Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should Americans be able to hunt big game in Africa?

By Howard B. Owens
Jason Crater

I didn't read the linked article, but I do know that many African nations fund their conservation efforts by selling a limited number of hunting tags to foreign hunters.

Those hunters pay dearly for the tags and it's unlikely that those African nations could sustain conservation efforts without the inflow.

Jul 8, 2014, 8:55am Permalink
Jeff Allen

With all the countries Americans travel to and take part in nefarious activities not legal here, including sex trades where underage children are trafficked and this is what causes outrage?

Jul 8, 2014, 9:21am Permalink
John Roach

Of course they should.

You can still hunt here, you can hunt is South America and other parts of the world. Why not Africa? As long as it is legal there and you obey the law, who has the right to tell you no?

Jul 8, 2014, 10:39am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

This quote is in the article and I love it.

The world is in no danger of running out of chickens. Yet the world has fewer and fewer elephants. lions, tigers, giraffes and so forth. Why? In part it is because no one owns wild animals and consequently they are nuisances rather than resources

It is absolutely true. We can save so many animals by making it ok to eat them. They will be farmed and delicious.

Jul 8, 2014, 12:17pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

What one can and cannot hunt in Africa is obviously up to the legal jurisdictions on the continent of Africa. As for Americans who kill endangered or threatened species and post pictures of themselves with the carcass on Facebook- don't expect an avalanche of congratulatory comments. There is something intuitively wrong with killing a rare animal. Bragging about it afterward... What can I compare it to? ...A pedophile arguing in public forum that parents have a god-given right to beat their children.

Jul 8, 2014, 12:31pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Peter, sometimes I read your comments and think I'm perusing a script for a segment of the "Twilight Zone." Your imagination is other-worldly. I'm going to walk off the pier on the assumption there is an iota of seriousness behind your comment. Hunting for food and hunting for trophies belong in two different categories. Granted there are trophy-hunters who consume what they kill. Generally-speaking, the goals of trophy-hunters are on a different page from the goals of hunters seeking food. As for labeling endangered species as "nuisances," overwhelmingly endangered species are regarded as big-ticket bonanzas by for-profit poachers. Hopefully I will never see the day that Tops has a sale on lean-ground Rhinoceros.

Jul 8, 2014, 1:34pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

The concepts of herd management, balance among species, dominant species, overpopulation, and endangered species have all benefited greatly from research. The selective culling from certain species may seem counterintuitive but it actually is very effective at allowing all species to thrive. Think of it as "pruning" for animals.

Jul 8, 2014, 2:01pm Permalink
Julie Morales

Andy Warhol didn’t see “social media” coming.

I’m not impressed by anyone who kills defenseless animals for entertainment and ego, and bloody flesh breath makes me sick.

I’d bet cannibalism is legal somewhere, too. Yummy!

Jul 8, 2014, 4:19pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Hopefully Kendall Jones (and her personal taxidermist) will confirm that any species outstanding on her bucket list are not the last of their kind before "pruning." I barely mention this since her photogenic smile while posing with her trophies combined with her attested love of Jesus (a smidgeon reserved for the Aggies, her Dad, Teddy Roosevelt and Texas) mitigate any concern.

Jul 8, 2014, 7:05pm Permalink
Scott Ogle

"Why? In part it is because no one owns wild animals and consequently they are nuisances rather than resources."

The same thing could be said for cheerleaders in general, I suppose.

"Let the cheerleader hunt. She's saving our wildlife, after all"

Yes, something like burning the villages to save them. Makes sense. As far as Ronald Bailey being a 'science correspondent', perhaps the editors of 'Reason' might look for someone with a degree in biology, or another of the sciences, as opposed to a politically partisan economist.

Jul 8, 2014, 8:22pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

I never suggested that the two are mutually exclusive. The comment framed Kendall's own comments justifying her passion for hunting. I didn't see what the two had to do with one another- which was my point. Perhaps she's compensating for the Romanorum Spectaculo Sanguis.

Jul 9, 2014, 1:43pm Permalink

Authentically Local