This poor woman is being demonized for shooting a lion legally

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chicagoan, read my post. A good PH won't let his customer kill a pride lion. They will target lions that have already been kicked out of the pride by a younger lion.
 
I see nothing wrong with any type of hunting as well as it's well regulated. what she did is perfectly legal and is no different than killing a trophy whitetail. the declining population is because south africa wont regulate hunting because safaris are a huge part of their economy so because they don't want to tell people, "sorry, not enough lions, you can't come and spend your money here" the lions are dieing off. I personally don't like hunting shows because of the victory dance but I'm not going to deny that I've put pics up on facebook and I would never condemn anyone else for it even if they were posing with a white elephant.
 
"PHs are just guides and odds are like Guides all over the world. For every one that is a true conversationalist, there is one that is driven by greed and will do whatever it takes for his client to get an animal so he gets a tip."

Nonsense. Do you know what it takes to get a PH license? Check it out, lots of time and effort. It's not something you go into to just have a job and rarely something you get rich doing from the reading I've done. Pull up a few episodes of Dangerous Game and listen to the 'guides' talk about what they do. There are unscrupulous individuals in every field but to imply that they are the majority just because you disagree with something is silly.

As for alternate methods of maintaining populations- look up how many species went extinct from poaching when Kenya closed its borders to big game hunting. On top of everything else that's been said, you have to remember we are not talking about countries with the infrastructure and resources we have here in the US. We're pretty much talking about 3rd world countries that do not put the same values on things as we do.
 
Last edited:
Doyle said:
Chicagoan, read my post. A good PH won't let his customer kill a pride lion. They will target lions that have already been kicked out of the pride by a younger lion.
Click to expand...
That doesn't look like an old lion that got driven off by a younger one to me, it looks like a lion in the prime of life.

At any rate, hers was a canned hunt of an animal fenced in on a private reserve and probably acclimated to humans through feeding. Barely more sporting than shooting one at the zoo, hard for me to see the thrill in that. YMMV
 
At any rate, hers was a canned hunt of an animal fenced in on a private reserve and probably acclimated to humans through feeding.
Click to expand...
And how is that different than the white tail deer hunters who join a "hunt club" where they have about 2000 fenced acres with 8' high game fences, feeders, food plots and decoys?

At least in her case her quarry can fight back and kill you if you aren't careful
 
I think fenced hunts are stupid, but perfectly ethical. I see no prize in killing a tame animal, but neither do I see it any more wrong than killing the tame cows I eat daily. Waste of money, but no ethical dilemma.
32 square miles might in all actuality make the hunt a true wild hunt. I have no idea whether this animal was truly wild or so tame it would eat out of you hand, but either way it poses no moral issue to me.

I know someone who sells "Buffalo hunts." The Bison are so tame, they will lick you to death. He raises them for meat production. Every so often, he finds an idiot who is willing to pay him thousands of dollars to shoot one. Either way, they will die.
 
if it works why stop doing it?

there is nothing that says that plain hippies will shoulder the work of the hunters.

Strange I have yet to see some enviromental/hippie out in the woods placing a saltstone, creating a wild-field doing any sort of wildlife managment, creating habitats etc etc

or help the cops track animals wounded in car-collisions...

When the enivermentalists think they are helping they are most often woefully wrong and inedequate, look at those frekkin sea-sheppards, prime example of IDIOTS, protesting the hunting of a perfectly acceptable harvest. look atr greenpeace who stopped trade with walruss tusks and crippled eskimo economy etc etc
Click to expand...

Plain hippies? Sea-shepards?
Why not throw in sissy tree-huggers if we’re down to name-calling….

We were discussing professional trophy hunters in Africa, not domestic hunters around the Baltic. As I’ve said, hunting for food is no problem for me.

Hunters, well-intentioned as some might be are addressing the symptoms, not the causes. Environmentalists are at least trying to address the causes.

I've looked into the walrus.

I read around the situation of the walrus.
It seems to me like the Inuit economy was not that sustainable, long-term. Numbers were dangerously whilst ill-managed commercial fishing and climate change is further exacerbating any pressures on population that already existed. As such a new direction would have been and is needed in those communities no matter what Greenpeace may have done.

As it happens, I cannot think of a single practice involving the harvest of natural (ie living) resources that has effectively, responsibly self-regulated once it has become an industry.
Hence regulation is needed. That regulation can mean prohibition if things have already gone too far.

But we digress….

You said as much before in an earlier post, but I have yet to see some other viable options presented.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did.

At best trophy hunting outfits will maintain a steady number of lions, in limited reserves.
(Reserves: 32 squ mies. Serengeti: 12,000 Squ miles. Hmmm...)

Clearly that is going to have little remedial effect when numbers had dropped by a grotesque 96% between 1940 and 2000 and have dropped still more since. For me, keeping some number stable in pockets is a poor substitute.

It is not inconceivable that in our lifetime, the last wild lions will cease to be, if inaction persists. When that has happened, I guess we can all solemnly look ourselves in the mirror and say “ah… but at least we did everything we possibly could…”

On the other hand, if we are serious about not just limiting the damage but rectifying it, then we need to halt habitat erosion. Namely by human activity. Not just the land lost, but also the loss of natural prey. It also means addressing the black market demand and raising the standard of living for locals.
The latter would mean big companies paying realistic wages and the west, in turn, paying higher costs. That is where most conservation ceases to be so interesting to many, when they realise that they may have to help in it happening.

All hope is not lost and some firms are waking up. Have a look at TED.com and look up Jason Clay's talk on biodiversity preservation. Does give me some glimmer of hope.

When choosing a gun I often hear “Buy once, cry once.”.
In other words, invest what is needed to get the best outcome.

Are we, humans, willing to do the same to protect our biodiversity?
 
Last edited:
i'm with Mr. Pond on this issue. On the one hand, I acknowledge that African hunts contribute to the local economy and that the meat harvested from these hunts go to the locals. However, with dwindling lion populations on the rise I fail to see how trophy hunting is helping to conserve those populations. Conservation efforts in the US versus Africa are two different things. Deer in the US are in no way in danger of becoming extinct due to effective conservation practices. Unless I saw data to prove that lion populations are on the rise i'll continue to view trophy hunting of this sort morally wrong. Now, if lion populations were healthy and if there was an effective conservation effort in force I would say lion hunting is fine by me. But, in the meantime It's hard for me to swallow the idea that it's ok to hunt these beautiful creatures and call ourselves stewards of nature, especially when the numbers refute the idea that their numbers are healthy. At what point do we stop hunting lions before they dangle closer and closer on the precipice of extinction?
 
I'm not a trophy hunter. It's not my thing. I look at the money people spend to do these things and I think "I could salt away my kid's college fund." Other people have other priorities and more disposable income. Others will pay big money to fly to the same remote locale to kill exotic animals. Fine for them. I understand that other people will pay equally big money to fly around the world to take pictures of exotic wild animals from cars. I wouldn't do that either. I don't fully understand the interaction of public land/public property game licensing, conservation, human protection, the economic benefits of photo safaris versus game safari hunts to make a comprehensive opinion. That would probably take a book.

Here's what I believe I know:

1. Trophy hunting can create an economic counter-incentive in the local human population that can counter-balance or out-weigh the rewards for killing the local fauna themselves. So, it can give an economic incentive to cease the decline of a species' population. It also keeps animal populations in balance where before there may not have been a check to growth.

2. If the lions in that particular area where Bachmann was hunting were heading for extinction, the potential financial loss would entice all local parties to keep their income source flowing. Again, I don't have any data on the local lion population. I don't doubt that overall lions might be dropping, but local to this hunt, maybe they're like coyotes. Again, with no data, I'll let my assumptions of economic self-interest give the local gov't and population the benefit of the doubt.

I don't understand why anyone in the greater South African population is so incensed that they wish to ban her from their country. It's not like she snuck into the country, off'd a lion, pee'd on their flag, robbed a bank, then snuck back out and posted to FB a selfie picture of planking on the dead lion. She came to kill a lion. She (or her production company) paid for her license, guide, permits, etc. If they have a problem with the system, I would suggest they don't understand the interaction of local laws, conservation and economics any better than I. There might be something else going on.

To the OP's original post title, I reply "Haters gonna hate." People who don't understand hunting, shooting, getting outside, chicks with guns, trophy hunts, how to turn game into food, etc will probably all stand in line to gripe about that photo. All it takes to sign an internet petition is about 30 seconds of their time to show they care so deeply and know so little. If her sponsors leave her because of that ignorant barking, then the sponsors really don't understand those things either and maybe should be in another line of business.
 
Brian Pflueger said:
"Fenced In"... yeah... and only 21,000 acres, 32 square miles.
Click to expand...
That's the size of the entire ranch, the lion was in a 4,900 acre section. That's just a little more than 7 and a half square miles. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...bachman-lion-hunt-photo-conservation-animals/

Compare/contrast to a prides normal territory of about 100 square miles, and rogue males roam much more than that.

Presumably they keep it separate from the other animals they keep for their canned hunts so as not to risk it killing them. That's just enough space to give the hunter the illusion that they're really stalking the lion, much like the Safari Park at the San Diego Zoo gives the impression of actually being on the African savannah. And, of course, the guides know exactly where it is the entire time.
 
BigD_ in_ FL said:
And how is that different than the white tail deer hunters who join a "hunt club" where they have about 2000 fenced acres with 8' high game fences, feeders, food plots and decoys?

At least in her case her quarry can fight back and kill you if you aren't careful
Click to expand...
It's not much different. I'm no fan of those kinds of hunts, it may not be unethical but it's nothing to brag about on Facebook either. Isn't the hunt more about the thrill of the chase than the kill? The chance that you might come home with nothing, so getting your quarry is that much more meaningful? Kind of like fishing in a stocked pond, it'll put food on the table but will never be that day of fishing you'll tell stories about for years to come even if you catch more that day than you ever have.
 
Last edited:
Pond, you keep saying you have provided an alternative but I still don't see it.

" we need to halt habitat erosion."

How? Who is going to do it? With what money? With what authority? What about the people that this is going to affect?

'addressing the black market demand"

Same question.

"The latter would mean big companies paying realistic wages and the west, in turn, paying higher costs."

What big companies? Define realistic wages.
 
Based on their comments I seriously doubt that Chicagoan or Pond have ever been to Africa in person and have 1st hand knowledge of the situation.

The vilification of this woman is absolutely ridiculous. First, she put many thousands of dollars into the economy of that country. Second, since she was properly licensed the country issuing the license has the responsibility to determine the correct number and sex of animals that can be harvested. Third, a properly licensed outfitter and PH/guide will NOT jeopardize the animal population for a single client.

I was in South Africa in 2010 and took 5 plains game animals. What Chicagoan and Pond are suggestion sounds like what Green Peace sued South Africa over Elephant harvesting in Kruger National Park. Green Peace said every elephant should be allowed to live its full natural life. At the time Kruger officials were harvesting a certain number of animals from the herd every year in order to maintain a stable population in the park. Somehow, Green Peace (a so called conservation group) won the suit and elephant population control was stopped. The result of this brilliant idea was the doubling of the elephant population in Kruger Park in less than 10 years. Guess what happened to the habitat in Kruger Park and the surrounding area when the elephants started leaving the park to avoid starvation.

The woman did nothing wrong and I applaud her harvest!
 
Finally I got to see the video. As soon as I read/seen its a Bachman involved. Well that's understandable. A member of a very wealthy old family here in MPLS/ St. Paul. And of late has been is trying to make a name for herself as a professional TV huntress. As far as a petition. Who's paying the freight there to hunt exotic animals Elan Burman or Bachman. I highly doubt Burman's petition or anyone else's is going to ban Bachman/s from doing business in Africa. As far as the lion is concerned. If Melissa Bachman paid all necessary fee's and licenses to film the harvesting of a trophy male lion in that African Nation. Hey I'm good with it. Those who aren't. Now is the best time of the year to start a petition drive up. Yesiree. _:rolleyes:
 
Personally, i'd never do big game trophy hunting. It's just not for me. BUT, if she wants to do it, and does it legally? It's not my place to judge her. She spent her own hard earned money, and the meat was eaten by the locals. The animal wasn't wasted, the hunter got her trophy and South Africa got it's $22,000(the cost to hunt Lions in SA). Seems like a win-win for everybody involved.
 
Pond, you keep saying you have provided an alternative but I still don't see it.

" we need to halt habitat erosion."

How? Who is going to do it? With what money? With what authority? What about the people that this is going to affect?

'addressing the black market demand"

Same question.

"The latter would mean big companies paying realistic wages and the west, in turn, paying higher costs."

What big companies? Define realistic wages.
Click to expand...

What?
Did you think I was going to draw up a water-tight comprehensive international 5 point plan to incorporate actions by all concerned from the comfort of my study?!

Really, just sit down and think about the powers at play and the answers are pretty clear. Not easy to implement, but clear.

That is for organisations and governments to hammer out.
But if ecosystems are under threat because the land they depend on is being appropriated, then it seems evident to me that is where you need to act.

If chain smoking, overweight far-east businessmen honestly think that the best possible remedy to fix bedroom issues is powdered rhino hair, that needs to be addressed too. That means local export agencies, foreign governments all acting to educate as well as enforce the law

Realistic wages. I don't know the going rate, but I know that the costs we pay in supermarkets for a majority of things are artificially low.
I can buy a T-shirt in London for about £3. "Wow! What a bargain!" Then you hear of the same company's sewing factory collapsed in Bangladesh, killing hundreds: that is why it costs £3. Because some other poor so-n-so is footing the bill in poor facilities and worse pay. Think it's different in Africa?!

Lion numbers, whale numbers, gorilla numbers, rhino numbers, etc. They are all symptoms of an overall problem. If you try to address "just" lion numbers, or rhinos, yes some progress can be made, but it will always be limited.
Our system is pretty ill but we mostly don't see it.

The precise "How" you will have to get from elsewhere. That is why I detailed how to get that Jason Clay talk. He can show you how these things can be achieved.
 
I'm vehemently pro gun and pro freedom.

That said, I am appalled and disgusted by all sorts of sport hunting, particularly for rare or endangered creatures.

Shame on humans for destroying this earth with our totally irresponsible, selfish, instant gratification ways.

The populations of many of these species would be fine, but for human hunting for sport, trophy, or horrific items like animal heads, racks, ape paws, elephant tusks, etc. The trade of these items is incredibly barbaric (this does not include the deer/elk heads and similar mounted from hunting for food, which is an acceptable and natural predatory instinct through the food chain).

As for people who claim that Lions population is doing fine, according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Population_and_conservation_status
Estimates of the African lion population range between 16,500 and 47,000 living in the wild in 2002–2004,[139][140] down from early 1990s estimates that ranged as high as 100,000 and perhaps 400,000 in 1950.
Click to expand...

Population does not seem to be doing very well in my opinion, at about 10% today what it was JUST 50 years ago.

People can pat themselves on the back by hunting to contribute to the overall preservation. I don't know how I feel about that. I would prefer if these were just protected all together and allowed to live unmolested.

There is a real psychological problem with killing something for the pure sake of killing it. It is one of a million examples of the decay of our hollow society and values. I cannot imagine taking ANY pleasure in ending the life of a creature unnecessarily, whether it's a house mouse, a snake in the yard, a gopher, a dog, a deer, an elk or an elephant.

I tread lightly and kill only when necessary. I treat all of Gods' creatures' lives with value, as I would want my life treated.

Pond, James Pond said: Firstly trophy hunting in Africa SAVED the plethora of animals now present.

That may well be the case, and what a shame it was ever needed. What a damning indictment of our society's behaviour if we need to rely on hunting revenue to preserve what we've previously all but killed off by other means.

But just because that is what may have happened in the past it does not mean it is how we should proceed.

I don't accept the premise that trophy hunting is the only workable way to preserve nature we have.

I don't accept the premise that trophy hunting is the only profitable way to enjoy and protect wildlife.

I don't accept the premise that the local population are hapless, just waiting for another westerner to come along with a 375 H&H and finally rid them of that [insert species] so they can finally eat/be safe.

I don't believe trophy hunters are overly concerned about preserving these species.
I think it is an argument used to justify the fact that they want to kill stuff that has big teeth and will look good on the wall.
If preservation were their goal, they could donate to conservation org's, go on safaris instead.

I don't agree with killing animals for "a laugh". It is not an activity I can bring myself to respect.


Quote:
lions aren't endangered either

If that is true then why are even the Masai Mara trying to curb their coming of age tradition of killing a lion by spear to prove one's manhood: because they know that numbers are in rapid decline.

Take a look. 450K in 1940 to 20K by 2000. Quite sobering.

When those sorts of changes arise from direct or indirect human activity over just the period of 1940 to the turn of the 21st century, I think that your definition of endangered and mine are very different.

How few do you want there to be before they become worth actively protecting?


Quote:
Wildlife safaris are a billion dollar industry that creates jobs for the people in africa, yankees and euros pay big bucks to hunt ...

Permit the amendment that illustrates that a rifle is not needed to garner the same results.


Quote:
... and atleast some of it trickle down.

"Some" is the operative word there. I bet the main beneficiaries are not the majority of locals and that the "some" is a paltry %.

Professional Hunters are not conservationists. They are Professional Hunters.
If they are preserving these animals it is primarily to make money. What does that mean when that animal no longer becomes profitable/worth maintaining: Bottom line is that trophy hunting is not the only nor even the best means of conservation at our current disposal.

So let's not claim that trophy hunters are motivated by a desire to preserve the Savannah. If they were they could choose from any number of more effective, more sustainable ways of doing so.
Let's rather say it like it is: they do it because they want to kill a big African game animal.
Click to expand...
+1

For the price of the failed (insert government program here), we could probably have put drones over Africa to track poachers, and a Special Forces ODA to shoot poachers. Put out warrants on the heads of poachers and start hunting these 'predators.' Perhaps that's where the real sport is.

These rare rhinos have 24/7 guards. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/9525512/Rhinos-under-24-hour-armed-guard.html

Only humans can take land and encroach on the animals that have been there since the dawn of time, and then justify murdering them for sport, income, 'self defense,' etc. wholesale right down to extinction. Shameful. And killing for sport must be some sort of deranged mentality.

People who are 'for' sport trophy hunting can come up with all sorts of 'feel good' reasons to support it. But the numbers show that WE as a human species are irresponsibly destroying then wholesale, destroying their habitats, and hunting them into extinction. We've done it with many species and continue to do it. Hunting to preserve simply doesn't work. Making the killing of these creatures illegal with stiff penalties DOES work. The whale has made a comeback not through hunting, but through making their killing and trade illegal.

Trade restrictions tend to work. Our governments just need to agree on banning trade in certain items, and making serious penalties for killing stuff on the no-kill lists. That and setting aside mass areas or land, and not organized hunts, is the best way to ensure future generations will be able to enjoy these majestic animals. It will be heartbreaking when the last of these are killed off and they aren't far from that point.

How good are pro-sport hunters going to feel about yourselves when we have murdered the last elephants, lions, great apes, etc.? Absolutely shameful. And what's more, is that it shines a bad light on hunters AND gun ownership in general.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top