Greetings!
To start off, I'm not really the hunting type, but I am obsessive compulsive about being ignorant about certain things. I just don't like not knowing answers to questions I have, it really does wind me up. I used to be anti-hunting, but one day I decided to question my preconceptions about hunting and research it in-depth (I'm obsessive compulsive about animal welfare issues in particular, and don't like thinking something is cruel if it might not be). To my delight, I have found out a great deal about hunting that shows it is far from the cruel sport I used to think it was (I don't really think of it as a sport, really - it's all wildlife conservation in the end, regardless of whatever personal reasons someone engages in it for). I am very happy that animal welfare is not compromised, and is actually furthered, by hunting. I know there are people out there who use hunting to do some nasty things, but I won't let a few bad apples colour my view of the majority.
I hope I don't cause any offense, because that is something I don't want to do. I have become a very objective person, framing animal welfare issues in a scientific way, since I started my research. I find it helps to distance myself from emotion, as it can easily trip anyone up and blind them from the truth of a matter. It can cause them to constantly fear the worst and oppose things out of that fear. I decided to challenge that fear.
Although I am mostly happy with what I have discovered about hunting, I still get ideas in my head that I have to find the answers about to stop myself worrying. It can be anything, even the stupidest of things, and sometimes I can deter myself from obsessing about all the little things, but sometimes I cannot. I have been able to use what I've learnt to avoid picking a new thing to worry about needlessly, even. However, most of my searching has been through internet search engines, and that can only take me so far before I have to ask someone directly. I have done it once before, and it worked out great, so I'm trying it out again.
I recently found out about the infanticide side of the lion's existence. Obviously, with my obsessing, it immediately got me worrying. How do hunters deal with the issue? I have done some research already, and it is a known issue that is being dealt with (I found out through some of the Safari Club Foundation website documents on their work in the regional conservation of lions, although to get my exact answer I had to look at some of their references, as it wasn't directly mentioned in their main documents). Namely, I found out from the "Impacts of Trophy Hunting on Lions in East and Southern Africa: Recent offtake and future recommendations" paper. Interesting read.
It certainly calmed most of my fears, but true to my obsessing, I'm still worrying about any infanticide being caused by hunting. How is it dealt with at large? Are certain lions passed over by default if they have young with them to avoid their death leading to infanticide? I'd imagine that limiting infanticide is desirable, regardless of the age of the male lion. The paper suggests a minimum age of 6 - maybe a little later in some areas - before a male lion can be hunted, to increase the chances of a complete breeding cycle (with the cubs being old enough at 2 to escape the threat of infanticide, where 4 is found to be the age where a male can first gain entrance to a pride). Certainly hunting the male lion would aid conservation in all sorts of ways, but losing the cubs at the same time...I'd think (I stress that I'd think - I'm only guessing here) that their removal would be pointless, as they can no longer contribute to their species fullstop, and won't be harvested themselves. Wouldn't it be considered wasteful, whether or not it impacted on the population as a whole? Of course, feel free to enlighten me on this, as that's why I'm posting here, to find out facts and not worry any more. I should probably also be applying what I've already learnt about hunting and hunters to stop myself worrying, but I feel it's better to ask. I know that this is all probably a very simplistic view, that there's a great deal of complexity to how hunting is worked out to ensure best results for conservation.
I do hope I didn't cause any offense. It's hard for me to post here, since as I worry about upsetting people by asking questions. It's probably a stupid worry, as asking questions is what made me stop being anti-hunting in the first place, and if no one ever asked anything, nothing would be sorted out. Asking questions is the first step to ending my own ignorance.
Thanks for reading.
To start off, I'm not really the hunting type, but I am obsessive compulsive about being ignorant about certain things. I just don't like not knowing answers to questions I have, it really does wind me up. I used to be anti-hunting, but one day I decided to question my preconceptions about hunting and research it in-depth (I'm obsessive compulsive about animal welfare issues in particular, and don't like thinking something is cruel if it might not be). To my delight, I have found out a great deal about hunting that shows it is far from the cruel sport I used to think it was (I don't really think of it as a sport, really - it's all wildlife conservation in the end, regardless of whatever personal reasons someone engages in it for). I am very happy that animal welfare is not compromised, and is actually furthered, by hunting. I know there are people out there who use hunting to do some nasty things, but I won't let a few bad apples colour my view of the majority.
I hope I don't cause any offense, because that is something I don't want to do. I have become a very objective person, framing animal welfare issues in a scientific way, since I started my research. I find it helps to distance myself from emotion, as it can easily trip anyone up and blind them from the truth of a matter. It can cause them to constantly fear the worst and oppose things out of that fear. I decided to challenge that fear.
Although I am mostly happy with what I have discovered about hunting, I still get ideas in my head that I have to find the answers about to stop myself worrying. It can be anything, even the stupidest of things, and sometimes I can deter myself from obsessing about all the little things, but sometimes I cannot. I have been able to use what I've learnt to avoid picking a new thing to worry about needlessly, even. However, most of my searching has been through internet search engines, and that can only take me so far before I have to ask someone directly. I have done it once before, and it worked out great, so I'm trying it out again.
I recently found out about the infanticide side of the lion's existence. Obviously, with my obsessing, it immediately got me worrying. How do hunters deal with the issue? I have done some research already, and it is a known issue that is being dealt with (I found out through some of the Safari Club Foundation website documents on their work in the regional conservation of lions, although to get my exact answer I had to look at some of their references, as it wasn't directly mentioned in their main documents). Namely, I found out from the "Impacts of Trophy Hunting on Lions in East and Southern Africa: Recent offtake and future recommendations" paper. Interesting read.
It certainly calmed most of my fears, but true to my obsessing, I'm still worrying about any infanticide being caused by hunting. How is it dealt with at large? Are certain lions passed over by default if they have young with them to avoid their death leading to infanticide? I'd imagine that limiting infanticide is desirable, regardless of the age of the male lion. The paper suggests a minimum age of 6 - maybe a little later in some areas - before a male lion can be hunted, to increase the chances of a complete breeding cycle (with the cubs being old enough at 2 to escape the threat of infanticide, where 4 is found to be the age where a male can first gain entrance to a pride). Certainly hunting the male lion would aid conservation in all sorts of ways, but losing the cubs at the same time...I'd think (I stress that I'd think - I'm only guessing here) that their removal would be pointless, as they can no longer contribute to their species fullstop, and won't be harvested themselves. Wouldn't it be considered wasteful, whether or not it impacted on the population as a whole? Of course, feel free to enlighten me on this, as that's why I'm posting here, to find out facts and not worry any more. I should probably also be applying what I've already learnt about hunting and hunters to stop myself worrying, but I feel it's better to ask. I know that this is all probably a very simplistic view, that there's a great deal of complexity to how hunting is worked out to ensure best results for conservation.
I do hope I didn't cause any offense. It's hard for me to post here, since as I worry about upsetting people by asking questions. It's probably a stupid worry, as asking questions is what made me stop being anti-hunting in the first place, and if no one ever asked anything, nothing would be sorted out. Asking questions is the first step to ending my own ignorance.
Thanks for reading.
) usually take bull elephants, so it has a lesser impact on the social hierarchy of herds (poaching being entirely indiscriminate).
