Melissa Bachman and Huffington Post - Someone Finally Got it Right there

[pianoman9701]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/james-probert/trophy-hunting-michele-bachmann_b_4348852.html

Trophy Hunting Can Be a Valuable Tool for Conservationists

By James Probert

On 1 November Melissa Bachman posted a photo of herself with a big smile, a male lion... and the rifle she had just used to kill it. The caption read "An incredible day hunting in South Africa! Stalked inside 60-yards on this beautiful male lion... What a hunt!" In the two weeks since then she has received widespread criticism and abuse, culminating in a petition to ban her from re-entering South Africa.

I'm a researcher and conservation biologist. I don't hunt and I would prefer it if others didn't either but I would like to set a few facts straight and hopefully shed some light on a complicated issue.

Firstly I'd like to note that Melissa Bachman participated in a very specific form of hunting: trophy hunting. Trophy hunting is usually very selective, with a small number of individual animals killed per year and hunters paying high fees for the privilege.

Trophy hunting is legal, and very common, in South Africa. Melissa Bachman's lion hunt was organised by Maroi Conservancy, who are licensed by the South African government. In response to the controversy Maroi Conservancy have stated that all permits and paperwork were in place for Melissa's hunt. They have explicitly refused to apologise for their role in the hunt and have underlined their ethical standards and contribution to conservation.

Despite my personal feelings about killing animals for fun I recognise that trophy hunting is a valuable tool and a much needed source of income for conservationists. When managed properly trophy hunting does not have a negative impact on wildlife populations. Wildlife managers ensure hunting is sustainable by only targeting older males which are no longer breeding. The large sums paid by trophy hunters fund numerous conservation activities, ensuring the continued existence of many habitats and species. Trophy hunting organisations also often employ local people as guides and trackers. This provides poachers with an alternative source of income, reduces the reliance of local communities on natural resources and creates a perception of the value of wildlife in the minds of local people. In their statement Maroi Conservancy said that all meat from trophy hunts goes to local communities.

I found the petition to bar Melissa Bachman from South Africa to be factually incorrect and rather offensive. It describes Melissa Bachman as "an absolute contradiction to the culture of conservation, this country prides itself on". Hunters were, in fact, the first conservationists and many of the first national parks, such as Yellowstone in the US, were set up as hunting preserves. South Africa has a long history of hunting and it is still common there. Melissa Bachman will definitely not be the only hunter to shoot a lion in South Africa this year.

Many people, regardless of the benefits of trophy hunting, will object to the killing of an animal for pleasure. Unfortunately, many of the 258,745 people who signed the petition will happily eat a plate of beef or chicken. Many domestic animals are raised and slaughtered in far less humane conditions that Melissa Bachman's lion so any meat eaters amongst the 268,745 signatories are being rather hypocritical. By eating meat they are killing animals too, indirectly but probably in far larger numbers, and all for their culinary pleasure.

Finally, no matter how many tax-paying South African citizens sign the petition Melissa Bachman will not be banned from entering the country. Why Elan Burman, who started the petition, believes that this is possible or remotely acceptable is beyond me. Their opinions on hunting clearly differ from Melissa Bachman's but it is not for them to demand that sanctions be imposed on a woman who has committed no crime.

In summary, whilst I have personal feelings about hunting, as a conservationist I recognise its benefits. Melissa Bachman is one of many people who will kill a wild animal for sport in South Africa this year and many of her fellow hunters will also have posted pictures of their trophy online.

Whilst she might be a bit bemused at becoming the focus of so much negative attention I doubt Melissa Bachman is that bothered. In fact she's probably very happy. She writes, produces and presents a hunting show in the US called Winchester Deadly Passion. There are currently over 14.5million people with a hunting licence in the US and there's no such thing as bad publicity. In fact I've already read a few articles attacking the "bunny hugging animal rights activists" for sending her and the Maori Conservancy hate mail.

The one serious concern which arises from this uproar is the effect such a public outcry will have on trophy hunting, both in South Africa and internationally. I can already see petitions springing up which call for hunting to be banned outright. This would have a devastating effect on wildlife populations. Illegal hunting and poaching would continue but conservationists and wildlife managers would now have considerably less funding to protect against it. I sincerely hope the South African government avoids any knee jerk reactions.

[huntnphool]

 

[combs338]

Good to see!

[iusmc2002]

Regulated hunting has never lead to the extinction of a species and is a valuable conservation tool.  I seem to remember teaching something along those lines to some 8-9 year olds in Hunters Ed.  Does that mean the 8-9 year old kids are just as smart as the college-edumacated anti-hunter that wrote this piece?

In other breaking news, water is wet and politicians are crooked

[pianoman9701]

Regulated hunting has never lead to the extinction of a species and is a valuable conservation tool.  I seem to remember teaching something along those lines to some 8-9 year olds in Hunters Ed.  Does that mean the 8-9 year old kids are just as smart as the college-edumacated anti-hunter that wrote this piece?

In other breaking news, water is wet and politicians are crooked

This is commonly known among hunters and conservationists only. As far as the article is concerned, we take every victory we can get. He may be an anti-hunter, but he acknowledges the necessary conservation contributions that hunters make. That's a huge thing for an anti-hunter to acknowledge on a liberal rag like the Huffington Post.

[stromdiddily]

Respect to the author for that article. Refreshing to know that they're not all close minded bigots.

[steen]

It was a great article. The only thing I disagree with is that they give the villagers the meat. ( Which is great in one respect) But maybe some of the poachers are just villagers trying to get a meal ( I could be wrong but I wonder if some are just trying to eat ).  Once you take away the pride of hunting/providing for yourself you take away a lot. Unfortunetly it may be the only way to help villagers.  There is no easy answer. I hope the US never has concessions. Not trying to start something but I have a rough time with a few controlling the hunting and the poor at their mercy. Just my 

[pianoman9701]

It was a great article. The only thing I disagree with is that they give the villagers the meat. ( Which is great in one respect) But maybe some of the poachers are just villagers trying to get a meal ( I could be wrong but I wonder if some are just trying to eat ).  Once you take away the pride of hunting/providing for yourself you take away a lot. Unfortunetly it may be the only way to help villagers.  There is no easy answer. I hope the US never has concessions. Not trying to start something but I have a rough time with a few controlling the hunting and the poor at their mercy. Just my 

They're not poaching for meat or for the pride of hunting. They poach because they make a lot of money selling what they poach - horns, meat, internal organs, trophies, etc. One of the main points the author is making is that legal trophy hunters, through the work they give these guys on their hunts, take away the incentive for villagers to poach because the hunts offer them a legal and viable financial alternative to risking their lives poaching. Giving the meat to the locals is an added bonus to the money that's been injected into the local economy. They do like to eat. And when the great white hunter comes to town, they eat a lot.

[Jonathan_S]

That article is refreshing

[pianoman9701]

I thought so, too. It shows me there are reasonable greenies out there.

[sakoshooter]

I like his article but he also needs to realize that ALL regulated forms of hunting are good.

[pianoman9701]

I like his article but he also needs to realize that ALL regulated forms of hunting are good.

He's an anti-hunter who's sticking up for Bachman's actions and those of other hunters. Baby steps, Sako, baby steps.

[actionshooter]

Regulated hunting has never lead to the extinction of a species and is a valuable conservation tool.  I seem to remember teaching something along those lines to some 8-9 year olds in Hunters Ed.  Does that mean the 8-9 year old kids are just as smart as the college-edumacated anti-hunter that wrote this piece?

In other breaking news, water is wet and politicians are crooked

This is commonly known among hunters and conservationists only. As far as the article is concerned, we take every victory we can get. He may be an anti-hunter, but he acknowledges the necessary conservation contributions that hunters make. That's a huge thing for an anti-hunter to acknowledge on a liberal rag like the Huffington Post.

Agreed,
 This is the closest thing to pro-hunting you will ever read in the Huffington Post.
This article is an asset for hunting.

[huntnphool]

Anybody send him a letter?

[pianoman9701]

I commented on his post.

[huntnphool]

I commented on his post.