Hunting too Butch for Models, Go back to the Salon?

[Tahuti]

Heart palpitations

But your hair will be great!

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's pretty much what I'm interested in, the merits of that statement you pulled out from the link in my very own OP.

Not sure what the hell you want Formy. I had a question, it's received a pretty universal response, I've taken that in mind and moved onto a different question that interests me. So hunting isn't butch, it's an image issue revolving around a history of animal testing when the image in question has nothing to do with it. Which leads us into people not knowing what's going on, but it's the image.

Why didn't you just state that instead of engaging in yet another personal attack?

And she didn't fly to Africa with her parents to help manage wildlife.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why didn't you just state that instead of engaging in yet another personal attack?

You lead, twice, with calling my OP a straw-man or argument put forth in bad faith. If you want to know where our exchange is coming from it's you putting me on the defensive regarding my personal motivations. Should I just ignore you? We actually have good exchanges now and then, I'd rather address it.

And she didn't fly to Africa with her parents to help manage wildlife.

No, she flew there so her family could tour hunt, presumably trophies, from an animal species that almost certainly developed a local industry based around managing and harvesting that natural resource.

 

[kochman]

The US Constitution says nothing of the sort.

"All men are created equal..." is from the Declaration of Independence, a founding document which the Supreme Court has ruled to be legally meaningless.

Oh, but it was fun watching such an obvious error being made by the resident genius of the site.

 

[Narz]

Yes, but these people are farmers and herders with specialised food-production techniques; why would they drop that to practice a form of production they haven't practised and don't understand? It's like asking a lawyer to start practising surgery because, hey, a job's a job.

Most poor people in the 3rd world know how to hunt & fish & will be happy to supplement their diets if it's easy & legal.

Comparing hunting to surgery is about the worst analogy ever.

 

[Traitorfish]

Most poor people in the 3rd world know how to hunt & fish & will be happy to supplement their diets if it's easy & legal.

Comparing hunting to surgery is about the worst analogy ever.

What are you basing that one?

 

[gay_Aleks]

What are you basing that one?

Because, naturally, they're poor. Poor people have a-ways with feeding themselves, and especially Africans.

Right?

 

[bhsup]

TIL African large cities have no poor people. Because if you're poor and live in Africa, you can just go out your door and step onto the Serengeti and go hunting if you want something to eat.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, I was gonna say.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Isn't it a tragedy that we, both Europeans and Americans have abandoned our ways? With our decadent cities, you've killed Rudolph and his crew, and instead built a skyscraper.

And then you confused the rest of the remaining reindeer with your devious landlines.

 

[Farm Boy]

Most poor people in the 3rd world know how to hunt & fish & will be happy to supplement their diets if it's easy & legal.

Comparing hunting to surgery is about the worst analogy ever.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to compare hunting to a skilled profession. But you're right. You can start hunting without 30+ years of specialized education. But it does take skills and, more importantly, it takes time. Time you then are spending hunting(if you even have access) instead of doing something else, like maybe learning to become a surgeon.

Let's take your hypothetical(from what I am able to read into it) at mostly face value and we have a rural person with access to the area on which these animals live. If, for whatever reason, rich Europeans were willing to pay to go on hunting tours for deer in the Midwest that would be great. That would be great for my Dad. That would be great for local hotels, and restaurants. If it paid well enough it would be great for anyone we employed to drive them around and keep them from shooting the locals or breaking local laws. If it was profitable enough, we might be compelled to set aside additional acreage on which deer(and by default other local flora/fauna) could flourish. If somebody were to come along and tell us the right way to do things would be for us to not accept that but instead sit around ourselves shooting deer to butcher and eat they would be doing us a pretty serious disservice. We wouldn't like them for it, they'd be hurting us and the other locals that get jobs and cash from that meat at far greater value than the raw calories less expenses less time. If the acreage those deer live on is then useful for something else and we have access to it, we'd use it for something more in our interests. If it's tillable, we'll till it. If it's grazeable, we'll put livestock on it. If it's unsuitable for any other purpose or a protected area with more profitable use prohibited, we'll stay poorer because somebody told us that being poorer than we would otherwise is actually in our best interests. Touching that, having the cosmopolitan and educated looking out for us.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Maybe you should try herding elephants in the Midwest. It'd be a great boon to local tourism, provided you don't let any lions from the local zoo to go free.

 

[Traitorfish]

Let's take your hypothetical(from what I am able to read into it) at mostly face value and we have a rural person with access to the area on which these animals live. If, for whatever reason, rich Europeans were willing to pay to go on hunting tours for deer in the Midwest that would be great. That would be great for my Dad. That would be great for local hotels, and restaurants. If it paid well enough it would be great for anyone we employed to drive them around and keep them from shooting the locals or breaking local laws. If it was profitable enough, we might be compelled to set aside additional acreage on which deer(and by default other local flora/fauna) could flourish.

That's precisely how do we things in Scotland, and as you say, it works quite well. I'm not going to pretend that we can directly analogise Perthshire to Kenya, but whatever the details, the general principle of the division labour still holds.

 

[Narz]

What are you basing that one?

Because surgery is more complex than hunting, shoot even Sarah Palin can hunt.

Obviously there can be great skills involved, like the Bushmen's tracking techniques & knowing where to look & how to lure animals out but it's still not comparable. Anyone can master hunting, not anyone can master surgery.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to compare hunting to a skilled profession. But you're right. You can start hunting without 30+ years of specialized education. But it does take skills and, more importantly, it takes time. Time you then are spending hunting(if you even have access) instead of doing something else, like maybe learning to become a surgeon.

Sure but if you're poor you generally have more time than resources.

Let's take your hypothetical(from what I am able to read into it) at mostly face value and we have a rural person with access to the area on which these animals live. If, for whatever reason, rich Europeans were willing to pay to go on hunting tours for deer in the Midwest that would be great. That would be great for my Dad. That would be great for local hotels, and restaurants. If it paid well enough it would be great for anyone we employed to drive them around and keep them from shooting the locals or breaking local laws. If it was profitable enough, we might be compelled to set aside additional acreage on which deer(and by default other local flora/fauna) could flourish. If somebody were to come along and tell us the right way to do things would be for us to not accept that but instead sit around ourselves shooting deer to butcher and eat they would be doing us a pretty serious disservice. We wouldn't like them for it, they'd be hurting us and the other locals that get jobs and cash from that meat at far greater value than the raw calories less expenses less time. If the acreage those deer live on is then useful for something else and we have access to it, we'd use it for something more in our interests. If it's tillable, we'll till it. If it's grazeable, we'll put livestock on it. If it's unsuitable for any other purpose or a protected area with more profitable use prohibited, we'll stay poorer because somebody told us that being poorer than we would otherwise is actually in our best interests. Touching that, having the cosmopolitan and educated looking out for us.

So basically you're saying destroying cultures for the sake of profit (and recreation for rich westerners) is totally worth it.

Typical "look at the poor savages scraping by, lets put them to work as tour guides & brothel girls & entertainers" argument.

Same type of argument could be made for the moral righteousness of sweatshops (I think Masada actually argued this, apparently seriously).

Being self-sufficient in not the same as being poor. If I had to choose being some docile servant to foreigners or in some untouched tribe somewhere (well, this really doesn't exist anymore as the fingers of "progress" have reached just about every culture on Earth & eroded it's resource base making the type of work you speak of the only option anymore).

I guess once your land/culture has already been wrecked you don't really have a lot of options.

The book (in my profile somewhere) Learning from Ladakh talked about this. They were a relatively untouched area until India decided to "bring progress" raising the local GDP (since previously there weren't even any records) but reducing the quality of life significantly (people lived in slummier conditions, community ties were broken as no one would help out each other anymore except for money, people basically became servants to outsiders rather than being autonomous, imported subsidized rice became cheaper than growing one's own). Obviously no culture should be an island but tourism always comes with costs & "bringing in money" is not always a good thing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You lead, twice, with calling my OP a straw-man or argument put forth in bad faith. If you want to know where our exchange is coming from it's you putting me on the defensive regarding my personal motivations. Should I just ignore you? We actually have good exchanges now and then, I'd rather address it..

Did you read the comment immediately before which echoed it, and which I was responding?

But I don't think you put this OP forth in bad faith, whatever that is supposed to mean. I just think it is a complete misrepresentation regarding what this matter is really about.

No, she flew there so her family could tour hunt, presumably trophies, from an animal species that almost certainly developed a local industry based around managing and harvesting that natural resource.

I don't think I've ever heard someone try to describe big game hunting tours as harvesting a natural resource, much less supposedly managing it. What would you call similar endeavors in Florida and elsewhere which exist so that the customers don't have to fly all the way to Africa to bag some wild animal to adorn their walls?

 

[Farm Boy]

Because surgery is more complex than hunting, shoot even Sarah Palin can hunt.

Obviously there can be great skills involved, like the Bushmen's tracking techniques & knowing where to look & how to lure animals out but it's still not comparable. Anyone can master hunting, not anyone can master surgery.

No, not everyone can master hunting large game, even with guns. Particularly if you're talking about those without a lot of material wealth. It's physically demanding, it requires coordination. You need to be able to move, you need decent or corrected eyesight. You need to not suck at it, and plenty of people suck at it.

Sure but if you're poor you generally have more time than resources.

Not necessarily, no. Particularly if you are talking about poor agriculturalists/pastoralists. "Down time" with a flock is still a flock that is being monitored. It's a curse of keeping livestock, if you've ever kept livestock. You don't get to go on vacations. You don't get to go on trips. Somebody has to be home. All of the time.

So basically you're saying destroying cultures for the sake of profit (and recreation for rich westerners) is totally worth it.

Typical "look at the poor savages scraping by, lets put them to work as tour guides & brothel girls & entertainers" argument.

Same type of argument could be made for the moral righteousness of sweatshops (I think Masada actually argued this, apparently seriously).

Being self-sufficient in not the same as being poor. If I had to choose being some docile servant to foreigners or in some untouched tribe somewhere (well, this really doesn't exist anymore as the fingers of "progress" have reached just about every culture on Earth & eroded it's resource base making the type of work you speak of the only option anymore).

I guess once your land/culture has already been wrecked you don't really have a lot of options.

What "untouched tribes" are you talking about? These animals exist in large part on privately held land. Land which is kept in the condition it's kept in, rather than being destroyed for industrial/agricultural progress, because it's valuable for it to be kept so. It's laid out by the environmental studies which put this species in the "Least Concern" category of protection. What culture do you think this is destroying? If you want me to argue for the preservation of native lands, you've got it. There should be areas off limits. But this isn't that. This is "barbaric gemsbok hunting."

I think you've got some sort of pastoral dream going on, and it's odd for me to need to disagree with it given how some members and I wind up going at it about what level of wealth should be considered "poor." I really do appreciate selecting a lifestyle that pays less over one that pays more because it makes me happier. That said, the reason youth leave the Midwest in droves is the same reason tribal people go to work in sweatshops. They want a better living than they think they can get scooping livestock feed/manure all day, or hunting for their meals. So long as areas exist for those cultural values to exist, to be for those who choose them, there really needn't be any shame for them wanting to have more. I've seen what the elderly look like after a life of stooping in the rice paddies. The ones that left don't want to go back.

Did you read the comment immediately before which echoed it, and which I was responding?

But I don't think you put this OP forth in bad faith, whatever that is supposed to mean. I just think it is a complete misrepresentation regarding what this matter is really about.

Well, if you think I'm "completely mistaken" rather than "completely skewing" what this matter is about, then take my previous statements that I've listened to the posters of whom I asked the question and moved on!

I don't think I've ever heard someone try to describe big game hunting tours as harvesting a natural resource, much less supposedly managing it.

Well, now you have!

More local hunting is often what I would describe as the same, but it does indeed need to depend on the details. Pheasants/quail/turkey hunters? Often pretty invested in preserving wet and wildlands rather than tilling them under for marginal cropland. I've seen guys let long-tilled wet ground revert back to wildlife sanctuary because they either are or know hunters and they care about habitat. I'd call that harvesting and managing a natural resource. Shooting dead trophy animals without healthy populations in the wild? Now that's something different.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because surgery is more complex than hunting, shoot even Sarah Palin can hunt.

Obviously there can be great skills involved, like the Bushmen's tracking techniques & knowing where to look & how to lure animals out but it's still not comparable. Anyone can master hunting, not anyone can master surgery.

No, you claimed that most poor people in the third world already know how to hunt and fish, and moreover that they are capable of hunting at fishing at an above-subsistence level. And I asked what you're basing that claim on.

 

[Bootstoots]

Most poor people in the 3rd world know how to hunt & fish & will be happy to supplement their diets if it's easy & legal.

Comparing hunting to surgery is about the worst analogy ever.

Do you mean most rural poor in the Third World know how to hunt and fish? I'm not sure if that's true but it might be a more defensible position. A large proportion of Third World poor live in urban slums and can't be expected to know those skills better than any other urbanites, which is why this post is getting attacked.

Of course, populations being what they are, hunting and fishing aren't going to supply much of the total calorie needs of the Third World poor. Many game animals and most fishieries are overexploited as it is.

 

[Narz]

No, not everyone can master hunting large game, even with guns. Particularly if you're talking about those without a lot of material wealth. It's physically demanding, it requires coordination. You need to be able to move, you need decent or corrected eyesight. You need to not suck at it, and plenty of people suck at it.

Doesn't make an honorable hobby though.

Not necessarily, no. Particularly if you are talking about poor agriculturalists/pastoralists. "Down time" with a flock is still a flock that is being monitored. It's a curse of keeping livestock, if you've ever kept livestock. You don't get to go on vacations. You don't get to go on trips. Somebody has to be home. All of the time.

But you can share the labor. Surely you can slip away sometime?

What "untouched tribes" are you talking about? These animals exist in large part on privately held land. Land which is kept in the condition it's kept in, rather than being destroyed for industrial/agricultural progress, because it's valuable for it to be kept so. It's laid out by the environmental studies which put this species in the "Least Concern" category of protection. What culture do you think this is destroying? If you want me to argue for the preservation of native lands, you've got it. There should be areas off limits. But this isn't that. This is "barbaric gemsbok hunting."

Well in some cases people are removed from "protected" land. I suppose it makes sense if the land is off limits anyway to get the most bang for your buck in allowing minimal hunting there. Still seems unfair though.

I think you've got some sort of pastoral dream going on, and it's odd for me to need to disagree with it given how some members and I wind up going at it about what level of wealth should be considered "poor." I really do appreciate selecting a lifestyle that pays less over one that pays more because it makes me happier. That said, the reason youth leave the Midwest in droves is the same reason tribal people go to work in sweatshops. They want a better living than they think they can get scooping livestock feed/manure all day, or hunting for their meals. So long as areas exist for those cultural values to exist, to be for those who choose them, there really needn't be any shame for them wanting to have more. I've seen what the elderly look like after a life of stooping in the rice paddies. The ones that left don't want to go back.

Well alot of the urban poor don't really have a choice to go back, just because people chase dreams doesn't mean they succeed always. I agree it's nice to have options but calling sweatshops or low-pay prostitution opportunity is a bit dishonest, IMO (not saying you're doing that but you are at least a little bit).

 

[Narz]

Do you mean most rural poor in the Third World know how to hunt and fish? I'm not sure if that's true but it might be a more defensible position. A large proportion of Third World poor live in urban slums and can't be expected to know those skills better than any other urbanites, which is why this post is getting attacked.

I wasn't really talking about city folk as they don't even live near places where they could hunt.