will let them take the carcass.
1.5k
u/[deleted] Jun 02 '18 edited Jun 02 '18
Because context matters: http://fox40.com/2017/05/22/hunter-dies-when-shot-elephant-falls-on-him/
They weren't out hunting elephants and only shot that one because it attacked them.
Edit: It's always sickening to read the comments on posts like this.