Poll: Do you think big game hunting should be allowed under certain circumstances?

The trophy-hunting apologists are coming out of the woodwork…

Vote NO here: Big game hunting: Conservation or cruelty?


Alaska serial killer/big game hunter Robert Hansen, with his trophy kill.

8 thoughts on “Poll: Do you think big game hunting should be allowed under certain circumstances?

  1. Glad we are continuing to use the term, ” serial killing,” because that is what serial killing is. Yes, the only Big Game Hunting that should be allowed is: hunting those humans who are animal serial killers–putting them out of their miserable condition.

  2. We should end big game hunting and trapping as so called sport and profiteering. They are both barbaric and out of place with modern times, They are both rationalized by primitive residuals in our societies. It is up to the more civilized to control the un-empathic and cold hearted among us by ending these practices. Hunters and trappers are not conservationist, they are recreation killers and profiteering killers, that is all. The rest is rationalizing BS.

  3. Conservationists? Sport Killing and Trapping as Conservation
    Trappers and hunters are good with rationalizations, both rationalizing themselves as “conservationists” which is absurd, when what they really do is game farming for sports and profit killing, marginalizing predators. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. reasons for game decline is almost always man and his activities: Loss of habitat to farming and grazing, as it is with sage grouse, forage loss due to man or weather or fire, over-hunting. Hunting is additive killing falling outside the wilderness ecology. Man is no longer few and dependent on subsistence hunting; now it is just sports killing. In any case, it is not predators’ depredations that are primary factors to be “managed” in a knee jerk way way of thinking, often spurring wildlife agencies to join in the “management” of predators rationale.; predators-prey have established millenniums of balance, and predators should never be scapegoated as the sportsmen do with bird, ungulate and fish number fluctuations. Climate change may be resulting in flora and fauna changes and even movement to other climes and loss of forage, fire damage, and disease. It is man that needs management in terms of controlling hunting levels, habitat loss and recovery, corridors of travel for wildlife kept or regained (available), learning to live with wildlife instead of against it in the march of civilization in ranching and farming, extraction industries, development. The rationalizations of trappers and hunters for managing the predators is an old, invalid mantra belonging in the categories of myth, folklore, lies, and with us from the dawn of civilization and sports hunting.

  4. Facetious Alternative Outlook on Hunters and their Wildlife Agencies: Instead of distorting wilderness ecology by farming game animals for hunter “conservationists” to “manage” in the wild and “managing” predators we should have game farms where “sportsmen” can make an appointment and go shoot “their elk” or their deer; maybe even have it processed and packaged right there. If supermarkets would be allowed to put game in the meat sections, if not then game stores and game stores allowed to sell it, then those who just want the meat could dress up in orange and go to grocery or game store and get their meat and fill their freezers. The wilderness could be left wildness. For those who just enjoy being out there, they can take a hike, maybe with a camera. For those who really just like the killing, the game ranch could satisfy that desire. Maybe we could even expand on that need by allowing those people to come out to ranches and shoot their own cow or sheep or pig and strangle their own chicken or turkey. For those who are justifying their wildlife killing as conservationists, we could put them to work convincing public land leases to give back the land to wildlife and wilderness. For those who need to dress up in camouflage or orange, they could try paintball. There are other avenues of satisfaction for frustrated Elmer Fudd Nimrods and Jeremiah Johnson Wannabes such as orienteering, hiking to the back country and back with jerky from the grocery in their pack, survivalist type races and obstacle courses, and video games, rifle and archery ranges.

  5. Apex Hunter Man Not
    Man left subsistence hunting and living in the wild in small tribal groups a long time ago, at the dawn of civilization and turned to agriculture and animal farming (aka ranching). He has now become a “sportsman”, a killer of wildlife for fun, not subsistence, and profit. The animal world, the wilderness cannot support animal farming in the wild wherein the sportsmen upset the balance by farming sports targets and marginalizing the predators or eliminating them. The wild cannot support trophy hunting; 40% of the world’s animals have disappeared in the past 50 years. Time for the “sportsman” to disappear. Man is not the top predator nor is he part of nature though he has a devastating negative impact. Man first went the use of tools route and then went the “civilization” route. Now he may visit the wild and play in it and as hunter-sportsman he may pretend he is a hunter-gatherer again, or vicarious warrior, but only for the day, morning or afternoon. Man is now more like a disease upon the wild and the wilderness and the world than an apex animal and part of it.

  6. Do we need to protect wildlife, especially predators, from state and federal wildlife agencies, profiteering, and recreational sport killing facilitated by them? These agencies are mostly set up to serve the wishes of hunters and fishermen and trappers and agriculturists, not the majority of the public. They are really an extension of the sportsmen, wildlife sport killers, and fishermen and trappers. They stock streams and rivers for fishermen to fish, and game farm to serve ungulate hunters, and sacrifice balanced wildlife ecologies for hunters. In Montana, for example, the governor appoints 5 commissioners to oversee Fish Wildlife & Parks in five districts. One of the commissioners has to know about ranching. No conservationists are among them. Rancher interests and hunter interests are represented. Hunters only make up 6% of the general US public and maybe 15% in Montana. Under this system, it is easy to see why the best interests of balanced wildlife ecology, wildlife habitat, and the desires of the general public are not best represented. Wildlife state agencies in many states should be fired, completely revamped. Even the USFWS has to be pushed often to protect wildlife, as does the USFS, and BLM. They have to often be sued by conservation organizations. The US Forest Service (USFS) comes under US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Wildlife Services, a wild animal killing agency, killing about 3-4 million “nuisance” animals a year, comes under USDA. Wildlife services gunned down 19 wolves (February 2015) in Lolo Pass area to appease ungulate hunters and did so in a secretive way. They are an out of control black ops organization against wildlife serving the whims of ranchers and hunters and agriculturists. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under the Department of INterior, mostly serves public leased grazing, 57% of its’ managed land, plus mining, oil and gas leases, and lumber leases. BLM is mandated to balance the interest of agriculture and extraction industries with recreation and wildlife, and preservation of open spaces; but it is easy to see where the meat of their interests are. The USFWS comes under the Department of Interior in the same branch as US Park Service and in the same department (Interior) as BLM . Wildlife conservationists need to push for wildlife agencies reorganization. Wildlife habitat and wildlife will not have a fair priority under current structures. The so called wildlife agencies need to be fired or revamped, complete overhaul, starting at the top of each agency.

  7. I think we can see that there is no way to ensure that hunters and guides will do the right, ethical thing – just get an animal any way they can. It has now left Cecil’s offspring vulnerable, and threatens genetic diversity. I think human greed has left animal populations have been too devastated for big game hunting to continue in the future, and breeding animals specifically for trophies is revolting, and making it that easy shouldn’t appeal to anyone who would consider himself or herself a hunter. This man’s insatiable greed may actually lead to protections for all wildlife from people like him. I guess now all the claims by Francis and her ilk about singling out women for criticism are moot!

    I don’t think that these countries should have their magnificent wildlife sold right out from under their noses. That should mean something. I read, skeptically, an article that suggested Americans were more upset than Zimbabweans about Cecil’s killing. Why? We don’t like Americans acting like ugly Americans abroad.

    I’m beginning to wonder now if there is more than meets the eye here – why has this man gone into hiding? There is probably all kinds of evidence about his poaching activities – I think the thrill to poach is what drives him, and he wanted Cecil in particular. Otherwise, why not face the music and defend himself? He would certainly have a lot of powerful defenders.

    Somethin’ ain’t right here…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s