# How subliminal social programming convinces kids to eat meat



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

https://www.treehugger.com/family/how-children-are-taught-stop-loving-and-start-eating-animals.html



> In a fascinating paper from 2009 called “The Conceptual Separation of Food and Animals in Childhood,” British researchers Kate Stewart and Matthew Cole argue that media, in the form of popular films and books, as well as toys, teach children how to distance themselves from animals with whom they may initially have an emotional bond or for whom they feel ethically responsible, even going so far as to normalize eating them


In short, we "humanize" (anthropomorphize) dogs and cats, but humanize sheep, goats, etc. But anyone who has raised goats will readily tell you that their goats are as smart or smarter than their dogs - especially fluff-for-brains dogs such as Golden Retrievers, which aren't actually dogs but are in fact a cross between a dog and a Pom Pom. 

This is worrisome in another respect - it's the same subliminal tactic we use to convince soldiers that the enemy is less than human, or the other nation, or group of people within the nation, etc.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Interesting. I lean more and more toward vegetarianism though I lapse out of convenience sometimes. I still eat fish though.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Lisa in WA said:


> Interesting. I lean more and more toward vegetarianism though I lapse out of convenience sometimes. I still eat fish though.


I find that interesting as well....propaganda is everywhere.

We have cut back for red meat some what as well..... heart healthy diet....but do like my steaks, prime ribs, filets burgers, etc.

As well as venison ducks geese turkey pheasant, grouse, chicken,.... fish
Not ready to buy into "vegan" just yet.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Vegan is different from vegetarianism. I don't have any philosophical qualms against using animals for their intended purposes for fiber and dairy and work... these do not necessarily kill the animal, and farms where they are treated well are quite pleasant. 

If is interesting though. The thought of eating dog makes me want to gag, while the thought of eating a goat only causes mild discomfort. It's an existential problem - that of the human mind warring against its own base proclivities.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

The old translation of "vegan"....."Bad hunter"


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

I find the vegan reference ill informed. 

To get down to it, I'll cook the house dogs well before the hounds. 

Cats will be be hor's de voure.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Everything in moderation


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Insects and herbivores, on the other hand, are not named or given characteristics*, portrayed as “an undifferentiated mass, without autonomy, without voices, without intelligence, and without distinguishing individual features.”


Evidently those fools have never heard of Jiminy Cricket, Francis the Mule nor Mr Ed, making their "intellectual sophistication" too low to be given any credence.


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

City Bound said:


> Everything in moderation



Not if the source is limited.


----------



## Koda (Jun 10, 2014)

I think some of this comes down to your upbringing and another comes down to personal choice.

My SO is a Combat Veteran. He's not racist. He values human life. I see where there is outrage or disgust in the thought of soldiers being trained to kill... but I don't think the other side will agree to a tickle fight if the Americans just can't shoot back... They shoot and kill in order to not be shot and killed themselves. I think the entire subject is a lot easier to TALK about than the reality of actually SERVING in a war. I think any pedestrian given a gun and shot at will probably think to shoot that gun right back. Fight or flight exists in all things. The military trains you fight... not flight. A lot of animals that survive is because they fight. I think the better question is about the necessity of violence to solve problems to begin with. We learn in preschool and kindergarden that it doesn't solve anything  That being said, I'm sure that after having bullets, explosions, etc from the local population at war doesn't make him have tons of FOND memories of that country or even hearing the language... but he treated the locals from adult to child with the respect of another fellow human. He saw a LOT of hatred spread by the men of the country. Onto the local women and children especially. I think all judgement must be made on a human by human case, not a blanket judgement. The men and women overseas go through a lot all so that the majority can remain at home in their own chosen comforts not ever having the tiniest idea about what they go through.

Point number one talks about Simba. In regards to Simba being a lion and them not filming a movie about.. let's say a grasshopper.. well I think part of that is just obvious marketing. Will as many children want to be a grasshopper for Halloween? Fill their rooms with grasshopper memorabilia? Doubtful in comparison to some lions and lion cubs. Grown adults go out and buy lion cubs to this day because they're just so darn cute. Simba was also shown that by living with his herbivore/omnivore friends that he can survive without eating meat. Well... try feeding a lion bugs for life hahaha I can't even imagine the amount of grubs you would need or how well the lion would live to begin with. I mean obviously in general the concept of all the giraffes and zebra hanging out near the lions is absurd. Things don't worship their hunters haha but it's a cartoon and that's probably a lot cuter to see giraffes bowing down as opposed to running frantically with terror in their eyes. As it is, Timon and Pumba (who teach Simba to eat bugs) are omnivores themselves. Both warthogs and meerkats eat just about anything. They wouldn't object to eating meat to begin with. Lions eat meat. Pigs will eat meat. Meerkats will eat meat. Hell, BUGS eat meat too. At that rate, bugs are lives. They are living creatures. Is it JUST as wrong for the carnivores to eat meat as it is for other creatures to eat all the bugs? To the average person, no, because they don't like bugs. So it's okay.

Point number two talks about things like Happy Feet. I think part of Happy Feet's purpose was to show that humans interfere with EVERYTHING. From taking animals from their own habitat to shove them into enclosures for people to snap pictures and tap the glass, to going to those animal's natural habitats and devastating those areas. We have various animals right now that we are wiping out without any real efforts to help. I bet though that if those animals learned to bust a move and dance, people would be FREAKING OUT. Save the dancing animals! It'd break the internet I think. But they don't dance. So they don't make viral news. So the average person doesn't really care.

I think most people are distanced from where their food comes from, even if they choose not to eat meat. I think it's easier for people to keep their eyes shut and truck along than it is to open their eyes and accept the facts. We all know commercial farms aren't good for animals but that doesn't stop people from buying it. There's people who have seen it in person and they will be first in line to buy the stuff. Some people don't care period. I do think that it was only right to make Simba and lions meat eaters because that's what they are. I don't think it's right to force any individual to your way of thinking or eating. Your own children included. Everyone has a choice. Hopefully people will become more open to learning about the process, then maybe more people will fight so that ALL living things can be treated better.

As humans we affect all things around us. Something died in order for people to live somewhere, eat, etc.

I do agree that there's propaganda all around, in places you wouldn't expect, including things made for children. But I also think that if a child in a vegetarian family WANTED to eat meat that there'd be problems. I have heard of meat eating families allowing their children to choose to go vegetarian or vegan, but I have not heard of the veg/vegan families letting their children eat meat should they choose to. I think it's much more likely that your child is eating meat (or not) because of how their parents are raising them to be. Children don't grocery shop so watching a lion eat a zebra leg didn't make a kid want leg of lamb. Parents buy the food and relate their beliefs and systems onto their children. I don't think there's any extra amount of children eating meat just because of Simba. I don't think any vegetarian/vegan kids changed their ways for him.

If we hadn't domesticated dogs into what they are, then they'd be wolves really. We don't eat wolves. Carnivores just aren't known to be good or efficient eats. That being said, we have obviously taken many years to domesticate them. It's scientifically and psychologically proven that pets help people. Especially dogs. We have worked on dogs the most. Cats are still rather new in comparison. Birds, mainly parrots, are quite new (only talking pet birds here, not livestock). Livestock obviously are among some of the first things domesticated. We just figured out along the way that those dogs _will_ work and they weren't so bad to spend the day with. They also probably ate less than another grown man to help you work your livestock. If it had gone any other way, people could've just as easily been eating dogs right now. We made dogs. There is attachment. Most people have never seen a single "meat" animal up close. I bet if they spent any time with them then they would see just how much personality is in livestock as well.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

My messages were not so subliminal. The minute I stepped off the school bus and walked through the front door..... Meat loaf, chicken in the frying pan, pork chops, beef and noodles, potatoes and gravy, ocean perch, hamburgers, fried rabbit, bacon and beans........



geo


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

The larger problem is the corporations brainwashing through commercials and adds selling processed/junk food making Americans thinking that stuff is healthy. Then there is the pharmaceutical companies that promise everything but in reality only suppress symptoms and usually cause other greater problems........ And in small print...may cause death


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

The further we get away from the farm, the more kids are educated to think meat and milk come from the grocery store. None are taught to think where the grocery store gets them from.

Maybe that's why my bumper sticker reads "No farm - No food".


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

haley1 said:


> The larger problem is the corporations brainwashing through commercials and adds selling processed/junk food making Americans thinking that stuff is healthy. Then there is the pharmaceutical companies that promise everything but in reality only suppress symptoms and usually cause other greater problems........ And in small print...may cause death


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Wolf mom said:


> The further we get away from the farm, the more kids are educated to think meat and milk come from the grocery store. None are taught to think where the grocery store gets them from.
> 
> Maybe that's why my bumper sticker reads "No farm - No food".


You know, I've always thought it was pretty high and mighty when these people went around with those bumper stickers claiming no one knows where milk and eggs and beef come from. 

Which isn't really true. Of course they know milk comes from a cow. Only an imbecile would think stuff came from the grocery store directly - it's not a factory. They may not know the undesirable conditions that these animals are often raised in, however, which is why I do buy organic milk - because I know they have to have pasture.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> You know, I've always thought it was pretty high and mighty when these people went around with those bumper stickers claiming no one knows where milk and eggs and beef come from.
> 
> Which isn't really true. Of course they know milk comes from a cow. Only an imbecile would think stuff came from the grocery store directly - it's not a factory. They may not know the undesirable conditions that these animals are often raised in, however, which is why I do buy organic milk - because I know they have to have pasture.


Unless you buy straight from the farm you "know" no such thing.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> Unless you buy straight from the farm you "know" no such thing.


Organic standards dictate that dairy animals be grassfed, so yes, for all intents and purposes, I know that milk is healthier than milk from cows in a concentrated animal feeding operation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Organic standards dictate that dairy animals be grassfed, so yes, for all intents and purposes, *I know that milk is healthier* than milk from cows in a concentrated animal feeding operation.


No, you really don't know it's "healthier"
You just need to tell yourself that to rationalize paying extra to get the same milk.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidently those fools have never heard of Jiminy Cricket, Francis the Mule nor Mr Ed, making their "intellectual sophistication" too low to be given any credence.


Actually your examples fit the narrative, horses in our culture are treated as pets/companions and I don't think crickets are part of mainstream diet here either.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

As a young teen I do recall my older sister and her husband living next door to an asian couple that used to keep a covered candy dish on their coffee table with crickets. I didn't view them as a bunch of Jiminy Crickets nor was I tempted to try an "alternative healthy snack."


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Organic standards dictate that dairy animals be grassfed


Organic standards dictate that they are allowed grass, which is far different than grassfed.
They need only get 1/3 of their dm intake daily from pasture during their normal grazing season.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Ok got Happy Cows in Lots where Truck unloads Hay to them. Then Grain when Milked. Sounds Organic to me.

What is the difference how they get their Grass. Kind of like Free Range Chickens. See them in Chicken Tractors, still fed Feed from the Feed Mill. No no antibiotics but most the time Chickens get sick the Farmer loses all.

Got Farmer up the road raising Free Range Laying Hens. Hawks are cleaning up. How long will this person stay in business?

big rockpile


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> How long will this person stay in business?


As long as they can charge enough to replace the livestock and still make a profit.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Organic standards dictate that dairy animals be grassfed, so yes, for all intents and purposes, I know that milk is healthier than milk from cows in a concentrated animal feeding operation.


If you had read the USDA standards you would realize how ignorant this post is. Lol


----------



## Koda (Jun 10, 2014)

I think perhaps this goes along with lack of information. A lot of people think that because a food item is labeled a certain way that it is automatically better. It is true to some extent that animals in organic practices are treated better than in a CAFO but that does not mean that the cows are living their whole life out on pasture nor does it mean the chickens are free range. There are people who only follow the most minimum requirements to get the organic title and slap it on their goods to get that higher price. Then there's those that go even further and really look at the happiness and well being of the animals. It's overly optimistic to assume that all organic milk comes from cows that are purely grass fed. In that case you'd want to look for milk that actually states from cows that are *100%* grass fed. Technically I can label a gallon of milk as "from grass fed cows" if all I did was mow grass and feed it to them as a PART of their diet. What's the other parts? Now with organic, they are supposed to keep notes on everything fed. As well as have a minimum of 120 days on pasture. But there's a bunch of stipulations like weather permitting, etc. So from there it states that the cows don't have to be on pasture continuously and only a certain percentage of their diet has to include it. So the cows are eating other things. Milk just doesn't have to list the ingredients on the gallon/carton that the cow ate grain or soy, etc. They do have to eat organic feed though. I'm not arguing that organic milk isn't better than CAFO milk. I'm just saying that you don't really know until you _know_. That's why there's people who do like to buy locally. They can see the cows and talk to the farmer and become informed about the process and sometimes even get involved if they want to. I'd also like to say that yes, the organic milk comes from cows who are kept organically, but what about the other side of the equation? All cows need a bull to procreate and thus make milk (unless they're doing AI). The bull doesn't have to be kept in ANY of the nice requirements that are put upon the cows. So if your sole requirement is you just want to feel better about milk then organic is swell. But if your choice is being made because you also care about the life of the animals (including all the Mister Bulls out there) and their well being then you always need to do your research and not just accept a blanket label. I'm sure everyone at some point or another has heard a joke or statement about what happens when people assume things


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> According to the USDA National Organic Program regulation, certified organic animals must graze on pasture during the grazing season, which at a minimum must be 120 days per year. Additionally, these animals must obtain a minimum of 30 percent dry matter intake from grazing pasture during the grazing season.


http://www.uworganic.wisc.edu/research-2/organic-pasture/

So they only need to eat grass for 4 months out of the year and they don't need to do it all day when they do.

When I was milking the organic cows the definition of grass fed was that they did not receive any grain, all feed had to be forage made when the plant was in its vegetative state.

Many organic dairy farms feed a lot of grain and some beef operations will as well. Ours qualified as grass fed at the time.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Half of my 6 grandkids see their meat while it's still alive, and have a big part in the raising, feeding and even butchering of the animals. There is no anthropomorphism, other then the steers getting human names. The chickens and ducks etc are too numerous to name of course. After watching some uncles skin and butcher a steer my then 8 yr old farm granddaughter said "now I know how it's done". 
My sons' family are city kids and he says they would be traumatized if they knew what they were eating.......huh??! My daughter in law also doesn't believe in hunting and thinks big game hunters are the lowest form of people and they "should be shot". (Her words exactly) My daughter and oldest granddaughter went on an African Safari when my granddaughter was 15 and she shot a 1/2 dozen animals and had the mounted heads and a rug shipped home. The trip was won in a raffle draw put on by our local k-12 school to raise money for the archery program. Because of this Safari most of our family get togethers consist of my son and his kids minus the wife because she doesn't agree with our lifestyle of being animal killers. Do we mind? Lol no! To each his own, but when those city grandkids get bigger and start thinking about where their food comes from, they will be more upset then if they would have known about it at a young age.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Sanza said:


> Half of my 6 grandkids see their meat while it's still alive, and have a big part in the raising, feeding and even butchering of the animals. There is no anthropomorphism, other then the steers getting human names. The chickens and ducks etc are too numerous to name of course. After watching some uncles skin and butcher a steer my then 8 yr old farm granddaughter said "now I know how it's done".
> My sons' family are city kids and he says they would be traumatized if they knew what they were eating.......huh??! My daughter in law also doesn't believe in hunting and thinks big game hunters are the lowest form of people and they "should be shot". (Her words exactly) My daughter and oldest granddaughter went on an African Safari when my granddaughter was 15 and she shot a 1/2 dozen animals and had the mounted heads and a rug shipped home. The trip was won in a raffle draw put on by our local k-12 school to raise money for the archery program. Because of this Safari most of our family get togethers consist of my son and his kids minus the wife because she doesn't agree with our lifestyle of being animal killers. Do we mind? Lol no! To each his own, but when those city grandkids get bigger and start thinking about where their food comes from, they will be more upset then if they would have known about it at a young age.


Does your son know you go on public forums to bash his wife?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Sanza said:


> Half of my 6 grandkids see their meat while it's still alive, and have a big part in the raising, feeding and even butchering of the animals. There is no anthropomorphism, other then the steers getting human names. The chickens and ducks etc are too numerous to name of course. After watching some uncles skin and butcher a steer my then 8 yr old farm granddaughter said "now I know how it's done".
> My sons' family are city kids and he says they would be traumatized if they knew what they were eating.......huh??! My daughter in law also doesn't believe in hunting and thinks big game hunters are the lowest form of people and they "should be shot". (Her words exactly) My daughter and oldest granddaughter went on an African Safari when my granddaughter was 15 and she shot a 1/2 dozen animals and had the mounted heads and a rug shipped home. The trip was won in a raffle draw put on by our local k-12 school to raise money for the archery program. Because of this Safari most of our family get togethers consist of my son and his kids minus the wife because she doesn't agree with our lifestyle of being animal killers. Do we mind? Lol no! To each his own, but when those city grandkids get bigger and start thinking about where their food comes from, they will be more upset then if they would have known about it at a young age.


I have mixed feelings about trophy hunting. The people that I have met who are trophy hunters usually do not care about being socially responsible or contributing to conservation. If they do, they only care about their favorite animal that they like killing. They border, often, on being almost sociopathic in how they approach killing. It's almost like they have no respect for life, they just like hunting, killing things, and proving their prowess to other people and asserting their dominance over nature. 

I have a lot more respect for "regular" hunters - people who hunt deer, wild game, etc. esp. for meat, fur, and other products as well. These people are crucial for conservation and often contribute to various forms of conservation directly. A san added bonus, they often seem to dislike trophy hunters, though not universally.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> If you had read the USDA standards you would realize how ignorant this post is. Lol


Guidelines for Organic Certification of Dairy Livestock 



> Pasture (§205.240)
> 
> All ruminant livestock *must be provided pasture* throughout the entire grazing season for the geographical region, which shall be not less than *120 days per calendar year*. Pasture should be provided to provide a
> minimum of *30% of a ruminant’s dry matter intake* (DMI) on average over the course of the grazing season.


Would you like to retract your statement?


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I have mixed feelings about trophy hunting. The people that I have met who are trophy hunters usually do not care about being socially responsible or contributing to conservation. If they do, they only care about their favorite animal that they like killing. They border, often, on being almost sociopathic in how they approach killing. It's almost like they have no respect for life, they just like hunting, killing things, and proving their prowess to other people and asserting their dominance over nature.
> 
> I have a lot more respect for "regular" hunters - people who hunt deer, wild game, etc. esp. for meat, fur, and other products as well. These people are crucial for conservation and often contribute to various forms of conservation directly. A san added bonus, they often seem to dislike trophy hunters, though not universally.


I disagree....
That is pretty a hypocritical statement.....that reflects your opinion.....You have the right...
But you can tell yourself that and get a warm a fuzzy feeling

A hunter is a hunter, a kill is a kill.....no matter what the motivation.....
We all pay for the privilege to take game with in the law...one way or another.

What is the difference between a 14 point buck or a doe eating your crops?
I guess I am what you referred to as a "regular hunter."...but I would shoot that 14 point buck if one came along......


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

hunter63 said:


> I disagree....
> That is pretty a hypocritical statement.....that reflects your opinion.....You have the right...
> But you can tell yourself that and get a warm a fuzzy feeling
> 
> ...


How is it hypocritical? That means saying one thing and doing another. I assure you, my actions in real life are perfectly in line with my comments here. I'd be perfectly all right with hunting for the right reasons – food, the necessity of maintaining animals populations, etc. In reality, hunters are only useful insofar as they take the place of other apex predators, such as wolves, bobcats, mountain lions, etc. These top predators, through something know as the trophic cascade, are widely theorized to be responsible for maintaining ecosystems in a top-down fashion. The wolf eats the deer, which which reduces their population for instance and allows the local favorite plant to thrive. 

My primary gripe is with people who go on those **** safari trips to kill a lion, or cheetah, or some other big fancy animal. It disgusts me at a completely illogical, visceral level and I have no intentions of explaining myself in a logical fashion.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> How is it hypocritical? That means saying one thing and doing another. I assure you, my actions in real life are perfectly in line with my comments here. I'd be perfectly all right with hunting for the right reasons – food, the necessity of maintaining animals populations, etc. In reality, hunters are only useful insofar as they take the place of other apex predators, such as wolves, bobcats, mountain lions, etc. These top predators, through something know as the trophic cascade, are widely theorized to be responsible for maintaining ecosystems in a top-down fashion. The wolf eats the deer, which which reduces their population for instance and allows the local favorite plant to thrive.
> 
> My primary gripe is with people who go on those **** safari trips to kill a lion, or cheetah, or some other big fancy animal. It disgusts me at a completely illogical, visceral level and I have no intentions of explaining myself in a logical fashion.


So, where do you draw the line?...
Poor family needs meat...goes down to the water hole in the moonlight kills dinner....?
or 
Rich Dr. spends $100 k to take a lion.......?

What's the difference?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> The people that I have met who are *trophy hunters *usually do not care about being socially responsible or contributing to conservation.


Once more you're opining about things of which you have no real knowledge.
I bet all of them have contributed more to "conservation" than you.



Heritagefarm said:


> It's almost like they have no respect for life, *they just like* hunting, killing things, and *proving their prowess to other people* and asserting their dominance over nature.


Says the guy who constantly tells us about his superior intellect.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Would you like to retract your statement?


That quote doesn't say this:



> Heritagefarm said: ↑
> Organic standards *dictate* that dairy animals be *grassfed*


It just says they have to have some grass part of the year.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> My primary gripe is with people who go on those ****** safari trips to kill a lion, or cheetah, or some other big fancy animal. It disgusts me at a completely illogical, visceral level and *I have no intentions of explaining myself in a logical fashion.*


Yeah, who cares that those fees they spend can often support an entire village for a year, or that none of the meat goes to waste because they eat it all? 

11% of the cost of the guns and ammo already went to "conservation" and some of the exotic big game cartridges can run over $100 for 20 rounds while the rifles cost thousands.

The license and permit fees go towards research and habitat preservation to ensure there are always huntable populations of game species.

You can stomp your feet and poke out your lip while pretending to be indignant, but that doesn't help anyone at all.

You've succeeded in not explaining yourself in a logical fashion, so at least you've accomplished one thing.

Next time see if you can do it without the "****".
If you're going to violate the rules you might as well not try to be cute about it.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Guidelines for Organic Certification of Dairy Livestock
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to retract your statement?


Would you? Grazing season most places is aboit 4 months. They can be in confinement for 8. Hmmmm I wonder who could be the ignorant one here?


----------



## Koda (Jun 10, 2014)

> So, where do you draw the line?...
> Poor family needs meat...goes down to the water hole in the moonlight kills dinner....?
> or
> Rich Dr. spends $100 k to take a lion.......?
> ...


I think there's a huge difference... how do you not see the difference between someone taking a life for food to feed themselves and their family versus someone taking a life for a story or to have it's head stuffed? The poor family is fulfilling the need to live by eating, the rich Dr. wants to what? Brag? Feel like a "man"? I'm not sure of his motivation but it sure isn't to feed his family. I am sure that there are times that local tribes/villages eat the kill. But how many times really does that happen? I'd say it's more likely that the other wild animals are eating whatever was left behind. In that sense, I am glad there's no waste. I do understand where some of these local people can make money but not all hunters are going out and thinning a heard of wildebeest. Some hunters like to keep moving on up. So what's next? Lions? Elephants? Rhinos? That rich Dr. you spoke of might want something endangered. Tigers? Who knows. Does a hunter ever feel "satiated"? 

So now I'm wondering about something I never really thought about. Hunters go through locals and pay them large fees and buy real expensive guns and ammo... and I'm sure they pay a huge inflated price for just about everything else along the way... So do these places have the money to show for it? What do they do with it? I guess I'm not used to hearing about rich tribes/villages. I assume cost of living is low so wouldn't they be making a killing off these hunters? Or does the government come and take huge percentages? Also, with how much money these locals can rake in from taking hunters out in the wild, why would they want to make money doing other things? I think most people accept whatever pays more. I also doubt that most hunters go do this because they're trying to support local villages. If they could do the hunting without those fees and dealing with them, I bet they would. So I wouldn't say they are a bunch of humanitarians. Do they ever send money or do volunteer work there to help the locals? My bet is no. They go to hunt. On top of that, if the costs are so high because the government is taking most of it away, then how much are the locals really benefiting?

I can't imagine someone spending so much money just so they can shoot something. I have shot guns before but am not a hunter. I don't yell at hunters or tell them how to live their lives. I guess there's just no part of me that, after shooting guns, feels that I must now shoot a living thing. Especially not for sport. I guess I also don't see the sport in someone shooting a gun at something that couldn't possibly fight back and usually hasn't even spotted you. I can see where the hiding about and going unnoticed would be kind of cool. But I'd be hiding to take unsuspected pictures, not shoot to kill. I think it's more sportsman-like when people use bows. I've even seen people use things like javelins. That's some crazy stuff. I still wouldn't be okay with someone doing it without use of the animal.

One of the veterinary hospitals I worked at was run by a man who was an avid big game hunter. I'm talking whole entire giant house FULL of exotic animals. Different countries. He was even in the newspapers because of how odd people found it that someone who was working with animals was avidly going out and killing them. Him and his wife's bedroom was filled with big cats specifically. As someone who loves animals and values the life given, it's hard for me to understand it I guess.

I'd like to make it clear that I am not sitting here calling hunters sociopaths. I have heard people talk the same way about combat veterans which boils my blood. 

I don't understand the thought process or want to hunt. I find it kind of weird that a school had a raffle draw for a safari hunting trip. Especially since every time a young person has posted big game on their social media, they get backlash and even bullied for it. I don't think it's right to bully a child ever but I also am bewildered as to the child taking down big game to begin with let alone wanting to brag about it. I guess there's just a lot of other things I would rather see a child or even adult take pride in or spend so much time and effort in doing. It's so much time and money invested. I guess I would rather go experience other cultures with that money if I needed to go on a trip. Or make sure my child has money for college instead. But I guess if you can spend that much money just to put a bullet in something, your kid probably will never go wanting for money and probably has a full ride through college to begin with. Man that must be nice!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I have no problem with hunting for meat. Sport hunting disgusts me. Killing for fun is screwed up, IMO. 
Especially when people go to the lengths they do to fly to another continent and hire outfitters to set up the kill for them. Even if they are pumping money into a foreign economy. They could as easily do that if they just vacationed there or went on a photography safari. 

I always figure they do it because they have something wrong with them.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

hunter63 said:


> So, where do you draw the line?...
> Poor family needs meat...goes down to the water hole in the moonlight kills dinner....?
> or
> Rich Dr. spends $100 k to take a lion.......?
> ...


Attitude.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Was at a local grocery store this last weekend, they had their bacon marked "Gluten Free" SMH!!

I went to their website, did the "Contact US' thing and asked them how ignorant did they think their customers were? I don't actually expect them to remove the signs, I just wanted to let them know at least one of their shoppers doesn't buy their idiotic marketing hype.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> Was at a local grocery store this last weekend, they had their bacon marked "Gluten Free" SMH!!
> 
> I went to their website, did the "Contact US' thing and asked them how ignorant did they think their customers were? I don't actually expect them to remove the signs, I just wanted to let them know at least one of their shoppers doesn't buy their idiotic marketing hype.


Some meats contain wheat or gluten based flavor enhancements, which could cause an allergic reaction from people with either gluten intolerances, Celiacs disease, forms of IBS and Crohns, etc. 

But I'm glad you met that company know how "idiotic" their "marketing hype" was. Keep up the good fight.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

But...

Bacon.

That is all.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Koda said:


> I think there's a huge difference... how do you not see the difference between someone taking a life for food to feed themselves and their family versus someone taking a life for a story or to have it's head stuffed? The poor family is fulfilling the need to live by eating, the rich Dr. wants to what? Brag? Feel like a "man"? I'm not sure of his motivation but it sure isn't to feed his family. I am sure that there are times that local tribes/villages eat the kill. But how many times really does that happen? I'd say it's more likely that the other wild animals are eating whatever was left behind. In that sense, I am glad there's no waste. I do understand where some of these local people can make money but not all hunters are going out and thinning a heard of wildebeest. Some hunters like to keep moving on up. So what's next? Lions? Elephants? Rhinos? That rich Dr. you spoke of might want something endangered. Tigers? Who knows. Does a hunter ever feel "satiated"?
> 
> So now I'm wondering about something I never really thought about. Hunters go through locals and pay them large fees and buy real expensive guns and ammo... and I'm sure they pay a huge inflated price for just about everything else along the way... So do these places have the money to show for it? What do they do with it? I guess I'm not used to hearing about rich tribes/villages. I assume cost of living is low so wouldn't they be making a killing off these hunters? Or does the government come and take huge percentages? Also, with how much money these locals can rake in from taking hunters out in the wild, why would they want to make money doing other things? I think most people accept whatever pays more. I also doubt that most hunters go do this because they're trying to support local villages. If they could do the hunting without those fees and dealing with them, I bet they would. So I wouldn't say they are a bunch of humanitarians. Do they ever send money or do volunteer work there to help the locals? My bet is no. They go to hunt. On top of that, if the costs are so high because the government is taking most of it away, then how much are the locals really benefiting?
> 
> ...


I think you're discussing legal hunting in Africa and the costs are much higher than what you may be aware. For example, permits for hunting the Big 5 can cost as much as $40,000.00 and that money goes to conservation projects. 

Guides may seem to be paid huge amounts of money for their services but they have to pay a great deal of money to the government annually for their concessions and they are restricted to their concessions. The money paid for the concessions also go to conservation projects (in Africa, it tends to be anti poaching programs). 

Guides hire locals to work for them and they are paid well, meat from animals killed goes back to locals and while the hunters are in country, they spend well and that also contributes to local economies and have the opportunity to explore other countries and cultures. 

I guess you and may have to agree to disagree and while my kids aren't hunters, I'd far rather see a youngster work on marksmanship, hunting/camping and basic butchering skills than playing Pokemon Go or sitting in front of a television and there is valid reason for anyone to lay claim to legally and ethically hunting a trophy or food for the table. It takes a great deal of skill and effort.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> Some meats contain wheat or gluten based flavor enhancements, which could cause an allergic reaction from people with either gluten intolerances, Celiacs disease, forms of IBS and Crohns, etc.
> 
> But I'm glad you met that company know how "idiotic" their "marketing hype" was. Keep up the good fight.


Read it and weep HF

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/guide-bacon-labels_n_6609150.html


----------



## Koda (Jun 10, 2014)

> I guess you and may have to agree to disagree and while my kids aren't hunters, I'd far rather see a youngster work on marksmanship, hunting/camping and basic butchering skills than playing Pokemon Go or sitting in front of a television and there is valid reason for anyone to lay claim to legally and ethically hunting a trophy or food for the table. It takes a great deal of skill and effort.


But see, I also agree that children learning skills of marksmanship/archery, camping, survival, even butchering skills is all valuable and good for them (IF they want to do it). I also agree that learning those things over a child sitting to play a video game or sitting around watching tv is good and preferred. At no point did I say that video games/tv were good nor did I say that learning life skills was bad. My disagreement in views comes to trophy hunting. Hunting for FOOD is completely different than killing for status/bragging/pride/whatever reason. While I can appreciate supporting the local people and even the local conservation places, as Lisa pointed out, those efforts can still be supported without hunting big game. People take safaris, make videos, take pictures, learn skills from the locals, purchase their crafts and goods, etc. There's a lot more ways to support a local place than to kill things.

Now where I do disagree with you is _ethically_ hunting a trophy. I find it ethical to as humanely as possible dispatch of an animal to feed yourself, family, community, etc. And it's even better for those who find ways to use more than just the meat. But I don't see how it is ethical (even if it is sometimes legal) to hunt/kill for trophy or bragging or to take that one picture of what you did. I agree there is skill in learning to hunt, learning precision, patience, tracking. Becoming a better marksman. And I also admit that shooting a moving target must be much more of a challenge than a still one (just plain sense). But I still don't find it impressive or skillful to just kill. As I said earlier, if these hunters could go and hunt the big game WITHOUT all the permits, etc. then they would. I doubt most of them care at all about conservation efforts or even if the local tribe eats the whole carcass. I'm not saying no hunter cares, I'm just saying that I would doubt _most_ care. If the continent has that much effort and money going into conservation then clearly there's huge impacts or else there would be nothing in place and anyone could go and "bag" as many of whatever they want. Or if it was solely a money grab from the government then you'd just pay them your fine and be on your way. But that's not how it is. It's lots of money into many hands. Every single aspect costs a lot. The rifles, the ammo, the fee just to kill that 1 animal, etc. When most people think conservation, they don't think shooting/killing.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Attitude.


I guess we all agree on that...."Attitude"
As no one's mind or attitude has ever been changed on a interweb forum....
so we will to agree to disagree...that our view on others "legal"actions is against against your personal feeling.

BTW...the rhetorical question:Quote>
Poor family needs meat...goes down to the water hole in the moonlight kills dinner....?
or 
Rich Dr. spends $100 k to take a lion.......?
<quote

Was a loaded question.....
Killing a deer at night, at a water hole,.....Is illegal
Rich Dr. killing a lion.........Is legal...
What?????

So those that wring their hankies over the poor lion,... but not the poor man's deer....are promoting law breaking.
Don't like the laws....Change them.
Y'alls beliefs are valid.....but so are others.
I said my piece....but wasn't gonna let it slide.
Have a nice day...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> Read it and weep HF
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/guide-bacon-labels_n_6609150.html


LOL. Did you even read your own article? 



> *What About Gluten?*
> 
> 
> With more and more Americans shunning gluten, food producers often tout gluten-free credentials. Some bacon producers have started to label their products “gluten-free” as well. On the face of it, that sounds, at best, absurd, and at worst, like a craven marketing tactic. Shouldn’t it be obvious that bacon is gluten-free? But Sebranek said it’s a little more complicated than that.
> ...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

wr said:


> I think you're discussing legal hunting in Africa and the costs are much higher than what you may be aware. For example, permits for hunting the Big 5 can cost as much as $40,000.00 and that money goes to conservation projects.
> 
> Guides may seem to be paid huge amounts of money for their services but they have to pay a great deal of money to the government annually for their concessions and they are restricted to their concessions. The money paid for the concessions also go to conservation projects (in Africa, it tends to be anti poaching programs).
> 
> ...


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/...p-threatened-species-report-says.html?mcubz=0



> WASHINGTON — Advocates of trophy hunting, and even the United States government, have long justified the killing of protected wildlife in Africa by saying that taxes and fees from the hunts help pay for larger conservation efforts.
> 
> But a new report by the Democratic staff of the House Natural Resources Committee challenges those claims, finding little evidence that the money is being used to help threatened species, mostly because of rampant corruption in some countries and poorly managed wildlife programs. It concludes that trophy hunting may be contributing to the extinction of certain animals.
> 
> The Endangered Species Act says hunted trophies can be brought to the United States only if they do not contribute to the extinction of a species. That standard is not always met, the report says, and it recommends that the Fish and Wildlife Service improve its permitting process so that only trophies that actually enhance the survival of species are allowed into the country.


My opinion... if these people actually care about conservation... why not just send a donation to the WWF?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> LOL. Did you even read your own article?


I did, there's no gluten IN Bacon, as opposed to your claim.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> I did, there's no gluten IN Bacon, as opposed to your claim.


Please quote exactly where I explicitly said meat contained gluten.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> Please quote exactly where I explicitly said meat contained gluten.


Here you go:



Heritagefarm said:


> *Some meats contain wheat or gluten based flavor enhancements*, which could cause an allergic reaction from people with either gluten intolerances, Celiacs disease, forms of IBS and Crohns, etc.
> .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Some meats contain wheat or gluten based flavor enhancements


Show us an example of that in *bacon*.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> Here you go:


You're hopeless.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> You're hopeless.


Proving you wrong makes ME hopeless? 
Apparently you can't even remember what you typed from a few hours ago.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/...p-threatened-species-report-says.html?mcubz=0
> My opinion... if these people actually care about conservation... why not just send a donation to the WWF?


Again, you're offering opinions about things of which you have no real knowledge.
Those democrats who did the "study" probably know about as much as you.
There are no "threatened species" that are being hunted.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Koda said:


> But see, I also agree that children learning skills of marksmanship/archery, camping, survival, even butchering skills is all valuable and good for them (IF they want to do it). I also agree that learning those things over a child sitting to play a video game or sitting around watching tv is good and preferred. At no point did I say that video games/tv were good nor did I say that learning life skills was bad. My disagreement in views comes to trophy hunting. Hunting for FOOD is completely different than killing for status/bragging/pride/whatever reason. While I can appreciate supporting the local people and even the local conservation places, as Lisa pointed out, those efforts can still be supported without hunting big game. People take safaris, make videos, take pictures, learn skills from the locals, purchase their crafts and goods, etc. There's a lot more ways to support a local place than to kill things.
> 
> Now where I do disagree with you is _ethically_ hunting a trophy. I find it ethical to as humanely as possible dispatch of an animal to feed yourself, family, community, etc. And it's even better for those who find ways to use more than just the meat. But I don't see how it is ethical (even if it is sometimes legal) to hunt/kill for trophy or bragging or to take that one picture of what you did. I agree there is skill in learning to hunt, learning precision, patience, tracking. Becoming a better marksman. And I also admit that shooting a moving target must be much more of a challenge than a still one (just plain sense). But I still don't find it impressive or skillful to just kill. As I said earlier, if these hunters could go and hunt the big game WITHOUT all the permits, etc. then they would. I doubt most of them care at all about conservation efforts or even if the local tribe eats the whole carcass. I'm not saying no hunter cares, I'm just saying that I would doubt _most_ care. If the continent has that much effort and money going into conservation then clearly there's huge impacts or else there would be nothing in place and anyone could go and "bag" as many of whatever they want. Or if it was solely a money grab from the government then you'd just pay them your fine and be on your way. But that's not how it is. It's lots of money into many hands. Every single aspect costs a lot. The rifles, the ammo, the fee just to kill that 1 animal, etc. When most people think conservation, they don't think shooting/killing.


How much does each photo safari contribute to conservation and anti poaching campaigns and just because one is proud of their trophy, doesn't mean the meat hasn't been consumed. I've never been a fan of grinning over the carcass of anything but just because a picture is taken, doesn't we know the whole story.

It's also worth noting that Africa isn't the only place trophy hunting happens and not all hunters assume that their guide and outfitters are their servants. My family was in the guide and outfitting business for a number of years and have taken several US business tycoons over the years and they lived in the bush with the rest of us, their meals came from camp stoves, they helped skin, gut and quarter their animal and savored their meal that evening. 

While you may not think that killing one exceptional and older animal contributes to conservation, I would wonder where you think the funds for guards and wardens hired to protect endangered species come from? One black rhino has an entire security team.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/...p-threatened-species-report-says.html?mcubz=0
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion... if these people actually care about conservation... why not just send a donation to the WWF?


How do you know they don't? It always amuses me that people assume that the only trophy hunting occurs in Africa. I certainly mentioned it but your article is misleading because it only references one facet of the trophy hunting industry. Are you even aware that trophy hunting exists in Canada and the US?


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

wr said:


> How do you know they don't? It always amuses me that people assume that the only trophy hunting occurs in Africa. I certainly mentioned it but your article is misleading because it only references one facet of the trophy hunting industry. Are you even aware that trophy hunting exists in Canada and the US?


Look in the back of Colorado Elk hunt magazine...
Complete hunting packages to Siberia......


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> Proving you wrong makes ME hopeless?
> Apparently you can't even remember what you typed from a few hours ago.


Oh, Josephine Smith. What is it with you? I said, "*Some meats contain wheat or gluten [based] flavor enhancements
*
What do I have to do, make you a youtube video or something?



wr said:


> How do you know they don't? It always amuses me that people assume that the only trophy hunting occurs in Africa. I certainly mentioned it but your article is misleading because it only references one facet of the trophy hunting industry. Are you even aware that trophy hunting exists in Canada and the US?


You're being deliberately obtuse. Of course I know trophy hunting exists elsewhere, and it's disingenuous to imply otherwise.


----------



## Koda (Jun 10, 2014)

> How much does each photo safari contribute to conservation and anti poaching campaigns and just because one is proud of their trophy, doesn't mean the meat hasn't been consumed. I've never been a fan of grinning over the carcass of anything but just because a picture is taken, doesn't we know the whole story.


Obviously I have no idea how much a photo safari contributes just like you have no idea how much trophy hunting actually contributes. Neither of us can prove _WHERE_ the money goes. Which is why it is smart to find out. Some foundations try to be upfront and show their spendings. People had a hard time giving to the red cross this hurricane season because people not feeling they could trust where all the money for relief funds goes. Anything that involves a person means there is room for corruption, mismanagement, etc. Just as we don't know where the money is going, we also don't know that all those animals are being utilized. I also agree that I don't know the story behind every photo. But I don't have any interest in the story behind the lion someone took down. You want to tell me about the buck you shot and how it fed your family? Awesome. That's impressive. Knowing how to provide like that is a valuable skill. At no point have I tried or aimed to belittle people for knowing life skills. Everything about this has been against *trophy* hunting.



> It's also worth noting that Africa isn't the only place trophy hunting happens and not all hunters assume that their guide and outfitters are their servants. My family was in the guide and outfitting business for a number of years and have taken several US business tycoons over the years and they lived in the bush with the rest of us, their meals came from camp stoves, they helped skin, gut and quarter their animal and savored their meal that evening.


I never once stated that Africa was the only place trophy hunting occurs. I didn't even bring up Africa or trophy hunting to begin with, merely added my comments to the conversation. I am aware hunting happens all over the place. Wherever there's animals, there's people hunting them. Animals exist on all continents and in all biomes. I also never spoke about guides being treated like servants? I am aware that all kinds of people act as guides. Including in the US. None of this is news. For some reason you have been having a ton of assumptions as to my beliefs and views when I have said nothing to give these impressions. I never said that all game hunters leave the whole animal out there to waste or disrespect the locals or their guides. I am sure there are those that actually utilize the animal or at least make sure that it is by someone else such as the locals. I'm sure there are people who dress, butcher, cook, eat, and clean up after themselves as well. At no point did I state or infer otherwise. BUT there are plenty of hunters who don't utilize any of it. It goes to waste. They killed it for sport.



> While you may not think that killing one exceptional and older animal contributes to conservation, I would wonder where you think the funds for guards and wardens hired to protect endangered species come from? One black rhino has an entire security team.


I understand all this costs money. And technically these places do get money from various ways including hunting. But I bet they get a small percentage in comparison to the large fees people pay. Not to mention, the black rhino wouldn't _need_ a security team if trophy hunters and poachers weren't killing them to begin with... You brought up another good point. Exceptional animals. Those are the ones people target. Not the scrawny. Not the weak. Not those that should be culled off. Exceptional animals are removed from the population. Animals who have survived through droughts, apex predators, diseases, etc. Good stock gets killed off and doesn't get to continue passing on those desirable genes.

I think for some reason you are thinking that I am sitting here and saying all hunting is bad and all hunters are bad. You seem to think I am bashing life skills or demeaning people who have learned how to provide for themselves in this way. At no point have I said anything to reflect that. I have stated and will state again, I think they are valuable skills to be able to provide food for yourself, family, or even community. The only thing I have been against is people killing for no reason. People hunting purely for sport. Trophy kills. People who leave everything to be wasted. I think it's just as wrong to kill a cow and only use the normal meat cuts. There's more edible parts on the cow as well as every other part of it that could be used in some way. Even some small time homesteaders will compost or bury the rest of a dispatched animal to help fertilize the land that they then grow food from. To me that's at least utilizing the animal and not being wasteful or unappreciative of the life given.



> My family was in the guide and outfitting business for a number of years


A part of me feels that maybe you are taking what I am saying personally because of the family business. I could be mistaken. But I just got the feeling when I reread your post. As you stated in your comment, the hunters even helped skin, gut, and break down the animal. I'd already not classify it in the same category as what I have been speaking against. Your family took people out and taught them life skills and how to survive. I think that's great. Sorry if you took it personally or the wrong way, that was never my intent.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Oh, Josephine Smith. What is it with you? I said, "*Some meats contain wheat or gluten [based] flavor enhancements
> *
> What do I have to do, make you a youtube video or something?
> 
> ...


You posted the opinion piece one speaks of African governments but comes up short short on facts and it relates to trophy hunting on one continent. Perhaps you'd like to try and explain how that relates to trophy hunting on other continents and how the implied corruption aligns with strict regulations in North America. 

You also indicated that if hunters cared about conservation, they could send a cheque to WWF. Are you able to prove that they haven't or are you simply making broad claims. 

Trophy hunters are hunting animals near the end of their life cycle but someone hunting to fill his freezer is more likely to shoot the first legal animal they find, which is generally young and healthy.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Koda said:


> Obviously I have no idea how much a photo safari contributes just like you have no idea how much trophy hunting actually contributes. Neither of us can prove _WHERE_ the money goes. Which is why it is smart to find out. Some foundations try to be upfront and show their spendings. People had a hard time giving to the red cross this hurricane season because people not feeling they could trust where all the money for relief funds goes. Anything that involves a person means there is room for corruption, mismanagement, etc. Just as we don't know where the money is going, we also don't know that all those animals are being utilized. I also agree that I don't know the story behind every photo. But I don't have any interest in the story behind the lion someone took down. You want to tell me about the buck you shot and how it fed your family? Awesome. That's impressive. Knowing how to provide like that is a valuable skill. At no point have I tried or aimed to belittle people for knowing life skills. Everything about this has been against *trophy* hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I take nothing personally and tried to clear up some misconceptions. I actually do know how much a concession costs and where that money goes so perhaps you're jumping to conclusions. Photo safaris generally operate on game preserves and there is certainly a fee that goes to the preserve and while I know someone who handles them, the money paid, less guide and guide expenses goes toward an specific preserve. 

Trophy hunts are focused on the older animals that are at the end of their life cycle so they aren't the young virile animals needed to pass on desirable genetics. I've butchered quite a few bulls for the same reason. They've served their purpose, I have the traits I need and it's time for some fresh genetics. 

I'm pretty confident that there are less hunters that leave carcasses behind than people believe because even if they don't want the meat, guides make sure the meat is used but in the event that does happen, a carcass won't last long. Quite often, the reason trophy hunters don't personally take their own meat is because it's almost impossible to get uninspected meat into other countries. Most of my family's clients were American so while they could eat, moose, caribou, elk, bear, etc while here, it's illegal to transport uninspected meat to the US. Our family could only eat so much meat so it was distributed to poor aboriginal families and that included the all important, moose nose. 

I've never met a trophy or conventional hunter who wasn't prepared to gut, skin and quarter what they killed and while I'm sure there are those that don't, a guide will because they'll lose their license and their concession if they take the head and leave the meat.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Koda said:


> Everything about this has been against *trophy* hunting.


You mistakenly think there is such a thing when there's really just "hunting".
The same animals are shot either way.
The laws are the same and the costs are about the same for African game.

In fact, so called "trophy hunting" usually means more intense management practices that produce more and larger animals.


----------



## Koda (Jun 10, 2014)

See the problem is that I have many areas that I agree with you both. But you guys are treating this like trophy hunting is the solution to conservation. Or that all trophy hunters or all hunting guides follow the rules or treat the animals humanely. You can't tell me every guide out there is doing it by the books. You can't tell me every part gets used. You also can't show where all the money goes and how much actually aids in conservation. On top of that, all the conservation effort levels are different. For example, Tanzania has ~40% of the population of lions. The surrounding areas have very low populations in comparison because Tanzania has better programs in place to help keep the lion population from dipping. What about all the other surrounding countries in the continent? Clearly their programs either have room to improve, are being mismanaged, aren't getting all the funds that come from these big fines, etc.


> Tanzania has an estimated 40 per cent of the population of lions. Its wildlife authorities defend their success in keeping such numbers (as compared to countries like Kenya, where lion numbers have plummeted dramatically) as linked to the use of trophy hunting as a conservation tool


 That shows me that although some places have found better ways to manage, there's still a lot of mismanagement and tons of room to improve and do things better.

I understand that animal populations are not just affected by hunting but also by things like habitat loss, climate change, pollution, etc. But the populations are also affected by hunting. Conservation efforts aren't solely supported by hunting but hunting of the animals IS one of the reasons that conservation efforts even have to exist. So why are people killing things that need conserving? One of the points was that there's other ways to help. That being said, trophy hunting does bring big money which makes the government and organizations allot more land to be "protected". They still have problems with bad kills and poaching.

I'm not talking about well managed kills or guides that follow all the rules. There are people out there that don't care. Not everyone follows rules. Not everyone cares about legality.



> When poorly managed, trophy hunting can cause negative ecological impacts for the target species such as altered age/sex structures,[16] social disruption, [17][18][19] deleterious genetic effects,[20][21][22] and even population declines in the event of excessive off-takes,[23][24] as well as threaten the conservation[25] and influence the behavior[26] of non-target species. The conservation role of the industry is also hindered by governments and hunting operators that fail to devolve adequate benefits to local communities, reducing incentives for them to protect wildlife,[27][28][29] and by unethical activities, such as shooting from vehicles and canned hunting, conducted by some operators which attract negative press and foster support for hunting bans.[30]
> According to the Smithsonian Institution and the World Wildlife Fund, wildlife populations have decreased by an alarming rate of 52% since 1970.[31]





> Cougar hunting quotas have had a negative effect on the animals' population but also, the people in the surrounding communities. According to Robert Wieglus, director of Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University, when too many cougars are killed demographic issues can be seen in the cat's population. The male cougar is extremely territorial and will often seek out females in the territory to both mate and kill any cubs to ensure room for their own offspring. Oftentimes these are young "teenage" males who are hormonal and unpredictable.
> These "teenage" lions are mostly responsible for killed livestock and unwanted human interaction. In addition, they often drive females with cubs into hiding or new territory, forcing the females to hunt new prey they did not before.
> "Basically the bottom line was this heavy hunting of cougars was actually causing all the problems we were seeing," Wielgus said of his work in Washington.[38]





> Many hunting advocates[_who?_] argue the practice is used as a conservation tool. The thought behind this is to invite wealthy hunters from rich countries, mostly the United States, who are willing to pay up to $100,000 or more USD for a kill. These proceeds would then go to communities for a financial boost and also towards conservation efforts. However, recent studies show that the poor villagers in these communities rarely receive a livable portion. This is in part of corrupt governments, few number of employees, and lack of regulation. Oftentimes, these politicians are driven more by profits than conservation.
> A study conducted by CNN indicates that roughly 25 cents per acre are returned to the local communities from trophy hunting. National Geographic reports on the issue, citing an IUCN report finding "the sport hunting industry does not provide significant benefits to the communities where it occurs. Across Africa, there are only about 15,000 hunting-related jobs—a tiny number, especially considering that the six main game-hunting countries alone have a population of nearly 150 million."
> According to National Geographic, government statistics from 2014 estimated the contributions of trophy hunting to exceed 70 million USD. However, the trickling of this profit to the individuals in the community is significantly low due to "the vast majority of this income is returned to operators and spin-off beneficiaries such as airlines, hotels, tourism facilities, but there is a trickle-down effect."
> Using Namibia as an example, there has been an 800 percent increase of trophy hunting profits from 2000 to 2006, from $165,000 in 2000 to $1,330,000 in 2006. In this particular country, these profits provide $75 a month to one in every seven Namibians.





> Cited from The League Against Cruel Sports "A November 2004 study by the University of Port Elizabeth estimated that eco-tourism on private game reserves generated more than 15 times the income of livestock or game rearing or overseas hunting. (1) Eco-tourism lodges in Eastern Cape Province produce almost 2000 rand (£180) per hectare. Researchers also noted that more jobs were created and staff received "extensive skills training".[46]
> The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources in 2016 concluded that trophy hunting may be contributing to the extinction of certain animals.[47]


A lot of people know about Cecil the lion. I am not stating that everyone is like that. BUT he also isn't the only guy to have ever illegally killed something. Even though the country deemed it illegal, they didn't press charges against his guides. Guides who baited a protected animal off protected lands. Shooting him with arrows and hunting him for like 40 hours... there's nothing to take pride in about that. It was all illegal and cruel. All because he wanted a big male lion with a black mane... And again, I know not all hunters are like this, but he and his guides are definitely not the only people to have done this.

All that being said, there are also quotes that show the increase of certain species due to having protected lands to begin with. These areas cater to boosting the numbers of the species that they know people want to hunt the most. 


> A 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the _Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy_ asserted that the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, white rhinos increased from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000.[33] Leader-Williams's study also showed that trophy hunting in Zimbabwe doubled wildlife areas relative to state protected areas. The implementation of controlled and legalized hunting led to an increase in the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife, which "reversed the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe's already large elephant population."[33]


I am not arguing against legal. I am not arguing against humane. I am not arguing against people who go out of their way to find guides that do it by the books and who give back to the locals. I am against people who do it WRONG. Who do it illegal. Who do it without any care. I never said that the majority of hunters are like that either. I also never said anything inferring that most guides are crooked or promote illegal hunting. But they do exist. 

I also find it sad that the conservation efforts are so small and weak in comparison to the big money and interest brought in by hunting. More people should be interested in preservation. There was a figure saying something along the lines that protected lands have over doubled due to hunting interests. The countries have designated lands protected as well as private companies that are increasing trying to get into the hunting business. There is more private land protected than what the local governments allot for protection. That's sad to me.

I think what's happening is you guys are trying to explain that hunting can be positive whereas I never argued against the positives that come from it. But for some reason you guys haven't seemed to mention any of the negatives or people who mismanage. From the start, my comments have been aimed at people who are on the negative side of this. That don't care about the locals, that don't care about the impact of the animal population (killing large males in their prime), that don't care about legality (baiting, poaching, killing endangered species, hunting on protected lands, killing animals that aren't even on the hunting list/killing animals they aren't licensed to kill), that don't care about humane or utilization of the animals, etc. I don't think that those things describe the majority of hunters. I also don't think it describes every guide. Just as every country has it's own laws that affect where the money goes and how the animals are managed, there's people who either abide or disregard the rules and measures put in place. I am against those that disregard. Disregarding life is disgusting to me just as I'm sure that it is to many.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> Oh, Josephine Smith. What is it with you? I said, "*Some meats contain wheat or gluten [based] flavor enhancements*


I'm beginning to think you need professional help. You're completely obsessed with my religion which you have proven that you don't know nearly what you think you know about it. Then you try to say you didn't say something we all saw you say, then when called on it, you try to twist your statement around.

Perhaps a short rest would do you some good, go out and smell the roses, have some conversations with people in person.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

[ 


mnn2501 said:


> I'm beginning to think you need professional help. You're completely obsessed with my religion which you have proven that you don't know nearly what you think you know about it. Then you try to say you didn't say something we all saw you say, then when called on it, you try to twist your statement around.
> 
> Perhaps a short rest would do you some good, go out and smell the roses, have some conversations with people in person.


I pretty clearly said that meats in the store can contain gluten and wheat based ingredients, which causes the gluten free label to be useful, even on stuff like bacon. Your own article contradicted you and also said that there was a use for the gluten free label due to manufacturing processes. 

But like I said, keep up the good fight. There might be a reason you don't get a response from that meat company.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Koda said:


> I'm not talking about well managed kills or guides that follow all the rules. There are people out there that don't care. Not everyone follows rules. Not everyone cares about legality.


Then you're talking about "poachers" but calling them "trophy hunters".



Koda said:


> I am not stating that everyone is like that. BUT *he also isn't the only guy to have ever illegally killed something*.


The *hunter* did nothing at all that was illegal.



Koda said:


> I also find it sad that the conservation efforts are so small and weak in comparison to the big money and interest brought in by hunting.


You keep repeating that as if it's a fact when really it's not.
Hunter's pay for most of the "conservation".

The sources you cited are notoriously anti-gun and anti-hunting, so it's no surprise what their "studies" found.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Lisa in WA said:


> Does your son know you go on public forums to bash his wife?[/QUOTE
> Show me where I "bashed" my daughter in law?? I think you have trouble comprehending what you read, or you just want to be a troublemaker yourself if you can translate "to each his own" into bashing.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> I have mixed feelings about trophy hunting. The people that I have met who are trophy hunters usually do not care about being socially responsible or contributing to conservation. If they do, they only care about their favorite animal that they like killing. They border, often, on being almost sociopathic in how they approach killing. It's almost like they have no respect for life, they just like hunting, killing things, and proving their prowess to other people and asserting their dominance over nature.
> 
> I have a lot more respect for "regular" hunters - people who hunt deer, wild game, etc. esp. for meat, fur, and other products as well. These people are crucial for conservation and often contribute to various forms of conservation directly. A san added bonus, they often seem to dislike trophy hunters, though not universally.


Well obviously you haven't met enough trophy hunters if you think they're all sociopaths. Big game trophy hunters come from all walks of life...... yes even school teachers! It was a school teacher that arranged for the Safari as a way of fundraising. He also teachers hunters ed in our school and takes groups of high school kids on hunting and fishing week long field trips which are all approved by our regional school board. 
Maybe you might dislike trophy hunters but up here in Canada we don't! All hunters pay for the privilege of hunting whether it is a deer or whether it's a trophy ram, and all the fees for tags are a way of supporting our conservation programs. I never see a non hunter or fisherman giving hundreds of dollars to support conservation ever, so I think your opinion as an obvious non hunter is uneducated and irrelevant.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Sanza said:


> Well obviously you haven't met enough trophy hunters if you think they're all sociopaths. Big game trophy hunters come from all walks of life...... yes even school teachers! It was a school teacher that arranged for the Safari as a way of fundraising. He also teachers hunters ed in our school and takes groups of high school kids on hunting and fishing week long field trips which are all approved by our regional school board.
> Maybe you might dislike trophy hunters but up here in Canada we don't! All hunters pay for the privilege of hunting whether it is a deer or whether it's a trophy ram, and all the fees for tags are a way of supporting our conservation programs. I never see a non hunter or fisherman giving hundreds of dollars to support conservation ever, so I think your opinion as an obvious non hunter is uneducated and irrelevant.


This is me over here not caring what you think.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Before I get too old, would certainly like to go with BIL to Argentina. Ducks in the morning, shoot 'em until you get tired. Red stag in the afternoon. They brought the first red deer in over 100 years ago and have managed them well.

Would be a nice hunt.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

LOL. 
Uh-huh, Sandra. Show it to your DIL and see what she thinks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> This is me over here not caring what you think.


You care.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Before I get too old, would certainly like to go with BIL to Argentina. Ducks in the morning, shoot 'em until you get tired. Red stag in the afternoon. They brought the first red deer in over 100 years ago and have managed them well.
> 
> Would be a nice hunt.


How old exactly are you? You are always mentioning your age and for some reason I thought you were in your 50's. Is that wrong?

Also, clearly you're eating what you hunt. Not really trophy hunting, right?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

My mother in law said if someone doesn’t have enough to do, get that person a goat. I think some folks need a herd of goats.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> My mother in law said if someone doesn’t have enough to do, get that person a goat. I think some folks need a herd of goats.


LOL, that's for sure!


----------



## Yoss (Sep 8, 2017)

I dunno... I see plenty of goats being got.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

It's always struck me as funny that people who comment about other people Not having enough to do are taking a precious moment from their busy lives to comment needlessly about someone else's priorities. So who really has too much time on their hands?

I guess the answer is: people who love to deliver a condescending jab cloaked in a smug work ethic.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I think the problem people, including me, have with trophy hunters is that they kill for fun. And we humans like to imagine ourselves as being better than animals somehow, and then we have this entire class of people who kill purely for the "sport" of it. And I think that alarms a lot of people, because if we no better than animals, than what are we? Shouldn't we try to be better, or at least as good as, animals? 

(And no, because of the laws of conservation of energy, most animals do not kill for fun. They are the exception and not the norm, and most animals kill for a purpose.)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I think *the problem *people, including me, have with trophy hunters is that they kill for fun.


If it's legal, why do you care?
They pay the costs of maintaining the game populations and provide jobs for thousands of people.

The "problem" is you wanting to control others.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> How old exactly are you? You are always mentioning your age and for some reason I thought you were in your 50's. Is that wrong?
> 
> Also, clearly you're eating what you hunt. Not really trophy hunting, right?


It's not the age, it's the miles. And lots of sudden stops.

I do have some heads on the wall - it's standard decor down here - but I don't tend to kill what I won't eat.


----------

